OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 3 MAY 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0247 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; 39
Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 26 April 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090468 PO - Erection of four dwellings
Approved 27/08/2009
PF/11/1348 PF - Erection of three one and a half-storey dwellings
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/11/2011
PF/11/1378 PF - Erection of detached dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/11/2011
PF/11/1492 PF - Erection of two two-storey dwellings with cartsheds
Approved 22/02/2012
THE APPLICATION
Following the granting of outline planning permission for four dwellings to the rear of
37, 39 and 41 Sculthorpe Road the current application seeks full planning permission
for a dwelling on Plot 2 to the rear of No 39.
The scheme as envisaged would involve the erection of a three bed detached one
and half storey “L” shaped dwelling, which would have a total floor area of 146 sq
metres. The dwelling would be of a mix of brickwork and render to the front elevation
and red brick to the other elevations. The upper floor would be served by a mix of
dormer windows and rooflights and the roof would be of clay pantiles. Attached to the
eastern gable end would be a lean to car port having oak supporting posts and a clay
pantile roof, whilst to the front elevation would be an enclosed porch.
Access to the site off Sculthorpe Road would be via a new driveway between Nos. 37
and 39, with a parking and turning area to its frontage.
Development Committee
1
3 May 2012
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The Ward Members live opposite the site and have declared an interest in the
application; consideration of the representations under delegated powers is therefore
inappropriate.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. This application should be considered as part of the wider proposed development
to which outline permission 09/0468 relates and which refers to the size of the
individual dwellings within the development, which were smaller than now being
proposed.
2. As originally proposed the dwelling to Plot 2 was to be a 2 bedroom dwelling of
less than 70sq m in order to conform to Core Strategy Policy.
3. The footprint of the dwelling is significantly larger than originally proposed for Plot
2 by some 45%.
4. The application is for a 3 bedroom house of one and half storey as opposed to
that at outline of a 2 bedroom single storey dwelling.
5. The implied increase in number of occupants has implications for traffic and
services, both of which will be stressed with the advent of the whole
development.
6. Possible flooding and drainage issues.
7. The submitted drawings are not in accordance with the Planning Portal guidance
notes.
8. The drawing contain no measurements and are shoddy and at variance with
themselves.
9. The original outline planning permission for Plot 2 was for a 70 sqm 2 bedroom
property or less.
10. Increase traffic movement will increase congestion in the vicinity of the site.
11. There are already problems of traffic parking on Sculthorpe Road, the paths are
too narrow and the road is used as a rat run for cars and HGV‟s.
12. The bat survey is inadequate.
13. The road going to the site is very narrow with no pedestrian pavement for a
mother with pushchairs and nothing for disabled with wheelchairs.
14. The new proposals exemplify planning creep.
15. The increased building area would further reduce valued gardens and wildlife.
One letter of support has been received which make the following comments
(summarised):
1. As a neighbour directly affected by the proposal we consider that this dwelling will
fit in nicely with the other proposed houses in this development. It has been
designed with care so as not to overlook our property or any others.
2. The improvements to the pavement and frontage of Nos. 37 and 39 will also
improve the appearance of the area and will be an advantage to pedestrians.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control - No objection.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Development Committee
2
3 May 2012
Environment Agency – No response
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (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 EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
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. Suitability of design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Impact on trees within the site.
5. Drainage.
6. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The principle of development has already been established with the granting of
outline planning permission 20090468, for four dwellings to the rear of Nos.37, 39
and 41 Sculthorpe Road when all matters were reserved for later consideration; the
reserved matters in respect of Plots 3 & 4 were approved in February 2012.
In respect of the concerns raised regarding the size of the dwelling and compliance
with Core Strategy Policy (HO1), the applicant has indicated that it is his intention to
provide a smaller unit on Plot 1 as required by the Policy; this will be the subject of a
future application.
Development Committee
3
3 May 2012
The current application also needs to be considered against Core Strategy Policies
EN4, CT5 and CT6. Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Development proposals will be expected to
have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide in terms of their design, scale and
massing and relate sympathetically to the surrounding area, incorporate sustainable
construction principles and make efficient use of land while respecting the density,
character, landscape and biodiversity of the surrounding area. In addition proposals
should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby
occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity. Policies
CT 5 and CT6 require that the proposal is capable of being served by safe access to
the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality and
that there are adequate vehicle parking facilities to serve the needs of the
development in accordance with the Council's parking standards.
This part of Fakenham consist of an eclectic mix of dwellings of different architectural
periods, styles and scale, with Nos. 35 & 37 Sculthorpe Road being two and half
storey dwellings dating from the late Georgian period, whilst Nos. 39 & 41 are more
modest two storey dwellings. Similarly, further to the west are bungalows, whilst to
the north side of Sculthorpe Road is a mix of bungalows and two storey dwellings. In
Sandy Lane to the west, there is a mix of two storey dwellings dating from the mid
20th Century and to the south in Hayes Lane 19th Century cottages. It is therefore
considered that given the mix of architectural styles and enclosed nature of the site
that the dwelling as proposed, which would have an eaves height of 4 metres and an
overall ridge height of 7.5 metres would be compatible with the area both in terms of
its scale, massing and overall appearance, whilst the choice of a traditional red facing
bricks, render and clay pantiles would also be appropriate. It is also considered that
although part of the rear garden area would be reduced in length owing to trees
protected as part of the Tree Preservation Order, the property would have an
adequate rear garden which would range in length from 10 to 15 metres.
