OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 2 OCTOBER 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
BINHAM - PF/14/1035 - Change of use of agricultural building to residential
dwelling; Old Barn Farm, Binham Road, Wighton for SC & GM Savory & Sons
Minor Development
- Target Date: 17 October 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19980602 PF - Conversion of farm buildings to provide eight holiday units and
communal recreation facilities
Approved 03/09/1998
PLA/19990534
PF - Removal of conditions 5 & 8 on planning permission ref:
980602 to allow occupation of holiday units without removing the modern agricultural
buildings to the rear of the site and providing the communal open space & parking
layout previously approved
Approved 18/04/2000
PLA/20080476 PF - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission 990534 to allow
retention of modern agricultural barns until prior to the first occupation of the holiday
units
Approved 12/05/2008
PF/13/1192 PF - Conversion of two-storey barn to residential and erection of three
bay cart shed garage
Approved 26/11/2013
PF/14/0682 PF - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission reference 98/0602
to permit full residential occupation
Withdrawn - Invalid 07/07/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission for the conversion of an agricultural building to a residential dwelling.
Whilst this is a full planning application, no design details have been submitted at this
stage.
The site includes one large building served with 3 dual pitched roofs and one small
outbuilding. The main building abuts the road.
Development Committee
1
2 October 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a member of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
No comment to make in response to the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received to date, however the site notice does not expire until 2 October 2014.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highway Authority) - No objection subject to appropriate
conditions.
Building Control - No response received to date.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - No response received to date.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to notes.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy HO 9: 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).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of conversion
Development Committee
2
2 October 2014
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Policies SS 2, HO9, EN1, EN4, EN 6,
EN 9, CT5 and CT6 are considered to be relevant.
Under PF/98/0602 the agricultural building was granted permission to be converted into
4 holiday units, with the outbuilding becoming another holiday unit. Works were started
under this planning application, and as such the scheme could be implemented.
Whilst new dwellings are not normally permitted in the Countryside under Policy SS 2,
Policy HO 9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings for
permanent residential use. Buildings are required to be worthy of retention due to their
appearance, historic, landscape or architectural value, and to be structurally sound and
suitable for conversion without substantial rebuilding and/or extension. The submitted
structural survey indicates that the main building would readily convert into a domestic
unit. The outbuilding was not surveyed. A former agricultural barn, the building has
several traditional features and is considered to be worthy of retention. Conversion to a
residential unit would therefore be compliant with Policy HO 9.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are set.
Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance the
character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The policy also requires that
proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of
nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Whilst no design details have been submitted at this stage, the proposed use is
considered acceptable in principle. Residential dwellings lie to the west, east and on the
opposite side of the road to the south. In addition PF/13/1192 granted permission for the
barns to the north of the site to be converted into a dwelling. With consideration given to
these relationships, a suitable design is considered to be possible which would not have
a significant impact upon any neighbour's residential amenity. The amount of open
space on the site is relatively limited, as such a garden which equates to the same
footprint of the dwelling would be unlikely to be achieved, as recommended by the
NNDC Design Guide para 3.3.10. However a private amenity space would be readily
achievable. Whilst not ideal, in this case a smaller garden is considered acceptable due
to the restraints of converting the building. This is considered preferable to potentially
allowing partially demolition of the building to provide more amenity space.
Policy EN1 states that development proposals should not detract from the special
qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB. Sited within a group of buildings there are limited
views of the site from the wider AONB. As such, with an appropriate design, the impact
upon the AONB is considered acceptable.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that there is safe access to the highway network and that
there is adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development. Whilst the access
to the site is far from ideal, with consideration of the previous agricultural use, it would
difficult to sustain an objection. With suitable conditions the access would be upgraded
and sufficient parking would be made available on site.
With the proposed sustainable methods incorporated into any future design Policy EN 6
is considered to be complied with.
At the point of writing this report the consultation response from Landscape is awaited.
As such the members shall be updated at the Committee Meeting in relation to any
potential biodiversity impacts and compliance with Policy EN 9.
Development Committee
3
2 October 2014
The proposed use of the building as a residential dwelling is considered to be suitable
and to enable the future of the building to be secured. Unless any new material
considerations arise, it is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions, unless any new material considerations are
raised prior to the consultation period expiring ( 2 October 2014).
(2)
BRINTON - PF/14/0793 - Retention of timber buildings for use as storage; The
Hawthorns, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr G Riches
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 August 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0495 PF
Use of land for storage and milling of timber and erection of storage/workshop building
(part retrospective)
Refused 26/06/2013
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks the retention of timber buildings for storage purposes on a small
parcel of agricultural land. Retrospective applications should be determined as if the
development has not already taken place. The site is approximately 170m in length and
where it fronts the highway is approximately 43m wide tapering to 10m in width at its
southern end. The buildings are situated in two locations on the site; the first being a
cluster of small shed type structures that are joined together and lie approximately 55m
south of the highway and towards the western boundary. This building is indicated as
being comprised of a field shelter, water tank, chicken coop, tool/machinery/hay store
and tea shed. Footprint of approximately 34sqm. Maximum height of 2.3m. The second
building is situated at the rear of the site approximately 4.3m north of the southern
boundary and approximately 1.4m east of the western boundary. Maximum height of
2.5m with a footprint of approximately 15sqm.
The northern boundary (road frontage) benefits from mature hedgerow as does much of
the western boundary. A post and wire fence approximately 1m in height runs along
the eastern and southern boundaries and part of the western boundary. A mixed
hedgerow has been recently planted along the eastern boundary. The site is mostly
grassed with a small vegetable plot located adjacent the northern boundary.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous Committee for a site visit.
Originally referred by Cllr. Brettle in order for the Committee to be aware of the issues of
Development Committee
4
2 October 2014
the wider site and due to the level of local concern.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
 the site is in open countryside at the entrance to the Glaven Valley and is visually
a very sensitive and important area
 it is sub-division of a larger field.
 The sheds were erected without permission over a year ago; there has been no
agricultural use during that time. There are no animals and only a tiny vegetable
plot
 The area of grass is mowed like a garden
 There is a letter box and the sheds have a chimney
 The sheds and field are being used for recreational purposes - the applicant
confirmed this at the Parish meeting (see minutes attached at Appendix 1).
 The size of the site means it is not a viable agricultural unit
 If permitted the Council will actively encourage further sub-division of this and
other fields in the open countryside with each owner allowed to erect a range of
sheds for recreational use simply by saying their intended use will be
agricultural.
 This is demonstrated by another part of the field already having a range of
buildings which are being occasionally used for overnight stays
REPRESENTATIONS
22 objecting representations received on the following grounds (summarised):
 site is an eyesore
 field should be returned to grazing or similar
 out of keeping with the surrounding countryside
 highway not suited to additional vehicular traffic that the development would
generate
 the application is retrospective and illegal
 change of use to leisure could set a precedent resulting in further developments
 development urbanises a rural setting
 development here is growing like a cancer on the landscape
 site lies close to a watercourse that runs through Sharrington drains into the
Glaven Valley. Development could potentially pollute this watercourse
 using machinery within a hay barn would be a fire hazard
 what machinery is proposed?
 consider intention may be for buildings to be inhabited in the future
 disappointed with the Council. Buildings have been ordered to be removed over
a year ago but they remain and more have been erected
 planning permission already refused on adjacent land
 proposal would detract from the appearance of the site and fail to conserve the
special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area
 application is a pre-cursor for residential use of the site
 site has look and feel of a residence including a letter box
 application does not include change of use to recreational/leisure
 buildings are out of scale with the size of the land
In addition several of the representations raise concerns which relate directly to the
adjoining parcels of land and not to the application site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection - subject to the use of these buildings being
Development Committee
5
2 October 2014
ancillary to the agricultural use of the land, in relation to highways issues only, as this
proposal does not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic, Norfolk
County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of consent
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection - The
buildings are of a modest scale comparable to the size of the small holding. The
materials will weather down over time which will assist with integrating the buildings into
the environment. No conditions are recommended.
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 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Use of the land and buildings
2. Impact on the surrounding landscape
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
The site lies within the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies SS2, EN2, EN4, and CT5 are
relevant.
Policy SS2 states that in areas designated as Countryside development will be limited
to that which requires a rural location and includes agriculture; forestry; extensions to
existing businesses and new-build employment generating proposals where there is a
particular environmental or operational justification. Policy EN2 requires that proposals
for development demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials protect,
conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of
the area. As far as Policy EN4 is concerned this requires that all development be
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness and be suitably designed for
the context within which they are set.
Development Committee
6
2 October 2014
The application seeks the retention of timber buildings for use in conjunction with the
agricultural use of the land. The parcel of land previously formed part of a larger parcel
of land which had been registered as a smallholding. The application site is 0.37ha and
does not therefore benefit from permitted development rights for agricultural buildings,
as provided within the General Permitted Development Order 1995, as amended.
The adjoining land to the east of the site is currently under enforcement investigation,
however activities outside of the application site should not form part of consideration of
this application.
Whilst concern has been raised that the land is not in agricultural use and that instead a
change of use has occurred, Officers consider that there is no evidence to substantiate
a change of use has occurred. The applicant has advised in writing that the intention is
to use the land to keep chickens, ducks, sheep and goats or similar and for growing of
vegetables. They have advised that their intention is to increase the size of the
vegetable plot and to grow fruit trees. It is considered that all of these activities fall within
the definition of agriculture. Agriculture is defined in the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, s336 as:
“agriculture” includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the
breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of
food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of
land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds,
and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for
other agricultural purposes, and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly"
It is therefore considered that this application should be considered on its merits as
proposed and whether the buildings as proposed comply with the policies of the
development plan.
The Council's Landscape Officer considers that the buildings are of a modest scale
comparable to the size of the small holding and that the materials will weather down
over time which will assist with integrating the buildings into the environment. The
buildings are considered to be suitably designed for the context within which they sit and
by virtue of their scale, form and materials would conserve the character of the area in
accordance with Policies EN2 and EN4.
The County Highway Officer has advised that this proposal does not affect the current
traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic. It is therefore considered that the proposal
complies with Policy CT5.
Given that the proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the
agricultural use of the land, subject to the imposition of a condition that removes
permitted development rights for the erection of any further gates, fences, walls or other
means of enclosure, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
development plan and is recommended for approval. Given the concerns of the Parish
Council in respect of the recent sub-division of the adjoining land this condition, whilst
not preventing further subdivision in ownership terms, would nonetheless prevent
further physical subdivision without consent.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
1. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Development Committee
7
2 October 2014
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.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order
with or without modification), no fence, gate or wall, shall be erected within or around the
planning unit subject to this permission, other than in accordance with any details
indicated on the approved plan, unless planning permission has been first granted by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order to safeguard the character of the countryside in accordance with Policy EN 2 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(3)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/0996 - Conversion of outbuilding to residential annexe; 2
Lodge Cottages, The Street for Miss A Price
- Target Date: 29 September 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Young
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
PLA/20071042 PF - Formation of vehicular access
Approved 23/08/2007
PLA/20080578 PO - Erection of a pair of semi-detached two-storey dwellings
Approved 08/07/2008
PF/10/0513 HOU - Formation of vehicular access
Approved 22/06/2010
THE APPLICATION
The application proposes the conversion and extension of a former wash house to
provide additional habitable accommodation. In terms of the size of the annexe, the
existing Wash Room has dimensions of 3.75m in length by 3.65m wide with a height of
3.5m. There is an existing small lean-to on the elevation to the north. This application
proposes to extend this to facilitate an en-suite. The extension will increase from 1.5
wide by 1.9m long with a height of 2.2m to 1.5m wide by 3m long with a height of 3.5m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor J Perry-Warnes for the following reason, due to the impact
on the vehicle crossing which is considered to be dangerous.
PARISH COUNCIL
No Response
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising the following
points:
- The impact on the Conservation Area
- Increase in footfall over the driveway, increase noise and less privacy
Development Committee
8
2 October 2014
- Increase in the risk of health and safety from increased use across the driveway.
- Impact on congestion and poor visibility at entrance.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design did not wish to be consulted on this application as it was
considered it would have minimal impact on the Hempstead Conservation Area.
Historic Environment Service - No Objection subject to condition.
County Council Highways - No Objection subject to condition.
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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of the conversion to annex on the driveway.
APPRAISAL
No 2 Lodge Cottages lies within an area of designated Countryside, where proposals
for the conversion of buildings to ancillary accommodation is considered to be
acceptable in principle, providing compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies is
reached.
The site also lies within the Hempstead Conservation Area, where development
proposals are expected to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
area.
The site is located in the village of Hempstead, the cottage is located on the end of
three terraced properties. The property shares a right of access with the neighbouring
properties number 1 and 3.
The Wash House in question is a detached building which is located to the North of the
original dwelling which fronts onto the highway.
There are no specific Development Plan policies relating to annexes and therefore a
series of planning judgements has to be made on the basis of findings of fact and
degree.
In terms of the physical relationship of the annexe and main dwelling, the outbuilding is
well-related to the host dwelling (around 4m from the existing main dwelling). The
detached annexe will contain a bedroom and a toilet, but will continue to share the
main functions and facilities with the principal dwelling and therefore be considered
Development Committee
9
2 October 2014
ancillary accommodation.