In terms of the relationship with neighbouring properties, the nearest dwellings would
be Nos. 37 and 39 Sculthorpe Road, which are either side of the access driveway.
The rear boundary of No. 39 would be some 21 metres from the proposed dwelling,
whilst the separation distance between both properties would be in the region of 42
metres. Given the separation distances involved it is not considered that there would
be any significant amenity issues. Similarly, given the separation distances involved,
planting within the site and the orientation of the proposed dwellings it not considered
that there would be significant loss of amenities to properties in Hayes Lane, whilst
views towards Nos.35 Sculthorpe Road would be so oblique as not to be an issue.
As far as the impact of the development on trees within the site is concerned, those
trees which are indicated to be retained are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order
and an Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted which details tree
protection measures during the course of construction. In respect of other planting
within the site the Council‟s Landscape Officer has granted consent for the removal
of a conifer, some fruit trees and laurel. In addition he has confirmed that the
measures identified in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment are appropriate to
ensure the protection of the remaining trees.
In terms of the drainage arrangements the foul sewage disposal would be via the
main sewer in Sculthorpe Road.
As far as the access is concerned, the Highway Authority has indicated that, subject
to the introduction of the visibility splays to either side of the access onto Sculthorpe
Road, as indicated on the submitted drawing, it has no objection to the proposal. In
respect of the car parking and turning area this would comply with the Council's
adopted parking standards.
Development Committee
4
3 May 2012
In conclusion, it is considered that the layout, design and appearance of the
development is acceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the amenities
of neighbouring properties. Furthermore the position of the dwelling and access
driveway would not adversely affect the protected trees on the site whilst the access
and parking arrangement are acceptable. As such therefore the scheme accords with
adopted Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
2.
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0301 - Erection of cart shed (revised design incorporating
side extension); 41 Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 May 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090468 PO - Erection of four dwellings
Approved 27/08/2009
PF/11/1348 PF - Erection of three one and a half-storey dwellings
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/11/2011
PF/11/1378 PF - Erection of detached dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/11/2011
PF/11/1492 PF - Erection of two two-storey dwellings with cart sheds
Approved 22/02/2012
THE APPLICATION
Following the granting full planning permission for the erection of two two-storey
dwellings with cart sheds to the rear of 39 and 41 Sculthorpe Road the current
application seeks the erection of a side extension to the double cart shed approved in
respect of the dwelling on Plot 4.
The scheme as envisaged would involve the erection of a further bay to the western
end of the cart shed giving a total floor area of 45 square metres. As with the rest of
the cart shed the extension would be of horizontal Hardiplank boarding on a red brick
plinth under a clay pantile roof. As a feature it is intended to introduce a small clock
tower and weather vane centrally on the ridge of the roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The Ward Members live opposite the site and have declared an interest in the
application; consideration of the representations under delegated powers is therefore
inappropriate.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
Development Committee
5
3 May 2012
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. This application is being made in a piecemeal manner which does not allow
proper assessments of the impact of this proposed extension on-site parking,
turning circles etc.
2. The proposal will increase traffic from the development.
One letter of support has been received which make the following comments
(summarised):
1. As co-owner of No.39 we have no problems whatsoever to the revised design,
which, in fact, adds to our privacy and that of No.41, and gives additional parking
facilities to the new home.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 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
1. Principle of development.
2. Suitability of design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Impact on trees within the site.
5. Parking and Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The principle of development of the site has already been established with approval
of reserved matters in respect of Plots 3 & 4 in February 2012, which included a two
bay cart shed on Plot 4.
The current application therefore needs to be considered against adopted Core
Strategy Policies EN4 and CT6. Policy EN4 requires that all development be
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Development proposals
will be expected to have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide in terms of their
design, scale and massing and relate sympathetically to the surrounding area. In
addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential
amenity. Policy CT6 requires that the proposal is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the
locality and that there is adequate vehicle parking facilities to serve the needs of the
development in accordance with the Council's parking standards.
Development Committee
6
3 May 2012
As approved the two bay cart shed would abut the northern boundary of Plot 4
forming part of the boundary with No.41 Sculthorpe Road, with the two sets of side
hung double doors to the southern elevation facing the new dwelling. The scheme as
proposed would involve the erection of a further bay to the western end of the cart
shed so as to provide a further parking bay.
It is considered that extension of the cart shed in the manner proposed is acceptable
in principle and that its design would be in keeping with the rest of the development.
Furthermore, extending the ridge line in a westerly direction by a further 3.7 metres
would improve the privacy of No.41 Sculthorpe Road from the development. The
extension would have no impact on any other properties in the vicinity of the site.
As far as the impact of the extension on trees within the site is concerned, those
trees which are indicated to be retained are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order
and, subject to the implementation of tree protection measures during the course of
construction, it is not considered that the trees would be adversely affected.
In respect of the car parking and turning area this would comply with the parking
standards contained in the Core Strategy, in that it would retain parking provision for
at least three vehicles and also there would be adequate turning area within the site
to allow vehicles to exit the site in a forward gear. In addition the extension would
have no impact on the site access or increase the number of vehicles served by the
property.
As far as concerns raised by local residents that the development is being undertaken in a
piecemeal manner, it is open to a developer to apply for whatever permissions he or she sees
fit and the Council has an obligation to determine them in accordance with its adopted
planning policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.
In conclusion, it is considered that the layout, design and appearance of the
extension are acceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of
neighbouring properties. Furthermore the extension would not adversely affect the
protected trees on the site whilst the parking and turning arrangement are
acceptable. As such therefore the scheme accords with adopted Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0091 - Variation of Condition 6 of permission
reference: 03/2055 to permit permanent residential occupation; 1 & 5 Wood
Farm Barns, Broomsthorpe Road for Mr J Nunn
Minor Development
- Target Date: 22 March 2012
Case Officer: Mrs T Armitage
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
Development Committee
7
3 May 2012
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20032055 PF - Conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to five units of
holiday accommodation
Approved 18/08/2004
PLA/20061299 PF
Removal of condition 6 of planning permission reference 20032055 to allow the five
holiday units to be used as permanent dwellings
Refused 13/10/2006, Appeal Dismissed 24/05/2007
THE APPLICATION
Planning permission was granted in 2004 for the conversion of this group of barns
within the grounds of Wood Farm House, a Grade II Listed Building into five units of
holiday accommodation. Condition 6 of that permission restricts the occupancy of all
five units to holiday use, allowing for both the letting of the accommodation as selfcatering tourist accommodation and /or the use of the units as holiday homes. The
application seeks the variation of condition 6 to allow occupation of barns 1 and 5 on
a permanent residential basis. The remaining three units are not subject to this
application and are now understood to be in separate ownerships.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning policy
issues involved.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application
CONSULTATIONS
County Highway Authority - No objection.
Strategic Housing - The marketing of the barns at a Guide Price of £520,000 has not
reflected the changing market conditions since marketing began and whilst the
market has fallen, a lower guide price may have stimulated more interest in the
barns. The financial contribution of £50 000 represents the public subsidy required to
provide an affordable dwelling in the Helhoughton locality. The applicant has offered
£30,000 as a contribution in lieu of affordable housing and points to the losses that
are being made on the current holiday use of the dwellings as a reason for why the
full contribution cannot be paid.
Environmental Health - On the basis of the information received no immediate
concerns regarding contamination and the site is deemed suitable for its proposed
use
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.
Development Committee
8
3 May 2012
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008, updated February 2011):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to
be attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Compliance of the proposal with Policy HO9 - regarding in particular buildings of
heritage value and scheme viability.
APPRAISAL
Wood Farm Barns are located in the Countryside policy area and were converted to
holiday accommodation prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2008, the
proposal for holiday use being in accordance with former Local Plan Policy 29 which
sought to promote commercial uses supportive of the rural economy.
In 2006, following the completion of the conversion of Wood Farm barns, a planning
application was submitted seeking the removal of the holiday occupancy condition on
all five units, to allow permanent residential occupation. At that time Local Plan
Policies 5 and 29 sought to restrain development in the countryside and direct new
residential development to specific and sustainable locations, with which this group of
barns did not comply. Consequently planning permission was refused and a
subsequent appeal was dismissed.
Since the previous refusal and dismissal at appeal, the Core Strategy has been
adopted together with a new policy in relation to the conversion of buildings in the
countryside. The adopted policy in relation to the conversion of rural buildings to
dwellings (H09) is intended to secure two objectives, firstly, it allows the conversion
of rural buildings to dwellings in the more sustainable countryside locations in the
District (identified on the adopted Proposal Map). Secondly it helps secure the future
of traditional rural buildings that positively contribute to the local distinctiveness of
North Norfolk. The policy achieves this by limiting residential conversion to locations
closely related to day to day services and outside these locations only allowing the
conversion of high quality buildings (listed or meeting local listing criteria) to
residential use, following prior consideration of economic uses which might equally
secure their long term retention.
Whilst the policy is clearly directed at those buildings which have not been converted,
the supporting text to the policy (para. 3.2.25), specifically refers to buildings that
have already been converted and indicates that applications for the removal of
occupancy conditions may be considered favourably where they are located in the
Policy HO9 designated areas but is silent on the approach to be taken in other areas
of the District.
This application therefore raises the question as to whether in relation to high quality
heritage buildings that have already been converted to holiday use, the occupancy
restriction should also be varied if that use is shown not to be viable in the long term.
In effect, should the same approach be taken to converted and unconverted high
quality buildings?
Development Committee
9
3 May 2012
In summary the case made on behalf of the applicant is:
1. The buildings are suitable for full time residential use having been converted to a
very high standard suitable for full time, year round occupancy.
2. The current use of the buildings as holiday accommodation is not financially
viable.
3. Permanent residential use will secure the future of the barns and the historic
setting of the farm house
4. The proposal is capable of meeting policy requirements in relation to contributing
towards affordable housing
5. New dwellings in this location would contribute toward the Council‟s housing
targets
With reference to the applicant‟s case the following comments are made:
1)The suitability of these building for occupation on a permanent residential basis is
not disputed. The Inspector in considering the previous appeal made such
observations and commented that the removal of the condition would have no
significant impact on the character or appearance of the countryside.