The proposed development involves the conversion and modest extension of an
ancillary building and is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the aims of
Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy, which allows the extension of dwellings.
The proposed development affects a traditional wash house structure which is visible
on the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey Map of the 1880s. The building is considered to be
an unusual survival of a building type that has mostly disappeared from the Norfolk
Landscape. From information submitted with the application, it is considered that the
Washhouse would contain a number of original features. The Historic Environment
Officer therefore requires that a condition is imposed on the decision.
The Wash House and attached lean-to store are constructed in local red brick and
flintwork. The proposed materials for the extension to the annex would be constructed
in facing bricks, flintwork and clay pantiles to a matching rake duo pitched‟ roof.
There is minimal change to the exterior of the building and it is considered that the
alterations proposed would not impact on the Hempstead Conservation Area.
The relationship with neighbouring properties in respect of possible noise and loss of
privacy are considered acceptable.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposed
development would be acceptable and compliant with the aims of Policies EN4 and
EN8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
The concern raised locally that the proposal will give rise to increased dangers to users
of the driveway involves the use of a private driveway serving a limited number of
dwellings.
It is considered the proposal for the conversion to an annex would not have any
significant impact to the driveway. There is no indication from the plans or the
submitted application that there would be any changes the access.
The Highways Officer considered that there would not be a concern in highway safety
caused by this application.
The development as proposed is considered to be acceptable and accords with
Development Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions listed below:
- The living accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the use of
the main dwelling and shall not be occupied at any time as a separate and
un-associated unit of accommodation.
- No development shall take place within the site until the applicant, or their
agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme
of historic building recording which has been submitted by the applicant and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
10
2 October 2014
(4)
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 06 October 2014
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Unclassified Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
THE APPLICATION
The application is in outline form with all matters of detail reserved for later approval.
It is supported by the following plans / documents:
Illustrative 'Development Framework' plan
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement (including 'Illustrative Masterplan'
Affordable Housing Statement
Transport Assessment
Travel Plan
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Arboricultural Assessment
Ecological Appraisal
Archaeological Assessment
Soil Resources and Agricultural Use Assessment
Land Contamination Report
Flood Risk Assessment
Foul Drainage Assessment
Utilities Appraisal
Socio-economic Sustainability Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Also submitted is a list of Heads of Terms (S.106 Obligation) covering the following:
Affordable Housing
Open Space
Play Facilities
Public Footpath Links
Education
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the local Members, Councillors High and Baker for reasons of
planning policy, access and local school capacity.
TOWN COUNCIL
Unanimous decision that the application should be refused due to the following:
 Access straight onto playing field
 Problems with access from small inadequate roads and also issues with a ransom
strip needed from Victory Housing
 A very real fire risk, being situated so close to Holt Country Park
 Infrastructure issues
 This land could be better utilised for other purposes such as a new junior school
Development Committee
11
2 October 2014
REPRESENTATIONS
14 individual letters of objection received on the following grounds:
- Increased traffic on Charles Road / Edinburgh Road.
- Beresford Road and Lodge Close insufficient to roads to serve the scale of
development proposed.
- Road safety issues in relation to the nearby children's Sure Start facilities on
Charles Road and play area on Lodge Close.
- Unrealistic assumptions made by applicants that residents will walk / cycle rather
than use the car.
- Poor local public transport.
- Holt will lose its identity.
- Loss of open views.
- Loss of agricultural land.
- Will reduce appeal of Holt Country Park.
- Fire risk from surrounding heathland / Holt Country Park - land should be retained
as a fire break.
- Potentially damaging to Holt Lowes Special Area of Protection (reduction of ground
water / pollution)
- Impact on wildlife.
- Would be in excess of the planned number of dwellings for Holt.
- Unsustainable for the town.
- Density of development more suitable to a town rather than rural fringe.
- Lack of town centre parking.
- Strain on local school capacity.
- Strain on local medical centre capacity.
99 copies of a duplicate letter received citing the following grounds of objection:
Traffic
- overburdening of the present road network (Beresford Road, Lodge Close, Charles
Road, Edinburgh Road).
- applicant's traffic survey only carried out for one day in October 2013.
- often considerable on-road car parking on Edinburgh Road.
- applicant's transport assessment ignores increased traffic impacts from the
proposed Hempstead Road development.
- Unrealistic assumptions made by applicants regarding residents walking and
cycling.
Planning Gain
- Bare minimum offered.
Housing Need and Supply
- The planned housing growth for Holt has been met.
Infrastructure
- Currently inadequate parking facilities in Holt town centre.
Education
- Holt Primary School and Sheringham High School are already at capacity and do
not have room for expansion.
A petition with 85 signatures has been received objecting to the application until the
development off Hempstead Road has been fully implemented and a reasonable
period of time has elapsed to properly assess the traffic impacts upon Charles Road
and Edinburgh Road.
Development Committee
12
2 October 2014
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is at present available capacity in the foul
sewerage network and at Holt Sewage Treatment Works to cater for the development.
Requests a surface water drainage strategy is conditioned in the event of planning
approval.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to a surface water drainage scheme
condition being attached to any permission.
County Council (Highways) - Advises that a development of this size requires
two points of access.
Two accesses are illustrated as being from Beresford Road and Lodge Close, however
the access point from Lodge Close does not appear to be deliverable at present due to
a strip of land between the end of Lodge Close and the site. Lodge Close at this point is
also not adopted and whilst the Highway Authority is working towards the adoption of
Lodge Close, this may not be for some considerable time. The applicant has stated
that this will be resolved prior to any reserved matters application.
Should a reserved matters application be submitted with a single point of access from
Beresford Road, the applicant would have to demonstrate that this was acceptable to
the emergency services. In addition the road layout from a single point of access would
need to be in the form of a loop with a short stub from Beresford Road. If a reserved
matters application did not include two points of access or did not demonstrate the
emergency services acceptance of a single point of access, the Highway Authority
would object.
In addition a development of this scale, in this location, should contribute towards the
local hopper bus scheme. For 170 dwellings this will be £60,000 and should be
secured by a Section 106 Agreement.
Given that this application is an outline application with all matters reserved, the
Highway Authority raises no objection subject to a condition requiring full details of
highway / access proposals.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-ordinator)
- Response relates to
education provision/contributions, library and fire service contributions.
In terms of education advises that a development of 170 dwellings would generate the
following need in terms of child places:
Nursery School - 16
Primary School - 44
High School
- 29
6th Form
- 3
Currently there is the following spare capacity:
Nursery provision
+188
Holt Primary School
+19
Sheringham High School & 6th Form +49
However, other approved developments in Holt will generate the following additional
child place numbers:
Nursery
- 44
Primary School
- 118
High School
- 78
Sixth Form
- 8
The current proposed development in addition to these other developments would
generate an additional 163 Primary age children. There would be insufficient places at
the local Holt Primary School for children from this proposed development should it be
Development Committee
13
2 October 2014
approved. The current school site, which is a split site and thus restricted in
construction opportunities, is not large enough for expansion to accommodate children
from this number of houses when taken together with other approved/planned
development in the area. "We would have serious concerns about any further
development outside any published Local Plan in Holt without being given the
opportunity to understand the strategic options for meeting future pupil place demand".
If the District Council is minded to approve the application the following contributions
will be sought to mitigate the impact of development:
Primary School: 44 x £11,644 = £512,336
High School:
6th Form:
29 x £17,546 = £508,834
3 x £19,029 = £57,087
Total education contribution = £1,078,257
In addition payments are required for library provision (£60 per dwelling) and fire
hydrants (£892 per hydrant per 50 dwellings).
County Council (Minerals and Waste) - Comments that the application site is
underlain by an identified mineral resource (sand and gravel) which is safeguarded as
part of the adopted Development Plan for Norfolk, through the Norfolk Minerals and
Waste Core Strategy policy CS16 „Safeguarding‟. The site is also close to current sand
and gravel workings along Norwich Road, and therefore the likelihood that mineral
resources underlying the area covered by the application is viable is greater than if this
were not the case. A Mineral site specific allocation (MIN 71) is located approximately
75 metres from the site. A Mineral Consultation Area extends into the application site
250 metres from the boundary of the mineral allocation.
Consequently the County Council in its capacity as the Mineral Planning Authority
(MPA) objects to these planning applications unless:
1. the applicant carries out investigations to identify whether the resource is viable for
mineral extraction,
2. if the mineral resource is viable, the applicant considers whether it could be
extracted economically prior to development taking place,
3. the applicant carries out assessment to take into account any effects that may occur
from the mineral extraction allocation MIN 71 to ensure that effective mitigation
measures could be put in place to prevent unacceptable impacts on the amenity of
prospective residents.
Further comments awaited following the applicant's suggestion that the issue of
mineral extraction from the site could be dealt with by a planning condition.
County Council (Historic Environment) - Recommends that if outline planning
permission is granted, conditions are imposed for a programme of archaeological work
in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para. 135.
NHS England (NHSE) -
Response awaited.
Environmental Health
Recommends conditions in relation to land
contamination, lighting, surface and foul water drainage.
Strategic Housing
Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in Holt with 101 households on the
Housing Register and in addition there are a further 110 households on the Transfer
Development Committee
14
2 October 2014
Register and 648 households on the Housing Options Register who have stated that
they require housing in Holt. The proposed development would therefore assist in
meeting some of the proven housing need.
The applicants have submitted a Design and Access Statement and Affordable
Housing Statement. There is a conflict between these two documents with regard to
the applicant‟s proposal in respect of affordable housing. The Design and Access
Statement states that the site will provide “…up to 170 dwellings which includes 76
affordables (45%) and 94 market (55%).” However, the Affordable Housing
Statement whilst acknowledging the considerable need for affordable housing in North
Norfolk proposes that 30% of the total number of dwellings would be provided as
affordable housing.
The applicant has not submitted a viability assessment to demonstrate why it is not
viable to provide 45% of the proposed dwellings as affordable housing. There is
therefore no basis on which to accept the applicant‟s proposal that 30% of the
dwellings are affordable. On outline applications such as this, it is more appropriate
to address any issues of viability at reserved matters stage. If this application was
approved, a Section 106 Agreement should be completed which will require that 45%
of the dwellings are provided as affordable housing, subject to viability. This ensures
that the Council‟s policy requirements are clear whilst also providing flexibility to
address any future viability issues with the site. The applicant has stated in the
Affordable Housing Statement that it would want the affordable housing requirements
secured through condition, but a Section 106 Agreement will provide more certainty
and clarity of the Council‟s requirements.
To conclude, the Housing Strategy team will object to approval of this application if it
only provided 30% affordable housing as no justification has been submitted of why it
is not viable to provide the policy amount of 45%. As this is an outline application, if
approved, a Section 106 Agreement should be completed which will require 45%
affordable housing to be provided on the site, subject to viability. This will enable any
viability issues which would affect the level of affordable housing which the site is
viable to provide to be addressed as part of a reserved matters application.
Landscape Officer As the site is bordered by Holt Country Park to the south
and east and existing housing to the north, the visual impact of the development will be
localised. The site is currently an arable field on Grade 3 agricultural land divided by a
hawthorn hedge. It is located within the 'Wooded with Parkland Landscape Character
Type' as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (June 2009
SPD). This document states that due to its relatively level topography and enclosed
land cover, any expansion of Holt to the south is considered, to result in less impact on
landscape character than development to the north or west of the town. The
conclusions of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that there will
be no significant harm to the landscape character of the area and the visual effects of
the development will be confined to the immediate setting of the site are concurred
with.
The Glaven Valley Conservation Area wraps around the site to the south, west and
east. Given the location of the site adjacent to existing housing and degree of visual
containment, it is not considered that there would be any significant harm to this
designation.
There is concern that the development of the site could impact upon the hydrology of
the nearby Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC) / Holt Lowes
SSSI, as well as result in increased and potentially harmful visitor pressure upon this
designation.
Development Committee
15
2 October 2014
Natural England Refers to the proximity of the proposed sites to both national
and international designated habitat sites which are afforded protection under the
'Habitats Regulations'; namely the Holt Lowes Site - SSSI (national) some 500m
distance from the site and the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area
(international) some 5km distance, and the issue of visitor pressure from new
residential developments which may impact upon the sensitivity of these sites.
"The Habitat Regulations Assessment of the North Norfolk Site Allocations DPD
concluded that Adverse Effects on the Integrity (AEOI) of the North Norfolk Coast
SPA/SAC/Ramsar as a result of increased recreational disturbance could not be ruled
out without a monitoring and mitigation strategy in place. We understand that the
intention was this plan would be in part secured through the collection of developer
contributions, suggested to be £50 per dwelling, to be secured through S.106
agreements. This approach should enable a considered strategic approach to be
taken, minimising and managing the impacts to the North Norfolk Coast and ensuring
compliance with the requirements of the Habitat Regulations, however it is only as
strong as its implementation.