2) The applicant has contended that the marketing of the buildings as holiday
accommodation/ holiday homes has been unsuccessful and therefore a holiday use
has been shown not to be viable.
Since July 2008 the barns have been offered for sale on the open market. Despite
extensive marketing and a reduction in guide price by just over 10% neither barn 1 or
5 has sold. In addition the barns have been marketed as holiday lets since
September 2009 by Norfolk Country Cottages both in their brochure and on their web
site. Accounts for the year ending 31 March 2011 indicate an operating loss of
£29,773. The agent has advised that the level of interest for unit 5 (The Swallows) is
relatively high, although less so for unit 1 (Bat Roost) and that even when the units
are enjoying a relatively good take-up, the holiday let business is still not viable The
extent to which the applicant has sought to improve occupancy levels through
reviewing marketing and the facilities available at the accommodation is not clear, but
the accounts indicate that costs associated with administration and financing of
borrowing are substantial and are not being met by income.
It may be the case that a purchaser for the buildings could be found if the asking
price were reduced further but if this were to be required the applicant would fail to
recover the investment already made. Financial risk is an inherent part of the
development industry and the onus is on developers to consider viability prior to
committing to investment. Financial return on property investment is not guaranteed
and clearly has been subject to a falling / stagnant market conditions over recent
years.
Nevertheless, under Policy HO9 when considering unconverted buildings of
significant heritage value, identifying the optimum viable use is key in the
consideration of whether residential is the best use to secure their long term future. If
this group had not already been converted, and this consideration of viability was
taking place now, in the context of current market conditions, it is highly likely that the
viability of a holiday use would be in question and that a residential use would be
Development Committee
10
3 May 2012
seen as being best in terms of securing the long term future of the buildings. In this
context it would appear unreasonable not to consider the matter of viability at this
stage, particularly if it accepted that reasonable efforts have been made to market
the development for the authorised holiday use.
4) Where it is viable, Policy HO9 requires on schemes resulting in the creation of two
or more dwellings, for 50% of the units to be affordable. In relation to this site the
Strategic Housing Team Leader has advised that rather than on site provision, a
commuted sum of a level to provide one affordable home elsewhere in this part of the
District should be sought – this equates to £50,000. The applicant has submitted
financial information to demonstrate that this level is not viable as he is making a loss
on the holiday use of the barns but he has offered a sum of £30,000. Under the
circumstances this is considered to be appropriate and this payment would be
secured through a S106 Obligation. This payment would assist the Council in
bringing forward affordable housing elsewhere in the District.
5) The lifting of a holiday occupancy condition to allow for permanent residential use
has the effect of contributing to the housing completion figures and this District‟s 5
year land supply.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework are now material
considerations which local planning authorities should take into account in relation to
decision making. Previous Government policy in both PPS7 and PPS4, stated that
the „re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic purposes will usually be
preferable, but that residential conversions may be more appropriate in some
locations and for some types of building‟ . This national advice, along with the
strategic objectives of the Core Strategy informed the formulation of Policy HO9 and
Policy EC2. The NPPF now replaces PPS4 and contains no specific section setting
out a policy approach to rural buildings. There are however a number of references
throughout the NPPF that are relevant to the consideration of this policy area, in
particular:
3 Supporting a prosperous rural economy
28
 Planning policies should support economic growth in rural area in order to create jobs and
prosperity - support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and
enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed
new buildings
 Support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in
rural areas, communities and visitors
6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
55
 To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it
will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are
groups of smaller settlements , development in one village may support services in a
village nearby
 LPA should avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special
circumstances – where development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and
lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.
Development Committee
11
3 May 2012
Policy HO9 has been consequently identified as a policy area where there may be
some degree of conflict with the NPPF. This matter was reported to the Planning
Policy and Built Heritage Party on the 23 April 2012 when it was agreed that further
consideration be given to this matter but that in the interim full weight should be
attached to adopted Development Plan policy.
CONCLUSION
Given the evidence in relation to scheme viability and marketing, the fact that these
buildings pass the heritage value test required by Policy HO9 and that they contribute
toward affordable housing, it is considered that this application can be supported and
would not conflict significantly with adopted Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Delegated approval subject to the completion of a S106 Obligation securing a
commuted sum of £30,000 towards the provision of affordable housing.
4.