The applicants suggest within their Ecological Appraisal report that they believe the
provision of open space they are proposing and proximity of existing accessible natural
greenspace should be sufficient to be exempt from this contribution. Whilst there is
some green infrastructure proposed, the amount and layout is somewhat unclear
differing between documents submitted with this application. Furthermore whilst we
accept that residents are more likely to use the adjacent Country Park to meet their
recreational needs, this additional usage will increase recreational impacts, such as
path erosion littering etc within the park and no provision is being made for this. Whilst
the Country park is not designated, it is linked to the Holt Lowes Site and its
functionality and attractiveness is important in attracting people who may otherwise
visit a designated site. It is therefore important to ensure this continues to be of a high
quality.
It is the view of Natural England that whilst recreational pressure is addressed to a
degree, it is inappropriate for the developer to suggest an existing site provide
mitigation for impacts to internationally designated sites without directly contributing
towards its ongoing management."
Concludes that there is currently not enough information to determine whether the
likelihood of significant effects on designated sites can be ruled out. Recommends that
the following information is obtained to help undertake a Habitats Regulations
Assessment:
- Confirmation of intended site design, specifically clarification about green
infrastructure provision and layout.
- Commitment to contribute towards maintaining the condition of the Country Park to
ensure its quality is maintained even with additional visitor pressure resulting from this
application, such that it can continue to function as an attractive „alternative to the
designated sites.
Further comments awaited following the submission by the applicants of a Habitat
Regulations Assessment (refer to 'Landscape and Ecological Impacts' in the Appraisal
section of this report).
Countryside and Parks Manager - Although there are no details of dwelling sizes
or detailed landscape proposals, estimates that the open space requirement will be
around 1.3Ha. The illustrative map shows that this will be provided on-site.
Favours that of the bulk of the open space is situated next to the country park and also
agrees with the enhancement of the existing vegetation structure associated with the
site boundaries together with the potential pedestrian links to the country park.
Development Committee
16
2 October 2014
Attenuation ponds will also provide a valuable wildlife resource especially if they are
situated close to the country park.
Questions whether a landscape buffer along the northern boundary is really
necessary. It will not contribute to the overall landscape quality and the back gardens
of the new development could simply back on to the boundaries of the properties of the
adjoining estate. This would eliminate the maintenance requirement for the buffer strip
which could be awkward in terms of access. An area of land of similar size could then
be added to other open space areas.
Norfolk Constabulary - Provides comments in response to the submitted Design &
Access Statement and Illustrative Plan with regard to the type of play areas proposed,
safety (particularly of children) in Lodge Close, and pedestrian links with the country
park.
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies
DPD (adopted September 2011):
Policy CS16: Safeguarding mineral and waste sites and mineral resources.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development plan policy.
Development Committee
17
2 October 2014
2. Housing need / land supply.
3. Access
4. Housing density and type
5. Landscape and ecological impacts.
6. Local school capacity
7. Mineral Planning issues
APPRAISAL
The application site comprises a rectangular area of flat, open agricultural land (7.1
ha.) located on the southern edge of Holt. It adjoins existing residential development to
the north and west, and woodland (Holt Country Park) to the south and east.
The site lies outside of the defined development boundary for Holt (the boundary runs
along the northern boundary of the site) and it forms part of the 'countryside' policy
area. Under Policy SS2 of the Core Strategy housing development is not permitted in
the 'countryside' (apart from 'exception' affordable housing developments and the
re-use of existing buildings). The application therefore represents a departure from the
development plan.
Development Plan Policy
The development plan for North Norfolk comprises:


The North Norfolk Core Strategy (adopted 2008), and
The North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted 2011)
Core Strategy Policy SS3 (Housing) spells out the Council's strategy to provide for at
least 8000 new dwellings in the district during the plan period (2001-2021). In the case
of Holt 700 new dwellings are proposed (also referred to in Policy SS9 – Holt). This
figure is to be achieved by a combination of past and existing planning permissions,
future windfall sites and land allocations. Two sites have been allocated in Holt,
namely:
• Site HO1 – Land west of Woodfield Road. (Outline planning permission granted for
up to 85 dwellings)
• Site HO9 – Land at Heath Farm / Hempstead Road. (Outline planning permission
granted for up to 215 dwellings).
To date 304 new dwellings have been built in Holt since the start of the plan period.
The two allocations will provide up to a further 375 dwellings. With the addition of
windfall sites coming forward during the remainder of the plan period (this committee
recently resolved to approve up to 153 dwellings on land owned by Greshams School
which would come under this 'windfall' category), and sites which already have
planning permission but are yet to be built, it is predicted that the 700 new dwellings in
Holt by 2021 should be easily achieved.
Whilst it is important to note that dwelling numbers which are included with the adopted
policies are expressed as minimums rather than upper limits, it is evident that there is
no pressing need for further large scale developments to come forward in Holt at the
present time.
The NPPF and Five Year Land Supply
A key element of the applicants' case for approval of their application is based on the
issue of land supply.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) States (para.49) that "Relevant
policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local
Development Committee
18
2 October 2014
planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing
sites". Furthermore the NPPF states that where development plan policies are out of
date planning permission should be granted unless "any adverse impacts of doing so
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits..." (para 14). In other
words local planning authorities are in a weakened position in refusing applications for
residential development if they cannot demonstrate a five year land supply.
Accordingly the NPPF requires local authorities to identify annually a supply of
deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against their housing
requirements with an additional buffer of 5%. Where there has been a record of
persistent under delivery of housing the buffer should be increased to 20%. The
Council's published Statement of Five Year Land Supply & Housing Trajectory as of
April 2014 demonstrates a supply equivalent to 5.4 years. This has been calculated
using a 5% buffer. The applicants' case is that a 20% buffer should be used because of
previous under-delivery, in which case the land supply for the district is only 4.7 years,
equivalent to a numerical shortfall of 175 dwellings, which the current application
would help to bridge.
Notwithstanding the case put forward by the applicants, members have previously
agreed the methodology to calculate the district's currently published land supply and
officers consider that the 5.4 year figure is the one to be used in consideration of this
planning application. It is also noteworthy that the recent decision by this committee to
approve up to 153 dwellings elsewhere in Holt will add significantly to the current land
supply.
Access
Whilst this is an outline application with all matters of detail reserved, the applicants
state that it is anticipated vehicular access would be provided via two existing
cul-de-sacs which adjoin the site's northern boundary, Beresford Road and Lodge
Close. The illustrative 'Development Framework' plan shows these two access points
with the indication that they would be linked within the site. In practice these are the
only available options to provide vehicular access into the site without acquiring
additional land or property.
Beresford Road and Lodge Close link into Charles Road / Edinburgh Road, all of which
form part of the residential estate on this southern part of Holt. Charles Road and
Edinburgh Road connect with Norwich Road and Hempstead Road which link to the
town centre and beyond. The Committee will note that much of the local concern
received to the application relates to increased traffic using the local road network.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection to the
application as it currently stands with details of access reserved for future approval.
What is clear is that the Highway Authority consider that provided two adoptable road
links are provided to serve the development (e.g. from Beresford Road and Lodge
Close) this would be acceptable. They might object however to a single road link.
Housing density and type
The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the net developable area of
the site would be around 5.4 ha. with approximately 1.8 ha. comprising open space.
This would equate to an overall density of 24 dwellings per hectare (or 32 dwellings per
hectare excluding the open space), which it is considered would be reasonable for a
site of this size and location.
There are inconsistencies in the submitted documents with regard to the amount of
affordable housing being proposed. The Design and Access Statement refers to there
being 76 affordable homes (45%) whereas the Affordable Housing Statement
Development Committee
19
2 October 2014
challenges the Council's affordable housing policy (Core Strategy Policy HO2) and
proposes 30%. The Planning Obligations Heads of Terms states that "a proportion of
affordable housing across a defined tenure mix as part of the scheme will be
negotiated with the Council to reflect the extant policy and economics of the
development".
The applicants have since clarified their position and have confirmed that they would
agree to entering a S.106 Planning Obligation which would require 45% affordable
housing to be provided subject to viability. This approach would accord with Policy
HO2 and would potentially allow for a development viability assessment to be
submitted subsequently, if outline planning permission were to be granted.
Landscape and Ecological Impacts
The site is not prominent within the surrounding landscape, being as it is enclosed by
woodland and residential development. Neither does the site itself contain any
significant landscape features. If it were to be developed for housing one important
feature would need to be the provision of a soft landscaped edge, between the built
development and the woodland of the adjoining country park, something that to a
degree the submitted (illustrative) 'development framework' plan alludes towards.
In terms of ecology the site is some 500m from the Holt Lowes SSSI, a site of national
importance, and some 5kms from the internationally important North Norfolk Coast
Special Protection Area. The issue here relates to increased visitor pressure upon the
integrity of these sites arising from new residential developments in the vicinity. The
Committee will note the response from National England and their concerns that the
applicants have provided insufficient information to determine whether or not there
would be significant effects caused on these sites as a result of the proposed
development.
In response the applicants have recently submitted a Habitat Regulations
Assessment. The report concludes that the proposed development does have the
potential to have significant adverse impacts on (1) the North Norfolk Coast Special
Protection Area and (2) the Holt Lowes SSSI. The report concludes that these impacts
could be mitigated by (1) a developer contribution of £50 per dwelling to support visitor
monitoring and mitigation strategy, and (2) by on site greenspace provision and a
developer contribution towards the maintenance and upkeep of paths within the
country park and general site wardening. Natural England's response to these
mitigation measures was awaited at the time of preparing this report.
Local School Capacity
The Committee will note the response from Norfolk County Council (Planning
Obligations Co-ordinator) who raise serious concerns with regard to capacity issues at
Holt Primary School if this application is approved, after taking into account other
recent approvals for major housing developments in the town (these relate to outline
planning permissions at the two allocated sites at Cley Road and Hempstead Road,
and the recent resolution of this Committee to approve three outline planning
applications on land owned by Greshams School).
Normally applicants would be expected to pay a financial contribution towards any
shortfall in school capacity arising from their proposed development (secured by
means of a S.106 Obligation). This remains an option if this application were to be
approved. However in this case it will be noted that the education authority advises that
there are physical constraints at Holt primary school which will prevent it being
expanded to accommodate future numbers of pupils if this application is approved.
Development Committee
20
2 October 2014
Issues relating to infrastructure and local service capacity / provision are properly
considered as part of the development plan process. This would appear to be a case
where a significant departure from the development plan raises such capacity issues.
Mineral Planning issues
The application site lies within a mineral resource safeguarding area identified in the
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. An allocated mineral site (sand and gravel)
is located nearby, thus indicating the presence of these materials in the local area. The
County Council's policy is to object to development on safeguarded areas if the
proposed development would prejudice the viable economic extraction of minerals on
a particular site. This approach is also supported in the NPPF, "When determining
planning applications, local planning authorities should not normally permit other
development proposals in mineral safeguarding areas where they might constrain
future use for these purposes" (Para. 144). This does not necessarily imply major
extraction operations but could result in localised extraction of materials which could
be used for on site construction works.
The County Council has suggested that the applicants should first carry out
investigations on site (i.e. trial pits) to identify whether there are mineral resources at
the site which could be extracted economically. In response to this the applicants have
suggested that a planning condition could be imposed requiring that prior to the
commencement of development site investigations are undertaken and if it is
established that deposits could be viably extracted this is carried out in accordance
with an approved scheme. A further response from the County Council is awaited.
Conclusions
There do not appear to be any insurmountable technical reasons to indicate that the
site could not be developed for housing development. In addition the proposed
development would have limited impact upon the wider rural landscape surrounding
Holt.
However planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. The principle of housing on this site does not accord with the
development plan (Policy SS2 - Development in the Countryside). A principal reason
for drawing development boundaries around existing settlements is to guard against
unplanned piecemeal growth and to protect the countryside for its own sake.
It is the view of officers that there are no material considerations in this case which
outweigh development plan policy. In particular the applicants case in relation to five
year land supply is not accepted. Furthermore the evident capacity issue which this
proposed development would have on the local primary school is an example why any
further significant housing development in the town should be properly considered
through the established development plan process.
Accordingly refusal of the application is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to any further consultation comments received,
REFUSAL for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
Development Committee
21
2 October 2014
SS 3 - Housing
SS 9 - Holt
CT 2 - Developer contributions
The application site lies outside of the development boundary for Holt in an area
designated as 'countryside' in the adopted Core Strategy. Housing development
(apart from 'exception' affordable housing developments and the conversion of
existing buildings) is not a use permitted in the countryside policy area under Core
Strategy Policy SS 2. The proposed development would encroach into an area of open
countryside.
The proposed development would result in over-capacity issues at the local primary
school without the opportunity for on-site expansion.
Accordingly the proposed development would be contrary to the above development
plan policies.
(5)
HOLT - PF/14/0934 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide
residential annexe; 65 Cromer Road for Mr S Darling
- Target Date: 17 September 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20050155 PF
65 Cromer Road
Erection of front conservatory
Refused 22/03/2005
PLA/20090254 PF
67 Cromer Road
Conversion of outbuilding to habitable accommodation
Approved 12/05/2009
PLA/20090611 PF
65 Cromer Road
Conversion of cart shed to annexe
Approved 14/08/2009
PF/10/0851 HOU
67 Cromer Road
Conversion and alteration of outbuilding to studio
Approved 07/09/2010
THE APPLICATION
Conversion and extension of outbuildings to provide residential annexe. Flat sedum
roofed extension proposed for the front of the building. The proposed extension has a
maximum width of approximately 5.5m, depth of approximately 6.7m and height of
2.3m.