HOLT - PF/12/0123 - Change of use from B1 (offices) to C3 (residential); Nelson
House, 2 White Lion Street for Mr J B Shrive
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 March 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070977 PF - Change of use of first and second floors from B1 (offices) to
residential flat
Approved 13/08/2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use of the whole premises, which are currently used as offices in
association with an Estate and Land Agent business (Use Class B1) to a residential
dwelling (Use Class C1).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the requested on Councillor High in respect of the following planning issues:
Securing the future of a Grade II Listed Building within the Conservation Area, in
relation to the loss of commercial premises.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
Following a request by Officers for further information on the extent of marketing of
the premises and market valuations a letter has been received from the applicant
who states that the property has been the subject of long period of marketing and
extensive advertising. Furthermore the majority of advertisements did not mention a
Development Committee
12
3 May 2012
guide price as during the recent period of recession guide prices are of little
consequence. The letter also points to the fact that since the adoption of the Core
Strategy in 2008 the economy and property market both residentially and
commercially have deteriorated dramatically and town centres nationally are
reflecting the changed circumstances. The letter also suggests that the recently
adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) now enables local authorities
to make it as easy as possible to convert offices into homes as policies should be
flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, and to allow a
rapid response to changes in economic circumstances. In addition in respect of
heritage assets these should be put into viable uses consistent with their
conservation.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection to a change of use to a single residential
dwelling.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection to a change of use to a single residential dwelling.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No response
Environmental Health – Raises concerns in respect of potential nuisance that could
be experienced by any future residents of the site, given the close proximity of
adjacent businesses.
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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
13
3 May 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the Listed Building and setting of the Conservation Area.
3. Parking and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located with the Town Centre of Holt, a Principal Settlement as defined by
adopted Core Strategy and is also within the Primary Shopping Area and
Conservation Area, whilst the building itself is listed Grade II. Core Strategy Policies
SS5, EN8 and CT6 are considered to be relevant in this case.
Policy SS5 states that within town centres a broad range of shopping, commercial,
cultural and other uses will be supported. Residential proposals will be permitted
where they do not result in the loss of shops or other main town centre uses
including, retail, leisure, entertainment, offices, arts, culture and tourism which are
located within a defined Primary Shopping Area. In addition proposals should also
have regard to the integration of public transport in town centres and seek to provide
pedestrian friendly environments.
Policy EN8 requires that development proposals including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated asset, in
this case the Grade II Listed Building and wider Holt Conservation Area.
Policy CT6 requires the provision of adequate car parking in accordance with the
Council‟s Parking Standards.
In terms of the adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Annex 1 states
that the policies in Local Plans should not be considered out-of-date simply because
they were adopted prior to the publication of the framework. Furthermore for a period
12 months from the day of publication, decision makers may continue to give full
weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited conflict with
this Framework. In terms of ensuring the vitality of town centres the NPPF states that
the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas be defined based on clear
definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres and set policies
that make clear which uses will be permitted in such location. Whilst the NPPF
recognises that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the
vitality of centres the Framework also states that it is important that the needs for
retail, leisure, office and other main town centre users are met in full and are not
compromised by limited site availability.
The justification put forward for the change of use of the building is that, whilst
consideration has been given to retaining offices on the ground floor, due to the state
of the economy this is not practicable. Furthermore it is important to maintain the
integrity of the building as a whole, which would be maintained by its return to a
private residence. Notwithstanding this justification, although the property was
formerly in residential use the site is now located within the Primary Shopping Area
for Holt where there would be an objection in principle to the change of use of the
ground floor back to a residential use. Furthermore, Holt is a vibrant town centre with
very few, if any, vacant commercial premises and is an important retail centre within
the District, for both residents and tourists alike. As such it is considered important
that the vitality of the town centre and the primary shopping area is not unduly
compromised with the loss of what is limited site availability for retail and office uses.
Development Committee
14
3 May 2012
No physical alterations to the building are proposed as part of this application. The
current proposal would not in itself have any impact on the character or appearance
of the Listed Building and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that due to the relatively restricted layout and simple plan form he would
have no objection to the conversion of the premises to a single dwelling.
In respect of car parking the standards contained in the Core Strategy would require
a minimum of three car parking spaces for a four bedroom property. Whilst the
written justification submitted with the application identifies the fact that parking
facilities are currently available by way of 4 parking spaces rented from the Parochial
Church Council clearly these would not fulfil the requirements of the Core Strategy as
they would not be available in perpetuity. However the Core Strategy makes
provision within Conservation Area for a reduction in the parking requirements for
residential properties where there are acceptable levels of public transport.
Moreover, the existing use would generate a higher parking requirement than the
proposed use under the Council's standards. As pointed out in the submission, there
is public parking in the vicinity of the site and Holt is well served by public transport.
Furthermore the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. As such
it is not considered that the lack of car parking would justify refusal of the application.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed change of use would fail to accord
with Development Plan policy and this decision would not conflict with the National
Planning Policy Framework.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the grounds that the site is located within the Primary Shopping
Area for Holt wherein Policy SS5 would not allow a change of use from B1
(offices) to C1 (residential).
5.
LANGHAM - PF/12/0181 - Conversion and extension of barns to provide hotel
with swimming pool, restaurant and bar facilities, conversion of barn to four
residential dwellings and erection of five holiday dwellings; Land at Glass
Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 11 May 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19791606 PF - Glass manufacture
Approved 11/12/1979
PLA/19801288 HR - Proposed glass workshop, shop, office, restaurant exhibition
gallery and car park
Approved 07/10/1980
Development Committee
15
3 May 2012
PLA/20060014 PF - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel and
village shop and erection of twenty-eight holiday cottages
Withdrawn 09/03/2006
PLA/20060770 PF - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel and
village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages
Approved 09/12/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to convert a Grade II listed barn adjacent to North Street to four residential
dwellings (2 x 3-bed and 2 x 4-bed). The conversion would comprise, amongst other
things, a limited number of new openings on the primary elevation facing North Street
but a number of new window openings on the rear (east elevation). A single-storey
extension at the northern end is proposed (broadly in the location of a previous
structure). The internal space within the barn would be subdivided and a floor added
in order to facilitate conversion to four properties.