Development Committee
22
2 October 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. M. Baker having regard to the following issue:
 Overdevelopment of the site
TOWN COUNCIL
No response
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a resident of 75 Cromer Road. The
objections relate to the following issues:
 There is a right-of-way from the road access to No. 65 to the rear of 67, 69, 71, 73
and 75 Cromer Road; this access must not be blocked
 The conversion would cause congestion if it were to be used as a permanent
residential property
 The objector offers no objection to the upgrading of the cart sheds but the extra
building is considered overdevelopment.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority: No objection providing the proposed
accommodation remains ancillary to the main dwelling. Condition to be imposed to
ensure proposed accommodation remains incidental to the main dwelling and shall not
at any time be occupied as a separate un-associated unit of accommodation.
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 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Scale of development in relation to size of site
Impact on the residents of neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The site is located within a residential area in the settlement boundary of Holt. Holt is
defined by the North Norfolk District Council's adopted Core Strategy as a Principal
Settlement, within which the principle of residential development is acceptable. In
Development Committee
23
2 October 2014
terms of Core Strategy policies SS1 and SS9 and paragraph 17 of the NPPF the
proposal is compliant.
There are two outbuildings within the rear garden of the host property; the building this
application relates to is the outbuilding which lies adjacent to the property's rear
boundary. This site was the subject of a previous planning application (PF/09/0611)
which granted permission for the outbuilding to be converted to an annexe, featuring a
living room, bedroom and en suite bathroom. This application was never commenced
and has now lapsed.
The difference between the previous application and the current application is a
flat-roofed single-storey extension to the front of the outbuilding. The existing
outbuilding has a footprint of 37.8 sq. m. The proposed extension would increase the
outbuilding's footprint to approximately 69 sq. m., this equates to an approximate 80%
increase in size.
The development proposes a flat sedum roof which would marginally (0.3m.) project
above the 2 m close board fence to the east, however, the mature shrubs within the
neighbouring garden would adequately screening the development. To the west
elevation is a 2.5m. wall. Given the well screened nature of the site the proposal would
have no significant overshadowing or overbearing impact.
With the exception of the two rooflights all other fenestration would be directed toward
the inner courtyard thus preventing overlooking. The rear elevation's rooflight would
serve a bathroom and at 2.5 metres from floor height it would not impact on the
privacy/garden amenity of the property to the rear.
The development site forms part of the applicants garden, it is not envisaged that the
change from outbuilding to residential annexe would generate any increase in noise
disturbance. .
Access to the rear of the neighbouring properties is via the driveway to the side of 65
Cromer Road and a gate which lies adjacent to the rear of 65 Cromer Road. The
access gate is some 25 meters from the proposed residential annexe which suggests
the proposal would not restrict entry to the rear of the neighbouring properties.
Although the annexe would be approximately 35m. from the host dwelling the
property's limited garden area suggests the proposed annexe would not meet the
criteria for a separate dwelling.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed extension would substantially increase the
size of the outbuilding it is, however, considered that the proposed residential annexe
would not significantly negatively impact upon the neighbouring properties or wider
neighbourhood.
Despite the proposed development's size it is considered that it does not comprise of
an overdevelopment of the site; sufficient garden area will remain.
In terms of Policy CT6 (car parking): the County Council Highway Authority has
expressed concern regarding the provision of car parking at the site. The Highway
Authority engineer's report states, "I would not wish to see any increase in parking
requirements associated with this development through its occupation independent of
the main dwelling". Therefore, to ensure the accommodation remains ancillary to the
main dwelling a condition will be imposed restricting the living accommodation to that
of incidental to the main dwelling and at no time should it become a separate and
Development Committee
24
2 October 2014
un-associated unit of accommodation. Subject to the imposition of the condition the
proposal is broadly compliant to policy CT 6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
The proposal is in accordance with Development Plan policies and is recommended
for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions listed below
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) The living accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the use of the
main dwelling and shall not be occupied at any time as separate and un-associated
unit of accommodation
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting
that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other alteration to the
annexe hereby permitted (including the insertion or any further windows or rooflights)
shall take place unless planning permission has been first granted by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a close
knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
25
2 October 2014
(6)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/14/0786 - Installation of access steps, replacement door,
side ramp and rear ramp; Fair Meadow House, Wolterton Road for Mr & Mrs G
Applin
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 August 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development in the Countryside
Conservation Area
Unclassified Road (adopted)
Provision and Retention of Local Facilities and Services
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030940 PF - Alterations to community shop and formation of gallery access
steps
Approved 04/08/2003
PF/10/1131 PF
Variation of condition 3 of planning reference: 03/0368 to permit retail use of the studio
for three days a week
Approved 23/11/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to install access steps, replacement door, side ramp and rear ramp. The
application as originally submitted and advertised included reference to entrance
gates. However, as they are proposed to be less than 2m in height they do not
require planning permission and have since been removed from the description.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous committee for a site visit.
The application was previously refereed to committee at the request of Cllr J
Perry-Warnes with regard to the following issues:
1) Parish Council objections to the application
2) The number of objections to the proposal
PARISH COUNCIL
Itteringham Parish Council object to the proposal on the following grounds:
 The shop address the needs of disabled persons by serving them at their cars and
making home deliveries
 Wheelchair/disabled access to the rear of the shop would not permit access to the
shop as there are a number of obstacles to overcome between the rear of the shop
and the retail area - including internal steps and lack of room in the shop for
wheelchairs
 The security of the shop would be jeopardised - a member of staff would have to
leave the retail area/post office to attend to the disabled person at the rear door
 The proposed fence would block light from the shop's kitchen and storeroom
 The shop has flooded in the past and the proposed changes to the rear of the
property could potentially increase the risk of flooding in the future
 The change of use from private to public access to the rear of the shop would
impact on the privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring property
 The track to the side of the property is 3.5 metres and a ramp will narrow the area
Development Committee
26
2 October 2014



making it impossible for farm machinery/private vehicles to access the track
thereby restricting their right of access
Safety issues - disabled/wheelchair users using an area used by farm machinery
and private vehicles - the ramp would be dangerous in the winter months
The change to the front steps would place users in the path of traffic accessing and
egressing the track
The steps would be directed alongside a large plate-glass window which in case of
a fire the window could blow out over those escaping from the fire
REPRESENTATIONS
Seventeen letters of objection have been received and one letter of comment. The
following is a summary of the issues raised:













The shop address the needs of disabled persons by serving them at their cars and
making home deliveries
Wheelchair/disabled access to the rear of the shop would not permit access to the
shop as there are a number of obstacles to overcome between the rear of the shop
and the retail area - including internal steps and lack of room in the shop for
wheelchairs
The security of the shop would be jeopardised - a member of staff would have to
leave the retail area/post office to attend to the disabled person at the rear door
The proposed fence would block light from the shop's kitchen and storeroom
The shop has flooded in the past and the proposed changes to the rear of the
property could potentially increase the risk of flooding in the future
The change of use from private to public access to the rear of the shop would
impact on the privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring property
The track to the side of the property is 3.5 metres and a ramp will narrow the area
making it impossible for farm machinery/private vehicles to access the track
thereby restricting their right of access
The fencing/gates would impact on delivery vehicles manoeuvring at the rear of the
property
Safety issues - disabled/wheelchair users using an area used by farm machinery
and private vehicles - the ramp would be dangerous in the winter months
Highway safety - parked cars dropping off disabled persons would further obscure
vision at an already blind corner
The change to the front steps would place users in the path of traffic accessing and
egressing the track - the junction has limited visibility
The steps would be directed alongside a large plate-glass window - in case of a
fire, the window could blow out over those escaping from the fire
Urbanisation of a rural area
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority: No objection
Building Control: No objection - in this instance the window and front steps would be
acceptable
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design): Having
viewed the application C&D did not wish to make any detailed comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
27
2 October 2014
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 SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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 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
1. Pedestrian Safety - particularly the disabled and wheelchair users and their carers
2. Vehicle access
3. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring property
4. Impact on the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at a previous committee for a site visit.
The application is in relation to the community shop which lies adjacent to Fair
Meadow House and is owned by the occupants of Fair Meadow House. The shop is
leased to the Community Village Shop.
The site lies in an area designated as Countryside. Acceptable development within
such a designated area is limited, however, development which aids the rural
economy, enables the retention of village facilities i.e. village shop/post office and
promotes the 'North Norfolk' brand which contributes to the tourist economy is in
principle permitted. Thus in terms of Policies SS2, SS5 and CT3 the proposal complies
with the adopted Core Strategy and paragraph 28 of the NPPF.
The current application seeks to make several minor changes to the exterior of the
community run shop/post office.
The development proposes to replace a set of steep steps which lie to the northern
aspect of the shop front. The replacement steps would direct customers to the side of
the property in the direction of a vehicle access track which lies to the side of the
property. Currently, the steps discharge directly on to the road. Objectors have stated
Development Committee
28
2 October 2014
that directing people towards the track would be dangerous. However, the track only
serves Fair Meadow House's garage, shop (delivery vehicles), agricultural land and
vehicle access to the neighbouring cottage. Given the low volume of traffic entering
and exiting the track it is considered that the repositioned steps would be a safer option
to that which current exists.
Objectors also raised concerns that the repositioned step would pass in front of a
plate-glass window, which in the event of a fire could shatter onto the steps. The
District Council Building Control officer has been consulted on this matter, in this
instance he believes the risk of the window shattering and injuring someone on the
steps would be negligible.
At present access to the rear of the shop is via the gravel surfaced track. The proposal
is to remove a 1.2 metre strip of gravel (to the side of the property) and replace it with a
concrete surface, in effect creating a smooth surfaced ramp which could be used by
the elderly, disabled, wheelchair uses and their carers, delivery persons and refuse
collectors. The ramp would be marginally higher than the gravel surface but not so
much higher that it would impede traffic from using the track. Objections have been
received regarding the safety of the elderly, disabled and wheelchair uses and their
carers using this ramp, stating: the track is narrow and there would not be enough
room for individuals and vehicles/farm machinery to pass, furthermore it would be icy
and/or slippery during the winter months. It has also been brought to the Local
Planning Authorities attention that heavy farm machinery driving back and forth over
the ramp would damage the concrete resulting in a cracked and pitted surface which
would be dangerous for those with mobility issues. It was also stated that mud from
farm machinery would make the ramp slippery.
It is considered that the volume of traffic entering and exiting the track and the numbers
of elderly, disabled and wheelchair users and their carers using the ramp would be low,
therefore, risk of accident/injury would also be low. The County Council Highway
Authority has been consulted and they raise no objections to the proposal. Initially, the
Highway Authority objected to a “traffic mirror” being installed on the front wall of the
property. The installation of a mirror has now been removed from the application.
The matter of damage to the access ramp by vehicles would be a civil matter.
The proposed ramp would extend to the rear of the property, terminating at the back
door. The concrete paving to the rear of the property would also form a hard-standing
area for the shop's refuse bins. The property is lower than the ground to its rear and
surface water run-off has in the past flooded the shop. Several objectors have
commented that the alterations to the rear would increase the risk of flooding. It is
believed that the alterations to the rear of the property would not exacerbate the risk of
flooding.
The plans indicate the rear of the property would be enclosed within a 1.8 metre close
board fence with gates. This would aid in securing the rear of the property. Again,
concerns have been raised that the fencing could have the reverse effect, in that
somebody could hide behind the fence and attack anybody locking-up or opening-up
the shop. The shop is also a post-office with a time-lock safe. Furthermore, it has been
raised that the fencing and gates could impact on the manoeuvrability of delivery
vehicles, the neighbouring property's parking area and would prevent large farm
machinery from accessing the field to the rear of the shop. The fencing/gates,
however, being less than 2 metres in height are permitted development (The Town and
Country (General Permitted Development Orders) 1995). The Council therefore has
no control of over that part of the development.
Development Committee
29
2 October 2014
Given the area is within a designated Conservation Area the District Council's
Conservation and Design (C&D) Team were consulted. Having reviewed the
application they have judged the alterations to be of a minor nature and had no
detailed comments to make. The proposal is acceptable in design terms, preserves the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is considered to comply with
Policies EN2 and EN8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
In terms of Policy EN4 (Basic Amenity Criteria): the occupant of the neighbouring
property has expressed concern regarding the impact public access to the rear of the
property would have on her privacy and garden amenity. It is considered that the
number of people using the proposed rear (disabled) access would be low and it is
considered that there would be no significant loss of privacy/garden amenity to the
occupant of the neighbouring cottage. The proposal is considered to comply with the
aims of Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
In terms of Policy CT5 (The transport impact on new development): It is acknowledged
that the rear fencing/gates could cause vehicle access problems. This, however, is a
right-of-access issue, which is a civil matter. The Highway Authority has raised no
objection.
In terms of matters relating to planning, the proposed development accords with the
aims of policies within the Adopted Core Strategy and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions listed below
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.
(7)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0626 - Use of land for siting six mobile units (4 caravans, 2
pods) for residential accommodation for family and friends and use of the
existing dwelling for shared facilities (amended description); 67 Cromer Road
for Mr & Mrs G Malone
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 July 2014
Case Officer: Mr C Board
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Development Committee
30
2 October 2014
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DEV20/08/195 ENQ - Erection of fence
PLA/19740546 PO - Res. dev. for council housing
Approved 06/01/1975
PLA/19921611 VO - Residential development
Withdrawn 10/12/1996
PLA/20050689 PF - Erection of fifteen two-storey dwellings
Approved 15/07/2005
PLA/19851146 PM - Light industry - residential - recreational grounds
Refused 23/09/1985
PLA/19850375 PM - Light industry - residential - recreational grounds
Refused 24/05/1985
PLA/19891916 PO - Residential and recreational development
Approved 27/03/1990
PLA/19900007 PM - Phase i of residential development (51 units)
Approved 23/04/1990
PLA/19851147 PM - Light industry - residential - recreational grounds
Approved 16/06/1986
PLA/19850374 PO - Renewal of outline permission 01/79/1243/0 for residential,
light industrial and recreational development, as amended on 10th December 1979
Approved 10/05/1985
PLA/19871857 PO - Residential, light industrial and recreational development
Approved 11/12/1987
PLA/19850925 PM - Light industry - residential - recreational grounds
Approved 29/11/1985
PLA/19810383 PO - Residential development
Refused 14/04/1981
PLA/19802164 HR - Demolition of existing wartime buildings & use of land for
residential, light industrial & recreational open space
Withdrawn 12/09/1984
PLA/19740894 PF - Winter storage of caravans
Approved 04/10/1974
PLA/19791243 PO - Demolition of exist.wartime bldgs & use of land for res. light
industrial & recreational
Approved 05/02/1979
PLA/19790422 HR - Standing of 10 caravans for 3 days
Approved 10/04/1979
PLA/19790468 HR - Proposed toilets and touring caravan site
Refused 04/09/1979
PLA/19860749 PO - Private dwelling to replace existing wooden building
Approved 05/08/1986
PLA/19881725 PM - Erection of chalet bungalow and detached garage
Approved 06/10/1988
PLA/20031613 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Approved 14/11/2003
PF/12/1441
PF - Formation of artisan education centre/holiday development
consisting of the erection of 7 residential/holiday lodges, camping area and change of
use of dwelling to communal facilities/holiday accommodation, retention of two static
caravans for holiday accommodation.
Refused 18/04/2013
PF/14/0626 PF - Use of land for siting six mobile units (4 caravans, 2 pods) for
residential accommodation for family and friends and use of the existing dwelling for
shared facilities (amended description)
Development Committee
31
2 October 2014
THE APPLICATION
The subject site concerns an area of approximately 6800sqm, broadly triangular in
shape tapering to the west. The site has a single point of access for vehicles and
pedestrians on a loose surfaced track that adjoins Cromer Road between properties
65 and 69. The site contains one existing dwelling (number 67), a two storey pitched
roof house/chalet, the site also provides access for number 67a which is identified on
plan as within the same ownership but not part of the application site.
The application seeks planning permission for the use of the land to locate six units in
the form of four caravans and two pods to be used for residential accommodation for
family and friends with the existing dwelling being used for shared facilities. This is an
amended description of development that has been submitted alongside an amended
design and access statement following discussions with the applicant and clarification
of the extent of the intended use.
The applicant's amended Design and Access statement clarifies thus:
"The following modified description of development has been improved to incorporate
the concerns and queries raised following consultation with neighbouring property
owners and the parish council. It responds to their queries and minimises doubt as to
the nature of the application.
For the siting of 6 mobile units (4 caravans, 2 pods) for residential accommodation for
family and friends and the use of existing dwelling for shared facilities.
Suggests the attachment of the following conditions.
These specify its non-commercial nature and define the extent of the development.
1) No additional mobile units, pods or other forms of accommodation shall be erected
on site other than as shown on plan.
Reason: To limit the extent of the development having regard to its relationship with
adjoining properties.
2)The site shall not be used for letting, holiday accommodation or commercial use.
Reason: To limit use of the site to that identified in the description where wider use
would impact upon residential amenity.
The application is solely for residential use by the applications, family and friends. To
live as a mutually supportive family group in a cost effective and environmentally
friendly manner. Sharing the domestic facilities of the house, car use and utility
services.
The rural nature of the site is highly valued. The mobile units provide affordable
residential accommodation that does the minimum of damage to the environment.
The addition of a horticultural plot and a small orchard providing fresh fruit and veg.
Any work on the site will be undertaken with the utmost effort to respect and maintain
the natural flora and fauna. No commercial activity with be undertaken."
The four mobile units shall measure 7.93 x 3.66m, the two pods are 3.1m x 5.4m, the
pods have a maximum height of 2.8m and are of timber construction with a shingle
roof, glazed entrance door to one gable end and small window with ventilation opening
in the opposite gable. The mobile units are described as pre-fabricated off site and
set on site to sleeper-type bearers.
The proposed layout is a semi-circular arrangement set around the existing
tree-enclosed space. The proposal confirms the intended removal of the existing
caravans on the site boundary with the existing building remaining to the south
boundary to serve as a communal building.
Development Committee
32
2 October 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr B Smith, noting the volume of objections, Parish Council objection
and level of interest.
PARISH COUNCIL
Responding to the first consultation - object to this application on the grounds of smell,
noise, parking & unknown number of visitors.
Responding to the second consultation - stand by their original decision and object as
per previous grounds.
REPRESENTATIONS
This application has been subject to two rounds of consultation, responses to the first
round of consultation are as follows:
Seven letters of objection received stating the following matters:
Do not believe this application has changed enough to warrant it being approved.
Development will cause a huge noise nuisance.
No barrier for any sound transference for properties backing onto the development.
Due to the current use of this property, the noise nuisance caused one or two weeks of
the year has been ignorable but to have this noise all year round of general people
movement to and from units, flushing toilets, caravan doors opening and closing will be
completely intolerable.
Proposed residential and recreation site is located within very close proximity to a
residential area.
Outdoor living sites by their nature generate un-contained noise. The site by design
will result in gatherings of people outside at hours incompatible with these residents
living in close proximity.
The particular layout of the site enclosed by a earth bank on the South but open to the
North will exaggerate any noise generated within and direct towards the local
residents.
The application does not specify the number of people gathering/allowed neither does
it make an assessment of the hours of operation, times of year to be used or number of
persons to be on-site.
It makes no consideration to proposals to minimise impact on the existing
communities, how late outside gatherings will be allowed to continue or if music,
singing (either amplified or not) will be encouraged, allowed or expected.
Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours by reason of smell and smoke
(camp fire).
Nature conservation impact / loss of meadow land / impact on wildlife.
Proposed location of the development is ill-considered.
Object for the same reason as the last application (First). That particular plot of land,
would in my humble opinion be totally unsuitable for turning into a Holiday
Camp/Commune, or whatever else it might be referred to as.
Objection letters state the following policies as part of their objection SS3, EN4, EN9,
EN13
One letter of support received stating the following:
The plans for the site will preserve the wildlife and mature trees.
In a world where destroy and flatten is the norm it is a change to find a well thought out
eco development such as this. I hope planning will not dismiss it simply for being
different.
Responses to the second round of consultation following the amended description are
as follows:
Development Committee
33
2 October 2014
Four objections repeating the previous submission and covering: wanting to be able to
enjoy the garden, not wanting 2 young children disturbed by night time routines by
banging doors etc. Wanting to be able to hang my washing out without it smelling
worse than it did when it went out. Disbelieving of the family and friends submission
(wording edited), they will be complete strangers. Strongly opposed to this
application and if you yourselves at the council decide to approve it just be expecting
numerous calls with complaints to noise disturbance etc. The revised application
seems to be no different other than it has now been changed to just personal use. It
seems he will try anything to get it approved then apply to get the usage changed.
One letter of comment agreeing to the principle of the application and are looking
forward to being neighbours to an extended family; highly commendable idea in this
day and age.
Two letters of support - One repeating the previous supporting letter and the second
withdrawing a previous objection owing to the alterations having met with their
approval.
CONSULTATIONS
Responding to the first consultation.
NNDC Landscape Officer - The site is between the old railway line and the recent
housing estate on Cromer Road on the approach into Mundesley. The site contains
several mature trees and various shrubs that are a result of planting and natural
regeneration and lies to the east of the AONB boundary. The hedging around the site
is made up of various species including Elm which will have a limited life.
The open land adjacent to the east of the site is currently used as informal recreational
space and is also situated between the old railway and the housing. The proposed
units and pods are low impact in terms of landscape and effect on the environment and
are significantly less visible than static caravans.
The Arboricultural Method Statement included with the application is acceptable and
will ensure that the trees are protected during the development on the site. The
services to the pods will be run outside the root protection areas of the trees.
The only potential for protected species on the site would be for bats roosting in the
trees and roof space of the current dwelling and the garage.
The landscape impact of the development will be local due to the "hidden" nature of the
site and further planting along the access and northern boundary would help soften
any impact and reduce noise. The CD&L section has no objection to the development
and considers that it is acceptable subject to conditions (list provided).
NNDC Environmental Health - Lighting, I have noted from the application that they
shall install low level low energy lighting bollards around the footpaths, and no flood
lighting. Therefore, I am satisfied that a light condition is not required.
Fires, I note that there shall be one small fire on this site in the recreational area; I have
spoken to Mr Malone and he advised this fire shall be lit twice a week, and they shall
use seasoned wood or smokeless charcoal. if there are complaints there is the option
of putting a cowl over the fire. Mr Malone advised he will be in charge of the fire and
control it at all times. Therefore I do not require a condition in this instance, if we
receive justified complaints of smoke nuisance we shall investigate this matter under
Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Development Committee
34
2 October 2014
NCC Highways - As with the previous similar application on this site subject to
improvement works to the intersection of the private track and Cromer Road I have no
objection to the granting of permission. Should your Authority be minded to approve
the application I would be grateful for the inclusion of the following conditions (list
supplied).
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):
SS1 Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS3 Housing
SS5 Economy
EN2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement
EN4 Design
EN9 Biodiversity & Geology
EN13 Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation
CT5 The Transport Impact of New Development
CT6 Parking Provision.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The main issues for consideration in association with this application are:
 Principle of development
 Layout/relationship with neighbouring properties
 Use
 Form
 Impact
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the settlement boundary for Mundesley, within the residential
policy area (Policy SS3 of the Adopted Core Strategy). Policy SS3 Housing provides
the baseline for this site in guiding that appropriate residential development and
compatible non-residential development (identified as small-scale business,
community, leisure and social uses), will be permitted.
The proposal as clarified by its amended description of development and volunteered
conditions (offering control), seeks permission for permanent residential occupation of
the site. The proposal shall not be confused with application 12/1441 which sought
permission for 7 residential and holiday lodges, a camping area and the communal use
of the dwelling. A more involved application, it was refused on the basis of potential
noise and disturbance to the detriment of neighbouring residents. This proposal
differs as described, seeking to provide certainty for neighbouring residents, in strict
Development Committee
35
2 October 2014
land use terms the current proposal fits with planning policy in seeking residential use
within an identified residential location; subject to resolving the application of
'appropriate development' the principle of development in policy terms can be
supported.
The use of the term 'appropriate development' provides a wider policy consideration in
respect of use, amount and form. Working through the physical relationship in order
to resolve on the point of principle the following points discussed below are considered
to be pertinent.
Working from the application consultation responses and the details proposed the form
of accommodation raises doubt in respect of the impact of the accommodation type in
addition to matters of use and activity (addressed further on). The four mobile units
included within the application present the opportunity for four family units to reside on
site - assuming the host dwelling is retained in communal use. The district has many
examples of mobile units (assuming the applicant intends to use caravan
related/derived buildings), used for year-round occupation; these are capable of being
licenced in respect of their quality; for the purposes of 'Principle' discussion the form of
the units (subject to conditions to secure the detail in respect of insulation, glazing,
cladding and visual form), is considered to be acceptable.
Layout
Accessing from Cromer Road the driveway opens to a parking and turning area similar
to the present layout. The four units and two pods are set out in a semi-circle
following the line of existing trees. The remainder of the site is open as existing noting
that there is space for a natural and managed green landscape that can be planted and
secured through planning condition.
Considering layout and proximity to existing dwellings the closest residential unit is
10.5m from the site boundary, 16m building to building. This is taken from the rear
elevation which is a blank facade on the mobile unit. As a permanent residential unit
(that is the request), the District's Design Guide directs a minimum distance to be
11.0m window to blank facade - accepting primary windows on existing dwellings to
blank elevations. As set out above; 16m is achieved.
These distances provide a reference point. Accepting that residential use is in line
with policy the site has the potential to provide conventional residential development
were one to design such a development layout the above Design Guide distances
would provide a base line for layout.
The layout for the site confirms the removal of the two mobile homes that are adjacent
to the residential boundary, this can be secured through planning condition confirming
their removal prior to any other works commencing on site. An appropriate boundary
treatment shall be secured in this location to improve the existing hedgerow and tree
cover in the interests of the residential buffer.