The application also seeks to erect a terrace of five new-build holiday cottages at the
rear of the site comprising 1 x 2-bed, 2 x 3-bed and 2 x 4-bed units. The building
would have a typical height to eaves of 5m and a height to ridge of 9m. The building
would have a “barn like” appearance and would be clad in brick and flint (timber
boarding to single-storey lean-to) under a clay tile roof. Windows and doors would be
of hardwood timber with metal rainwater goods.
The application also seeks to convert and extend buildings on site to form a 28-bed
hotel set over a site area of approximately 1,700sqm comprising ground floor
reception, bar and dining area, pool, sauna and steam room, gym and 2 no,
treatment rooms and first floor restaurant/function suite and library/lounge, office and
staff room. The proposed extensions would comprise a double-range bedroom block
with a height to eaves of 5.2m and a height to ridge of 8.6m. This would be
constructed of brick and flint under a reclaimed clay tile roof. A two-storey extension
to provide the dining/function space would also be of brick and flint under a reclaimed
clay tile roof with a height to eaves of 5.3m and a height to ridge of 8m. A singlestorey flat-roof extension is proposed to provide kitchens and pool. The applicant has
indicated that this would be a “green roof” with the kitchen walls clad in timber
boarding and the pool being predominantly glazing.
103 car parking spaces are proposed on site to cater for the 28-bed hotel and 5
holiday units (plus 16 holiday cottages and village shop previously approved under
planning ref: 2006/0770). The four proposed residential properties would have at
least one vehicle parking space per unit.
A copy of the applicant‟s supporting statement (minus the Confidential Financial
Summary) is attached at Appendix 1.
An application for Listed Building consent is also on this agenda (LA/12/0182).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
No outright objection or support for this new application. However the Parish Council
does have some serious concerns as to some aspects of the application.
Development Committee
16
3 May 2012
1. That the previous requirement as given in the original approval for the site redevelopment, for a 20 mph speed limit and the accompanying signage on North
Street, must be retained.
This is a most important safety issue as did NNC Highways who agreed with our
concerns, due to the increase in traffic that will occur in North Street, caused by
the construction of the site, the eventual visitors and deliveries to the Hotel,
properties and shop. We cannot understand why Avada would want to make
such a change as it is as much for the benefit of the eventual users of the
development as for the protection of those currently using North Street,
particularly in regard to those going to and from the School who park right up to
and beyond the Old Glassworks creating a very congested carriageway. This has
recently been exacerbated by completion of 4 dwellings whose entry is directly
opposite that of the Glassworks. Over recent years this high traffic concentration
has caused many minor and some more accidents, which is why we asked for
and got a 20mph restriction so creating a safer environment for all. It‟s removal
could create conditions where a serious accident could occur, and we do not
want that to happen.
2. Following on from item1. We cannot agree with a reduction of the on-site parking
capacity, as it will inevitably lead to parking on North Street, something as we‟re
sure you‟ll agree will just make a congested situation even worse.
The original application had 115 parking places, though below the NNDC‟s
requirement of 130. The new application has just 103 spaces, yet the bedroom
capacity, indicating a total site capacity has increased by 11 double rooms.
Surely therefore the parking capacity should be 115 plus 50% of the increase in
bedroom capacity ie121 spaces.
3. Again with our concerns as highlighted in 1 above, could a condition be attached
to any approval (should that be granted) restricting the parking of any vehicle
connected to the re-development of the site, to on-site only and not on the
highway. There is considerable space within the site, and with a little careful
planning this requirement could be easily accommodated.
4. That the roadside barns should not be „Residential‟ as the very reasoning behind
approval was that of the properties being for Holiday accommodation and not be
main residences. Should there not be a requirement for ‟Affordable Housing‟ on
the site within current requirements for development within Langham, in relation
to these „new‟ barn conversions.
5. Finally we would highlight the problems of the residents of the new development
virtually opposite the entry of the Old Glassworks site. They find difficulty in
exiting their site due to the parking as detailed in 1 above, and believe that will
significantly increase with the Glassworks site re-development. Could some
curbing or similar hard surface construction be built at Avada expense, to
safeguard this developments exit and thereby give a vision splay to improve
safety.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters have been received, three commenting, two objecting and one in support.
Summary of comments only:
1. Pleased to confirm that the existing planning consent for 23 dwellings (reduced to
16) would remain in place as “holiday consents” together with the five “new build”
barn;
Development Committee
17
3 May 2012
2. Remain concerned about sewer and road capacity now burdened with extra
development proposed and in view of recently completed development opposite;
3. Please can you review the sewage capacity with Anglian Water [Consultation has
been sent];
4. A mini roundabout should be provided at the crossroads junction;
5. Has a bat survey been conducted and the results submitted;
Summary of objections
1. The application is not in the best interest of the village;
2. A high density housing estate plus additional hotel bedrooms would place
demands on the sewers that they can‟t possibly cope with and they cant cope
now;
3. Two incidents in the last few months have seen foul sewage flowing down Hollow
Lane and are serious health and environmental issues as well as a threat to
property and Anglian Water have still to complete the necessary remedial action.
Similar incidents have been happening for the last 14 years;
4. This development is a step too far;
5. Concerned about impact of Block E on residential property to the north
(overlooking);
6. The proposal is over development;
7. The area is already congested because of the school;
8. The site entrance is of insufficient width to cope with the volume of traffic
expected at this site and would pose a danger to pedestrians;
9. Visitors to the hotel and shop will inevitably park on North Street
Summary of comments in support
1. The development will be of benefit to the village;
2. It will bring much needed economic activity to the area;
3. The developer should be applauded for sticking with the venture despite the
constant delays and dramatic change in the economic situation since the
development was first proposed;
4. To find that Avada are still willing to invest £6 million in the District should not be
sniffed at.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage - No objections raised; make detailed design comments.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions and to minor design changes being sought.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions. Previous bat mitigation strategy still applies.
Anglian Water - Comments awaited.
Strategic Housing - Comments awaited.
Development Committee
18
3 May 2012
Planning Legal Manager - Comments awaited in respect of proposed amendments to
Section 106 Agreement.
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 SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
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 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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 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).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential
approach for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
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. Background and principle of development
2. Economic development issues
3. Affordable housing contributions
Development Committee
19
3 May 2012
4. Highway safety
5. Parking
6. Impact on Listed Buildings
7. Impact on Conservation Area and design
8. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
9. Flood risk/contamination
10. Sustainable construction
11. Protected species
12. Landscape
13. Foul sewage
APPRAISAL
The Committee recently visited the site.
Background
In considering this application and the related application for Listed Building consent
(LA/12/0182) the Committee needs to be mindful of the planning history of the site
which is a material consideration in the determination of the applications. In particular
the attention of the Committee is drawn to application reference PF/06/0770 for
“conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel and village shop and erection
of twenty-three holiday cottages” which were approved on 09 December 2008. The
decision to approve hinged on the “enabling development” argument put forward by
the applicant, a view which was supported by Council-appointed consultants. The
applications were considered by Committee on several occasions and were subject
of a subsequently withdrawn legal challenge in the High Court mounted by the
owners of a property in North Street, Langham. The permission was subject to an
Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In 2011 the applicant discharged relevant planning conditions attached to the
permission and listed building consent and a start was duly made on the proposal
within the prescribed time limit. As such, it is a matter of fact that they have been
implemented and could be completed in accordance with the approved plans/details
should the applicant or any successor in title choose to do so.
The current proposal has three distinct elements relating to:



Conversion of a grade II listed building into four residential properties;
Conversion and extension of existing buildings to create 28-bed hotel; and
Erection of a block of five new-build holiday cottages.
The proposal also includes variations to the parking layout and associated hard and
soft landscaping scheme.
Excluded from the current application are proposals to build 16 holiday cottages,
conversion of a building to provide a village shop and provision of a planted amenity
area, all of which are able to be constructed under the extant permission.
Principle
The application site is located in the Countryside policy area where Policy SS 2
would permit, amongst other things, proposals relating to the preservation of listed
buildings, the re-use and adaptation of buildings for appropriate purposes,
community services and facilities meeting a proven local need and proposals relating
to recreation and tourism.
Development Committee
20
3 May 2012
Whilst the application for consideration does not include all of the aspects as
proposed in the approved 2006 schemes there are nonetheless elements of the
proposal, in particular the proposed five new-build holiday properties, which would
not comply with Development Plan policy. This said, the approved schemes have
been implemented and this is considered to be a material consideration of significant
weight which would tip the balance in favour of approving the five new holiday
cottages in this location. Furthermore, the proposed five holiday cottages would
primarily be serviced and operated as an extension to the proposed hotel and could
therefore be considered in the context of serviced accommodation. This proposal
would result in the overall number of holiday cottages being reduced from 23 to 21.
There would however, be a further 4 permanent dwellings with the conversion of the
frontage building.
In respect of the conversion of the Grade II listed building fronting North Street into
four residential properties, subject to compliance with Policy HO 9 and other relevant
policies there would be no substantive objection to this element of the proposal
Economic Development
In considering the previous applications on this site, a material planning
consideration has been the development viability of the proposal. In this regard the
previous application proposed 23 new-build holiday properties to “enable” the
construction of the hotel development. The enabling argument was scrutinised by
appointed consultants who, at that time, considered that 15 new-build holiday units
was the break-even point to make the scheme viable but that the 23 units proposed
by the applicant were not unreasonable given the risk and effort in involved in
developing the site and it would be unlikely that any developer would take on the
project without some form of modest reward.
Since the initial concept was submitted in 2006, the economic climate has changed
dramatically. As a result of the financial markets changing, the applicant has sought
to make amendments to the development to make it more appealing to lenders and
also to make it more appealing to hotel operators by reducing construction costs and
running costs and therefore making the hotel more economical to run. The applicant
has indicated that a hotel investor is interested in being selected to launch the hotel.
In economic development terms the Council is keen to ensure that the development
delivers the economic benefits that would be gained if the scheme is successful.