Use
Consultation responses have speculated as to the form of the application and the
potential for a nuisance use to be the result of development. As applied for the
proposal seeks permission for residential use as an extended family unit. The
applicants have suggested conditions to restrict the operation of the site to confirm no
additional accommodation and no letting, holiday or commercial use.
As with all applications it must be judged on its merits and the use as applied for, not
what it could become. As part of the application process the extent of commercial use
Development Committee
36
2 October 2014
was discussed with the applicant's. Whilst it was clear that they sought to undertake
some community use/good on a previous submission there has been an
acknowledgement that their operation would now be limited to residential in order to
remove any doubt regarding impact. Occupying under a residential permission with
conditions as proposed translates into any commercial use being a breach of condition
and a change of use requiring planning permission. This provides the Council with
ultimate control, both within the Use Class Order and as a Breach of Condition Notice
which Members will be aware has no right of appeal. As a description of
development, use class; and with conditions the development provides full control to
the Council as far as possible. The applicant is aware that a commercial use
whatever the form will require planning permission once it steps away from any
ancillary function as is the case with a dwelling.
Returning the question of use back to the initial policy position, the neighbouring
dwellings benefit from an undeveloped area adjacent to their gardens - unquestionably
a positive relationship with the exception of the events identified as harmful within
objections. In pure policy terms a greater intensity of development as an extension of
the estate is feasible in use terms, the subject proposal fits within planning policy and
presents the potential with controls and good management to offer a lesser impact in
terms of activity.
Form
The four mobile units are single storey units/mobile homes, the two pods (megapods)
provide a short term form of bedroom accommodation for visiting family members; all
six elements of accommodation are a modest single storey in scale being of a form of
accommodation that presents no physical impact towards adjacent residential
properties.
The application clarifies that the four mobile units will "use a forest green finish to be
compatible with the semi-rural character of the site". Though supplied details are
limited in terms of delivery the application confirms wood cladding the details of which
will be secured by condition should the application be approved.
Impact
Lighting is proposed as low level low energy bollards, the most suitable form noting the
semi-rural location, a planning condition shall be applied in the event of an approval to
ensure compliance.
Consultation responses refer to open fires and the potential for residential harm. The
proposed site layout plan identifies a flued fire pit to the central area between the
dwelling and mobile units. North Norfolk's Environmental Health team have advised
that should there be complaints it would be investigated under Section 79 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 where this can be considered in context of a
statutory nuisance the control ultimately being a court order if required.
Summary
The proposal seeks permission for a residential use in a location where planning policy
supports such a function. The application can demonstrate no physical harm in
respect of overlooking or overbearing impact as a result of the built form. The
objections raised focus upon the potential impact in use terms which has been raised
as a point of control; in addition to the speculation on what the site could become - all of
which is outside the application and individually requires planning permission.
On the basis of the above and given the overriding presumption in favour of
development the proposal is considered to be policy compliant.
Development Committee
37
2 October 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following heads of Conditions:
 Time Limit
 No development until mobile homes removed
 No additional mobile units, pods or other accommodation
 No commercial use
 No holiday accommodation
 Details of Mobile Units to be agreed (inc. materials)
 Landscaping Plan
 Lighting details - low level and area
(8)
RYBURGH - PF/14/0579 - Erection of four barley storage silos; Crisp Malting
Group Ltd, Fakenham Road for Crisp Malting Group Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 July 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
Contaminated Land
Wensum Valley Project Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740536 PF - Erection of grain intake and storage bins
Approved 09/08/1974
PLA/19820131 HR - Retention of all arcon type buildings (5)
Approved 08/03/1982
PLA/19840109 HR - Erection of 2 x 2500 ton barley storage silos
Approved 06/03/1984
PLA/19850623 PF - Erection of malt silos
Approved 22/10/1985
PLA/19871828 PF - Erection of malt silos
Approved 29/10/1987
PLA/19890311 PF - Replacement of existing malt process plant and new office
and laboratory complex
Approved 23/05/1989
PLA/19890984 PF - Replacement of existing malt process plant, new offices and
laboratory
Approved 07/06/1989
PLA/19891869 PF - Erection of effluent treatment plant
Approved 09/11/1989
PLA/20080266 PF - Siting of three malt outloading bins and one malt kiln stripping
bin
Approved 21/08/2008
PF/09/0966 PF - Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with wash bay,
associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage container, office,
staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping
Approved 13 Sept 2012 (Currently the subject of legal action via the Supreme Court in
relation to potential impact on the River Wensum SAC, SSSI)
Development Committee
38
2 October 2014
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of four barley storage silos at the northern end of the existing
maltings complex. Each silo would be approximately 21m tall with a diameter of 17m
and each would be located on a 500mm slab of concrete. Each silo would be
connected via an overhead conveyance system which would add up to 4m of
additional height on top of and between the silos. The silos would have a galvanised
(grey) finish. Each silo would hold approximately 2,500 tonnes of barley giving 10,000
tonnes of proposed additional silo capacity for the site.
Further information has been provided by the applicant in relation to, amongst other
things, vehicle movements and highway impacts, noise, and visual impact.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Green in view of the recent planning history associated with the
site and the on-going legal action.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application because of concerns about drainage issues and the
proximity to a watercourse; concerns about noise and the likelihood of noise levels
increasing and concerns that traffic levels will increase in what is already a busy
village.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received. Summary of objections:
1. The development is in close proximity to a watercourse which flows into the River
Wensum SSSI SAC;
2. There are trees near the site that could be affected;
3. A species survey has not been carried out;
4. Lack of information regarding highways activity;
5. Lack of information regarding increases in noise pollution;
6. Lack of information regarding surface water drainage;
7. Lack of information regarding landscape amelioration;
8. Lack of information regarding cumulative impacts;
9. Lack of information regarding impact on local community and surrounding
environment;
10. The proposal will not integrate well with the surrounding landscape;
11. Concerned that the proposal will increase traffic through the village and any
increase should be resisted
12. The lorry park application contained a limit on the output tonnage of malt - will this
proposal increase that limit?;
13. The existing road network is inadequate for the current lorry movements and any
increase will be harmful to the area and increase the risks for pedestrians, cyclists
and other road users;
14. The expansionism of this site by the company risks further damaging this quiet
rural setting;
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions - Requested applicant to
provide details of the steps they intend to take to address any possible noise impacts
(including the provision of an updated noise assessment).
I have noted the comments regarding noise in Anglia Maltings letter dated 19 August
2014. Previous noise data has been provided as part of application PF/09/0966 which
including 2 no silos. The assessment of noise from these proposed silos was
Development Committee
39
2 October 2014
satisfactory. Noise data for conveyor motors, aeration fans and silencers was
provided for the 2009 application but I would request that noise data for the
proposed equipment is confirmed.
As this application is for 4 no.silos, an increased number and the location (therefore
noise attenuation due to distance and any barriers has changed), updated noise
calculations are requested. Calculations of the noise rating level at the nearest noise
sensitive dwellings have not been provided for these new circumstances - I would
recommend that these details are provided to enable the noise impact to be assessed.
Please note the previous condition was recommended for silo noise.
No silo and associated plant and machinery (including aeration fans) shall be installed
on site until such time as exact details of the proposed noise attenuation methods to be
used for the silos, plant and machinery (including silo aeration fans) have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the
silos, plant and machinery including aeration fans shall be erected and installed in
accordance with the approved details.
Without sufficient noise information provided up-front, it is not possible to advise with
any certainty that the silos and conveyance systems will not result in adverse impacts.
County Council Highways - No objection subject to conditions. Initially requested
further clarification from the applicant regarding, amongst other things, the current
storage arrangements and whether the proposal would increase the production
capacity at the site (which was restricted to 115,00 tonnes per annum as part of a
recent application for a lorry park - ref: PF/09/0966). Following receipt of further
information from the applicant the Highway Authority have confirmed that as '...the
erection of grain silos will not increase the volume of barley that is imported to the site
they will simply allow the grain to be stored on site until required rather than being
stored elsewhere. Subject to re-imposing the previous condition restricting the
production output at the site, the Highway Authority has no objection to this proposal'.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions - We have reviewed the
submitted information and have no objection to the proposal and offer the following
advice:
The site permitted under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations 2010, reference FP3037PA and has a good compliance history. The
development is within the permit boundary.
The site is underlain by superficial sand and gravel deposits of the Lowestoft
Formation designated as a Secondary A Aquifer, which in turn overlie the solid geology
of the Chalk Group designated as a Principal Aquifer. The site is located within a
groundwater source protection zone namely SPZ1 (Inner Zone) associated with the
on-site groundwater abstraction.
The site is part of a maltings complex and the potential for contamination exists,
however, no information has been submitted.
However, from the submitted drawings it appears that the foundations of the silos do
not require the ground to be broken. Details of the historical use of this part of the site
and information regarding the land condition should be available from the permit
holder‟s records such as a Site Condition Report and/or Site Protection and Monitoring
Programme.
Development Committee
40
2 October 2014
The potential for disturbing any pollutants that may be a threat to groundwater should
be discussed with our permitting officer Rob Jamieson who the applicant should
contact regarding any variations to the permit that may be required. We advise joint
discussions between the operator, the local planning authority and ourselves and if
necessary parallel tracking of the planning and permit applications to allow any issues
to be resolved. This should reduce uncertainty as to whether the activity is likely to be
permitted, which in turn will reduce uncertainty and promote faster decision making for
both planning and permitting applications.
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at
the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local
planning authority) should be carried out until the developer has submitted a
remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected
contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning
authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
King's Lynn Internal Drainage Board - No objection subject to conditions. Following
receipt of further information from the applicant to explain how surface water will be
disposed of, the applicant has confirmed that „The rainwater will run off onto the
surrounding ground from the silos and soak into the soil. Any drainage required will be
directed to the Lagoon adjacent to the proposed silos.‟ Based on this further
information Norfolk Rivers IDB have raised no objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection
subject to conditions - The Landscape Section are concerned that the proposed
storage silos will have the visual effect extending the built form of the Maltings along
the valley floor into the wider countryside. The principle long distance views of the site
are from the east (Little Ryburgh) across the valley. Some of the existing silos and
plant are screened by small plantations although the bulk of the plant closest to the
village is widely visible. The proposed silos are located in-line along a north/south
transect at the northern end of site and will be visible between two plantations.
The plans illustrate that the new silos will be the same height and scale as the adjacent
silos and finished in galvanised steel. These will be visible against the existing skyline
behind a bank of shrubs and small trees. It is likely that not all of the tank will be visible
as they will be screened by lower down vegetation, however the tops of the tanks will
be visible against the skyline. It is acknowledged that for the majority of the days
during the year the colouring of the silos will blend in with the skyline, however on days
of bright sunshine and blue skies the silos will be markedly evident.
The existing site is restricted in possible positions to accommodate further barley
storage silos and has limited opportunities for meaningful landscape mitigation. Given
the relative height of the proposed silos and the limiting effect of the colouring against
the sky backdrop, together with the restricted opportunities for alternative locations,
the landscape section consider that the proposed silos would be acceptable when
considered and balanced with relevant Core Strategy polices.
Natural England - No objection - This application is in close proximity to the River
Wensum Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI forms part of the River
Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Natural England advises your authority that the proposal, if undertaken in strict
accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the
interest features for which River Wensum SAC has been classified. Natural England
Development Committee
41
2 October 2014
therefore advises that your Authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate
Assessment to assess the implications of this proposal on the site‟s conservation
objectives.1
In addition, Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried
out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not
damage or destroy the interest features for which the River Wensum SSSI has been
notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a
constraint in determining this application.
With regard to PF/09/0966, Natural England concluded no likely significant effect in
relation to the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This conclusion
was reached as we were satisfied that the avoidance and mitigation measures
proposed for the lorry park and wash would prevent contamination from entering the
SAC. At the time, it was observed that there was a distance of 2 km approximately
between the ditch network adjacent to the application site and any direct connection
with the River Wensum.
In relation to the current application (PF/14/0579), it does not contain any proposals for
a lorry park with lorry washing facilities, which means the contamination risk from this
proposal to the SAC is minimal. As there are already barley storage silos erected and
in use within the application site, Natural England concludes there is no likely
significant effect on the River Wensum SAC as a result of this 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
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 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
42
2 October 2014
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Visual Impact of Proposed Extension on wider Landscape
3. Highway Impacts
4. Noise impacts
5. Impact on residential amenity
6. Drainage, Flood Risk, Contamination and Impact on River Wensum SSSI SAC
7. Cumulative Impact issues
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site is located within the countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS 2
would permit extensions to existing businesses subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies including those relating to highway impacts, visual
impacts and noise. In particular Core Strategy Policy EC 3 states that extensions to
existing businesses in the countryside will be permitted where it is of a scale
appropriate to the existing development and would not have a detrimental effect on the
character of the area.
Visual Impact of Proposed Extension on Wider Landscape
The proposed four additional silos would extend the visible built form of the site further
northwards in a line. Whist the additional silos would themselves be further away from
the village they would still remain visible to a number of residents south west of the
site along Fakenham Road and Highfield Lane, Great Ryburgh. However, the
Committee need to consider the degree of visibility of the proposed silos from the
south west, especially if the lorry park and silos approved under planning ref:
PF/09/0966 are built (currently subject of legal challenge - see cumulative impacts).
The main visual impact of the proposed silos would fall due east from Clay Hill, The
Street, Little Ryburgh where the silos would be clearly visible between existing tree
belts from an elevated position. From this location the proposed extension would
noticeably increase the perception of built development where currently this is read as
countryside. To a lesser extent the proposed silos would be readily visible along
Highfield Lane leading up to Highfield Farm. However, the views from this location and
less clear due to the presence of existing landscaping.
The applicant proposes the silos to have a galvanised finish, similar to a number of the
recently installed silos at the northern end of the site. The Landscape Officer has noted
that the new silos will be the same height and scale as the adjacent silos and finished
in galvanised steel. The Landscape Officer has noted that the silos will be visible
against the existing skyline behind a bank of shrubs and small trees but has
commented that it is likely that not all of the tank will be visible as they will be screened
by lower down vegetation, however the tops of the tanks will be visible against the
skyline. The Landscape Officer has acknowledged that for the majority of the days
during the year the colouring of the silos will blend in with the skyline, however has
indicated that on days of bright sunshine and blue skies the silos will be markedly
evident.
The Landscape Officer has commented that the existing site is restricted in possible
positions to accommodate further barley storage silos and has limited opportunities for
Development Committee
43
2 October 2014
meaningful landscape mitigation. Given the relative height of the proposed silos and
the limiting effect of the colouring against the sky backdrop, together with the restricted
opportunities for alternative locations, the Landscape Officer considers that the
proposed silos would be acceptable when considered and balanced with relevant Core
Strategy polices and Officers would concur with this view.
Highway Impacts
Core Strategy Policy CT 5 sets out the key highway impacts to consider including
whether or not the proposal would increase vehicle movements into and out of the site
to the detriment of highway safety. A number of representations have raised concerns
about the highway impacts of the maltings site in its current form and have indicated
that any further increase in traffic to and from the site could result in further
unacceptable impacts.
In assessing the highway impacts, the Highway Authority requested further
clarification from the applicant regarding, amongst other things, the current storage
arrangements and whether the proposal would increase the production capacity at the
site (which was restricted to 115,00 tonnes per annum as part of a recent application
for a lorry park - ref: PF/09/0966).
The applicant has responded by confirming that 'the erection of four barley storage
silos will not result in additional vehicle movements. The barley that will utilise the silos
is currently stored on farms and is already destined to come to site during the year.
These silos only change the timing of the deliveries to site not the number. Also in
regard to condition 19 and malt tonnage [as set out in application ref: PF/09/0966],
these additional silos will not increase malt tonnage from the site as they are for the
storage of barley and the capacity of the production plant is not being changed with this
project'.
Having regard to the further information provided by the applicant the Highway
Authority have confirmed that as '...the erection of grain silos will not increase the
volume of barley that is imported to the site they will simply allow the grain to be stored
on site until required rather than being stored elsewhere. Subject to re-imposing the
previous condition restricting the production output at the site, the Highway Authority
has no objection to this proposal'.
Therefore subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal would accord with
Development Plan policy CT5.
Noise impacts
Core Strategy Policy EN 13 sets out the requirement for development to minimise
pollution effects including disturbance from noise. The main likely source of noise from
the silos would be from mechanical 'chatter' associated with the conveyance systems
taking barley to and from each silo. This noise, coupled with other noise from existing
operations at the site has the potential to adversely affect residential amenity,
especially if inappropriate conveyance systems are used, hence the need to seek
advice from the Environmental Protection Team.
In considering the application the Environmental Protection Officer has asked the
applicant to provide details of the steps they intend to take to address any possible
noise impacts (including the provision of an updated noise assessment). To date no
noise information has been provided by the applicant and a letter dated 19 August
2014 from David Thompson (Chief Executive - Anglia Maltings (Holdings) Ltd) sets
out clearly at paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 that the proposed new silos do not require
additional acoustic provision (See copy at Appendix 2). The Environmental Protection
Development Committee
44
2 October 2014
Officer has indicated that without sufficient noise information provided up-front, it is not
possible to advise with any certainty that the silos and conveyance systems will not
result in adverse impacts.
The Environmental Protection Officer has raised concerns about the possibility of
noise impacts and Officers recognise those concerns. Further details to satisfy the
Environmental Protection Officer have again been sought. It is important to resolve
this issue in the public interest prior to the issuing of any permission.
On balance, subject to acceptable further details and noise conditions being imposed
the proposal would be likely to accord with Development Plan Policy in relation to
noise.
Impact on residential amenity
The main impacts of the proposal on residential amenity could include visual impacts
from the silos and noise impacts from conveyance systems and any associated traffic.
The closest residential properties are those on Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh
located no less than 250m due south/south-west of the site with the closest properties
along Highfield Lane some 400m west/south/west. However, as stated above the
Committee need to consider the degree of visibility of the proposed silos from the
south west, especially if the lorry park and silos approved under planning ref:
PF/09/0966 are built (currently subject of legal challenge - see cumulative impacts).
Members will note from earlier in the report that the main visual impact of the proposed
silos would fall due east from Clay Hill, The Street, Little Ryburgh where the silos would
be clearly visible between existing tree belts from an elevated position. However,
properties in this location would be no less than 1km from the silos. To a lesser extent
the proposed silos would be visible no less than 700m north west from Highfield Farm,
Highfield Lane. However, the views from this location and less clear due to the
presence of existing landscaping.
Having regard to visual impact issues and potential impact on residential amenity
whilst the proposed silos may be seen by the nearest residents, given the distances
from residential properties, it is considered that the silos would not give rise to
unacceptable levels of overshadowing, loss of daylight or sunlight or overbearing
impacts.
In respect of noise impacts, the applicant has indicated that no additional lorry
movements would result and noise details are to be considered further prior to issuing
any decision.
Subject to acceptable noise details being submitted and agreed, the proposal would
accord with Development Plan Policies.
Drainage, Flood Risk, Contamination and Impact on River Wensum SSSI SAC
A number of representations have raised concerns about the potential for the silos to
cause harm to the River Wensum Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special
Area of Conservation (SAC) due to the hydrological connectivity between the site and
the River Wensum. Natural England (NE), as statutory nature conservation body were
consulted given the sensitivity of the site and a response was received dated 21 May
2014 indicating no objection. However, the response appeared somewhat generic and
Officers sought further clarification from NE to establish whether the issues
pertaining to cumulative impact resulting from an earlier lorry park and silo scheme
(ref: PF/09/0966) has been considered as part of the assessment for the current four
Development Committee
45
2 October 2014
silo scheme. A further response was submitted by NE dated 24 July 2014 (See above)
with a conclusion that, having regard to application PF/09/0966 there is no likely
significant effect on the River Wensum SSSI and SAC as a result of this proposal.
In respect of contamination and drainage issues, whilst the silos will require the ground
to be broken in order to lay concrete foundations/piling and this activity could
theoretically pose a risk to groundwater, the Contaminated Land Officer is of the
opinion that such activities would not be likely to give rise to unacceptable impacts or
any adverse downstream consequences and is more of a health and safety issue for
construction workers working on a site where contamination is a known risk. The
malting complex is subject of Environmental Permitting and the site is within the permit
area. The Environment Agency (EA) have confirmed that the site has a good
compliance history and in respect of construction, the EA produce clear guidance for
the type/method of piling for specific ground conditions. The EA have also
recommended conditions relating to the discovery of contamination not previously
identified.
In respect of drainage, whilst Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board (IDB) had initially
raised some concerns regarding a lack of detail to explain how surface water will be
disposed of, the applicant has confirmed that „The rainwater will run off onto the
surrounding ground from the silos and soak into the soil. Any drainage required will be
directed to the Lagoon adjacent to the proposed silos.‟ Based on this further
information Norfolk Rivers IDB have raised no objections.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, it is considered that the proposed erection of
four silos would not give rise to unacceptable drainage, flood risk or contamination
impacts nor would it result in harm to the River Wensum SSSI and SAC.
Cumulative Impact issues
In reaching any decision regarding the proposed four silos, the Committee are advised
to have regard to cumulative impact considerations, particularly in respect of
application ref: PF/09/0966 for the 'Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with
wash bay, associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage
container, office, staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping'. That
scheme was approved by way of decision notice dated 13 September 2011 but was
the subject of a successful Judicial Review challenge, the outcome of which was
successfully challenged by the Council and applicant through the Court of Appeal, the
decision of which is subject to further on-going legal action in the Supreme Court.
Whilst the status of application PF/09/0966 is still in some doubt, Officers would advise
the Committee to assess the current four silos scheme on the basis that the lorry park
is permitted and could be developed and this would ensure that cumulative impact
issues are properly considered. With this in mind and having regard to the
development now proposed, whilst the amount of built development at the maltings
site will substantially increase as a result of applications PF/09/0966 and PF/14//0579
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that the cumulative
impact of further expansion of the site would not give rise to unacceptable impacts
such that refusal of the four silos could not be justified.
Summary
The development involves the erection of four number 2,500 tonne barley silos on the
existing maltings complex site. Whilst the concerns made by public representations
are noted in respect of highway impacts, potential impacts on the River Wensum SSSI
and SAC and cumulative impacts, having regard to the advice of statutory consultees,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the impact of the four silos can be
Development Committee
46
2 October 2014
made acceptable in respect of those matters such that the proposal would accord with
relevant Development Plan policies. With regard to noise concerns, further
information has been sought and it is recommended that Committee delegate authority
to the Head of Planning to approve subject to those details satisfying the
Environmental Protection Officer's concerns and the imposition of relevant conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections
from the Environmental Protection Officer following receipt of the additional
noise details and the imposition of the following conditions:
1)
Standard Time Limit
2)
Except as where required by Condition 3, 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.
3)
Development to be carried out in accordance with approved noise
control details.
Reason:
To ensure that the silos and aeration fans do not give rise to noise
impacts in accordance with Policy EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
4)
The output tonnage of malt produced from the maltings site at
Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh shall not exceed 115,000 tonnes in any
one calendar year. Records of the actual annual output of malt from the
site shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority upon
request.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway benefits of the proposed development, in
terms of reduced vehicular movements to and from the site, are not
negated through increased output and associated traffic movement in
the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5)
Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted plans, prior to
the erection of any of the grain silos hereby permitted, details of the
external colour finish to be applied to the silos shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority together with a
timescale indicating when the external colour finish to be applied will be
completed in the event that such works are to take place after the
erection of the silos. The external colour to be chosen shall, for the
avoidance of doubt, be a colour which has the effect of reducing the
visual impact of the silos. Thereafter the silos shall be painted in
accordance with the approved details and within the approved
timescale.
Development Committee
47
2 October 2014
Reason:
In order to reduce the visual appearance of the silos in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6)
Unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage
Board, rainwater run-off from the silos hereby permitted shall be in
accordance with the measures specified in the email from the applicant
to the Local Planning Authority dated 14 May 2014.
Reason:
To ensure that rainwater is appropriately disposed of in accordance with
Policies EN 10 and EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7)
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found
to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise
first agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried
out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the
Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination
shall be dealt with and has obtained written approval from the Local
Planning Authority for such a strategy. The remediation strategy shall
thereafter be implemented as approved.
Reason:
To ensure contamination is properly remediated in accordance with
Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(9)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/0882 - Erection of attached garage/store; Arandora,
Chapel Road, Thurgarton, Norwich, NR11 7NP for Mrs R Lambert
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/14/0821 - Erection of first floor front extension; 4 The Paddocks,
North Walsham Road, Bacton, Norwich, NR12 0LN for Mr G Lester
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0961 - Erection of low level retaining wall; The Old Rectory, 6
Wiveton Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NJ for Mr I Smedley
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0783 - Relaxation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 12/1162 to allow construction of dwelling without complying with
Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Bliss Blakeney, Morston Road,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7BG for Mr D Broch
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/14/0843 - Relaxation of Condition 5 of planning permission
reference: 13/1121 to permit erection of dwelling without complying with level 3
of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Land at Fakenham Road, Briston for
Morrissey Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
48
2 October 2014
BRISTON - PU/14/0968 - Prior notification of intention to convert agricultural
building to residential dwelling; Wayside, Craymere Beck Road, Briston for Mr S
Darlington
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0909 - Conversion of outbuilding to habitable
accommodation; Cley Hall, The Fairstead, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RJ for
Mrs C Maizels
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0910 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate
conversion to habitable accommodation; Cley Hall, The Fairstead,
Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RJ for Mrs C Maizels
(Listed Building Alterations)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/0876 - Conversion of outbuilding to
provide additional habitable accommodation to Barn C; Manor Farm Barns,
Norwich Road, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QD for Mr L Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/12/0532 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
design and layout of skate park.; Land at The Meadow, Meadow Way/Hall Road,
Cromer for Cromer Skate Park
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - LA/14/0978 - Removal of internal wall and installation of two roof
lights; 2 Chesterfield Villas, West Street, Cromer, NR27 9EW for Mr A Fraser
(Listed Building Alterations)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/0494 - Conversion of redundant barn to two residential
dwellings; Simms Cottage, Back Lane, East Ruston, Norwich, NR12 9FH for Mrs
J Leslie
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/14/0780 - Erection of one and a half storey side and rear
extensions; Willow Cottage, The Street, Erpingham, Norwich, NR11 7QB for Mr &
Mrs M Garwood
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0739 - Siting of storage container; Fakenham Community
Centre, Oak Street, Fakenham, NR21 9DY for Ladybirds Pre-school
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PO/14/0860 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings; 14
Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham, NR21 9HA for Mr A Jarvis
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - DP/14/1017 - Prior notification of intention to demolish disused
garage block; Rear of 77-81 Greenway Lane for Victory Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
FAKENHAM - DP/14/1018 - Prior notification of intention to demolish disused
garage block; Adjacent 4 & 6 Lancaster Close, Fakenham, NR21 8DW for Victory
Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
Development Committee
49
2 October 2014
FAKENHAM - DP/14/1019 - Prior notification of intention to demolish disused
garage block; Between 24 & 25 Kings Road, Fakenham, NR21 9HD for Victory
Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0849 - Erection of first floor side extension with external
staircase; Heathlands, 31 Barbers Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8LJ for Mr M Caesari
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0881 - Erection of replacement fire escape staircase; 16
Cattle Market Street, Fakenham, NR21 9AW for Mr J Whiteside
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0896 - Erection of 1.4 metre front boundary fence and
entrance gates; 45 Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8JN for Mr K Wisla
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0899 - Erection of detached garage; Briar Patch, 8
Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham, NR21 9HA for Mr J Burton
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0946 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 11/0702 to permit repositioning of windows and insertion of additional
windows and relaxation of condition 8 to enable dwelling to be constructed
without complying with Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; 85 Holt Road,
Fakenham, NR21 8DZ for Greengables Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - LA/14/0841 - Formation of openings in rear wall to facilitate
installation of condensing units; Felbrigg Hall, Felbrigg Park, Felbrigg, NR11 8PR
for National Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
FULMODESTON - PF/14/0495 - Retention of agricultural building; Land opposite
Primrose Cottage, 21 Croxton Road for Lady Walters
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0913 - Erection of front conservatory; Hill Farm, Sandpit
Lane, Gimingham, Norwich, NR11 8HH for Mr R Burford
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/14/0681 - Conversion of buildings to provide five units of
holiday accommodation and swimming pool; Hanworth Timber Co, White Post
Road, Hanworth, Norwich, NR11 7HN for Hanworth Timber Company Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0864 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 06/1573 to permit full residential occupation; Littlewoods Farm House,
Littlewood Farm, Grub Street, Happisburgh, Norwich, NR12 0QZ for Mr B Layt
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/14/0812 - Installation of garage doors; 5 Wood Farm Barns,
Broomsthorpe Road, Helhoughton, Fakenham, NR21 7BT for Mr D Baker
(Householder application)
Development Committee
50
2 October 2014
HEMPTON - PF/14/0729 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/1079 to permit revised scheme incorporating one fermenter.; Land
rear of Hempton Poultry Farm, Helhoughton Road, Hempton, FAKENHAM, NR21
7DY for Mr D Blyth
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - PF/14/0874 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 16 Green
Close, Hempton, Fakenham, NR21 7LL for Mr N Kirby
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/14/0803 - Erection of orangery extension; Park House, Main
Road, Holkham, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1RN for Mr D Milner
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - LA/14/0804 - Alterations to facilitate erection of orangery; Park
House, Main Road, Holkham, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1RN for Mr D Milner
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLKHAM - PF/14/0754 - Alterations to stables to provide revised museum, café
and shop, formation of ticket office, conversion of store to WC, redevelopment of
pottery building to provide events space and erection of cycle store/workshop;
Holkham Hall, Holkham Park, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AB for Holkham Hall
Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - LA/14/0755 - Alterations to stables, property office and pottery and
demolition of external toilet blocks; Holkham Hall, Holkham Park,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AB for Holkham Hall Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/14/0855 - Erection of single-storey front extension/conservatory; 18A
Kelling Road, Holt, NR25 6RT for Mr H Woodrow
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/14/0901 - Erection of first floor side extension; Thornwood, Thornage
Road, Holt, NR25 6ST for Mr S Smith
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/0890 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 6 Summer
Drive, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8DY for Mr & Mrs F Aldous
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/0731 - Erection of detached garage; 8 Osprey Close, Hoveton,
Norwich, NR12 8DR for Mr V Collison
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/0932 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 14/0587 to permit revised design and length of proposed extension;
Picton House, Church Road, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8UG for Mr C Jeckells
(Full Planning Permission)
INGWORTH - PF/14/0916 - Retention of balcony and external staircase; The
Cottage, The Street, Ingworth, Norwich, NR11 6AE for Mrs R Craddock
(Householder application)
Development Committee
51
2 October 2014
KNAPTON - PF/14/0836 - Change of use from annexe to separate residential
dwelling; Annexe to Knapton House, North Walsham Road, Knapton, North
Walsham, NR28 0RT for Mr L West
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/14/0880 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 13/1415 to permit construction of balcony; The Spinney, Mundesley
Road, Knapton, North Walsham, NR28 0RY for Mr I Healey
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/14/0827 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 8 Hares
Close, Little Snoring, Fakenham, NR21 0NZ for Mr N James
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/14/0922 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
replacement one and a half storey dwelling; Hill View, Norwich Road, Ludham,
Great Yarmouth, NR29 5PB for Mr C Julian
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - LA/14/0870 - Installation of five replacement side windows;
Cowper House, 33 High Street, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8LH for Mr F Wilks
(Listed Building Alterations)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0959 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Bay Tree
Cottage, 56 High Street, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8JL for Mr & Mrs Webster
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0927 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 14/0253 to permit revised design of southern entrance lobby; Paston
Sixth Form College, Grammar School Road, North Walsham, NR28 9JL for
Paston Sixth Form College
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/0928 - Erection of entrance lobby (revised design);
Paston Sixth Form College, Grammar School Road, North Walsham, NR28 9JL
for Paston Sixth Form College
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/0871 - Conversion and extension of stables and storage
buildings to provide residential dwelling; Stables and storage buildings at The
Old Rectory, Northrepps, Norfolk, NR27 0LH for Mr & Mrs M Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - LA/14/0875 - Alterations to stables and outbuilding to facilitate
conversion to residential dwelling; Stables and storage buildings at The Old
Rectory, Northrepps, Norfolk, NR27 0LN for Mr & Mrs M Gurney
(Listed Building Alterations)
OVERSTRAND - PF/14/0831 - Conversion of outbuildings to habitable
accommodation and erection of single-storey link extensions; 6 & 8 The Londs,
Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PW for Mr T Riches
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
52
2 October 2014
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0830 - Installation of air source heat pump to west elevation;
Long Barn, 6 Flaxmans Farm, Felbrigg Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8PA for
Mr & Mrs P Miles-Jones
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/14/0842 - Erection of construction compound (revised location);
Agricultural Land and Building Adjacent to Bridge Farm, Great Ryburgh for
Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - PF/14/0897 - Erection of single-storey/two-storey rear extension and
front porch; 55 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh, Fakenham, NR21 7AW for Mr
and Mrs R Abery
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/14/0811 - Change of use of Hanger 3 and Building 382 for police
training and storage purposes; Hanger 3 and Building 382, Former RAF
Coltishall, Badersfield, Scottow, NR10 5GB for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/14/0943 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 03/1618 to permit full residential occupation on Barn 2 only; Barn 2,
The Grange, Lynn Road, Sculthorpe, Fakenham, NR21 9LL for Professor J Mant
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/14/0833 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 03/1393 to permit full residential occupation; Elm Barn, Stalham Road,
Sea Palling, Norwich, NR12 0TT for Mrs N Armstrong
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0820 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference; 13/1293 to permit revised dimensions of first floor extension; 7A Holt
Road, Sheringham, NR26 8NA for Mr M Haywood
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PM/14/0850 - Erection of three one and a half storey dwellings;
Land rear of 15 Weybourne Road, Sheringham for Blaber Builders Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0949 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 4 of planning
permission reference: 14/0171 to permit revised roof finishes; New Wine Church
2, Holway Road, Sheringham, NR26 8RR for New Wine Church
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0644 - Erection of eleven dwellings; Land at Seaview
Crescent, Sheringham, NR26 8XT for Peart and Barrell Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0740 - Conversion of A1 (retail) shop and flat to two A1
(retail) shops and four flats; 10 Church Street, Sheringham, NR26 8QS for
Bertram A Watts
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
53
2 October 2014
SMALLBURGH - PF/14/0719 - Conversion and extension of barn to provide
residential dwelling; Chapel Farm Barn, Norwich Road, Smallburgh, Norwich,
NR12 9LU for Mr G Watson
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/14/0965 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
construction of pitched roof; St. Anns, Brumstead Road, Stalham, Norwich,
NR12 9DE for Mr & Mrs P Kerrison
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/14/0930 - Removal of condition 8 of planning permission
reference 10/1138 to delete requirement for the dwelling to meet level 2 of the
Code for Sustainable Construction; Dragon House, Letheringsett Road,
Thornage, Holt, NR25 7QD for Mr and Mrs Newton
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/0822 - Erection of two-storey rear extension with balcony to
north elevation; Cushion Cottage, Anchor Street, Tunstead, Norwich, NR12 8HW
for Mr & Mrs Muddel
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/0488 - Erection of timber car ports; 2A-2E Knight Street,
Walsingham, NR22 6DA for Ms T Hobbs
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/0746 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
insertion of side rooflights; 23 Wells Road, Walsingham, NR22 6DL for Mr P
Sterry
(Householder application)
WARHAM - PF/14/0904 - Erection of rear extension; 24 The Street, Warham,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1NH for The Trustees
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0926 - Erection of replacement shellfish dressing
room; 5 Whelk House, East End, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1LD for A & M Frary
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0938 - Change of use from A3 (restaurant)/C3
(residential) to C3 (restaurant) and C1 (bed and breakfast) and installation of
replacement gates; Corner House, Staithe Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AF
for Mr & Mrs C Tennant
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0939 - Internal and external alterations; Corner
House, Staithe Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AF for Mr & Mrs C Tennant
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0973 - Erection of side porch; 57 Waveney Close,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HU for Ms T Ingle
(Householder application)
Development Committee
54
2 October 2014
WEST BECKHAM - PF/14/0868 - Erection of timber storage shed and alterations
to existing vehicular access; The Old Rectory, Church Road, West Beckham,
Holt, NR25 6NX for Mr J Berry
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NP/14/1006 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
agricultural storage building.; Home Farm, Holt Road, Weybourne, Holt, NR25
7ST for Mr Middleton
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0872 - Erection of replacement single-storey side
extension and creation of pedestrian access; Hydrangea Cottage, Holt Road,
Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7ST for Mr Craske
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0885 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The Ship,
The Street, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7SZ for The Ship Inn
(Full Planning Permission)
WICKMERE - PF/14/0933 - Installation of replacement gates; 1 Park Farm Barns,
Wolterton Park, Wolterton, Norwich, NR11 7LX for Mrs P Seligman
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/14/0572 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Land
opposite Hill Farmhouse, Sandy Hills, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9LY for
Mr S Yarham
(Full Planning Permission)
(10) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0900 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 1 Harvey
Estate, Gimingham, Norwich, NR11 8HA for Mayes Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0935 - Erection of single-storey dwelling on site of former
piggery; Gimingham Hall Farm, Hall Road, Gimingham, NR11 8EZ for Mr & Mrs N
Rose
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/13/0892 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Barn
adjacent Home Farm, The Street, Helhoughton, Fakenham, NR21 7BL for MrJ
Townshend
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/14/0547 - Raising of roof and installation of front dormer windows
to provide second floor habitable accommodation; The Gallery 43 Lower Street,
Horning, Norwich, NR12 8AA for Mrs W Timewell
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0728 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling and
detached garage; Rear of 3 Benets Avenue, North Walsham, Norfolk for Mr G
Sexton
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
55
2 October 2014
APPEALS SECTION
(11) NEW APPEALS
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0159 - Erection of four semi-detached two-storey
dwellings; 12 Astley Terrace, Melton Constable, NR24 2BS for Melbobby Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0158 - Erection of two detached two-storey
dwellings; 14 Melton Street, Melton Constable, NR24 2DB for Melbobby Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(12) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
HICKLING - PO/14/0250 - Erection of detached farm manager's dwelling; Land at
Poplar Farm, Sutton Road, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0AS for Norman Farming
Partnership
INFORMAL HEARING 09 October 2014
(13) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one
two-storey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills, Cromer,
NR27 9LW for PP3
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SA for Mr R Banester
(14) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
None
(15) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
None
(16)
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.
OVERSTRAND - PM/14/0854 - Erection of ten dwellings; land at Hillingdon Park
for A G Brown Ltd
Development Committee
56
2 October 2014
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
BRISTON - PF/14/0992- Erection of twelve shared ownership dwellings and
garages; Holly House, The Lane for Options for Homes Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Committee
57
2 October 2014