These include construction jobs (55-60 over 16-18 months), supply of building
materials (approx £3 million), hotel staff (approximately 60 posts worth £850,000 per
annum), additional tourist capacity and a number of indirect economic benefits
relating to supplying the hotel with goods and services. The proposal would also help
deliver a village shop on site, which would benefit local residents.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Core Strategy Policy SS 5.
Affordable Housing Contributions
In respect of the proposed conversion of the frontage listed building to four residential
properties, Policy HO 9 states “where it is viable to do so, on all schemes resulting in
two or more [residential] units, not less than 50% of the total number of dwellings
proposed are affordable, or an equivalent contribution is made in accordance with the
requirements of Policy HO 2”.
In this case the applicant is not proposing affordable housing on site nor is an
equivalent financial contribution being made. This is because the applicant does not
consider such a proposal to be economically viable as the proposal for the four
residential units is needed to provide financial support for the hotel and the loss of
two cottages.
Development Committee
21
3 May 2012
The Housing Enabling Officer has raised a number of questions over the scheme and
viability which will be passed on to the applicant. The Committee will be updated
orally concerning this matter.
Highway Safety Considerations
Whilst the Highway Authority has no objections subject to conditions, further
discussions are taking place with regard to the traffic management proposals,
including the speed limit applicable, in association with the proposed development.
The Committee will be updated orally concerning this matter.
Parking Provision
The applicant proposes some 107 car parking spaces on site (including four disabled
bays plus at least one parking space for each of the proposed residential properties).
According to the Council‟s adopted car parking standards, the proposed development
would require approximately 136 car parking spaces (53 spaces for the 21 holiday
cottages, 10 spaces for the four residential properties, 71 spaces for the hotel –
which also takes account of the leisure and restaurant uses within the hotel that
could attract their own traffic and 2 parking spaces for the proposed village shop).
Whilst the concerns of residents are noted in respect of the parking shortfall and the
potential for traffic to spill onto North Street, in order to park at busy times together
with concerns in respect of narrowness of the entrance/exit, these issues were
considered in detail previously and Committee needs to bear in mind that a scheme
exists which could be completed which would, in theory, have created greater traffic
demand than the scheme now before Committee for determination.
On balance therefore, whilst the proposal falls short of the required parking standards
by some 29 spaces, in view of the previous permission granted under application ref:
PF/06/0770, it is considered that refusal on grounds alone of lack of parking would be
very difficult to substantiate as indeed would any demonstration of severe harm
which such a shortfall would necessitate.
Impact on Listed Buildings
The frontage building onto North Street is Grade II listed and the principle of
excluding the hotel from this principal building and replacing it with 4 no. dwellings
prompted initial concern from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. As
a functional former agrarian building dating from 1722, it was initially considered least
suited to supporting a residential use. However, upon detailed examination, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers the actual impact upon the
barn would be little different in real terms from the scheme previously approved.
Although it is conceded that it would involve a slightly greater degree of internal
subdivision, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers this would
be more than offset by the loss of the rear glazed lean-to and the fact that the barn
would remain a detached structure. Factoring in the improved arrangement of the
rooflights on the rear elevation and that the building has already been heavily altered
internally, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager does not wish to raise
an objection to this part of the scheme provided the materials are carefully
conditioned. As such, the conversion should not harm the remaining significance of
the Grade II Listed heritage asset and the proposal would accord with Core Strategy
policy EN 8.
Development Committee
22
3 May 2012
Impact on Conservation Area
The site is located wholly within the Langham Conservation Area where Core
Strategy Policy EN 8 requires proposals to preserve and, where possible, enhance
the character and appearance of the area.
In considering the proposal the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
acknowledges that, in the context of Langham, the overall scheme constitutes a
significant piece of development. However, the principle of development on this site
has already been accepted and therefore only matters of detail are now to be
debated. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has suggested a
number of relatively minor changes to proposed Block D, Block E and Barns 5-9 to
make the scheme more acceptable (copy of comments available at Appendix 1).
Subject to these changes he would have no objection to the proposal and considers
the scheme would preserve the appearance and character of the Langham
Conservation Area. The applicant's views on these comments will be reported orally.
Subject to the minor changes being made it is considered that the proposal would
accord with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 8.
Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
The site is located entirely within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. Views of the site from distance are limited primarily to the eastern boundary
(from Blakeney Road) and where previously it was noted that the site is viewed
against the backdrop of existing buildings and mature landscaping. Whilst the
proposed block of five new-build holiday units (Barns 5-9) would be approximately
400mm higher than the Units 21-23 previously approved under application ref:
2006/0770, it is considered that the proposal would not be significantly detrimental to
the character or appearance of the wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
subject to appropriate landscaping and appropriate choice of external materials for
the new and renovated buildings.
Flood Risk/Contamination
In respect of flood risk and contaminated land issues, these issues are related given
that surface water, if not properly dealt with, can result in any contaminants
mobilising and affecting a wider area. The site in question has previously been used
as a glass factory and a farm. The Contaminated Land Officer has raised no
objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to
ensure that agreed remediation takes place (particularly in view of the fact that there
would be four permanent residential properties as a result of this proposal).
The Environment Agency has previously agreed details required by way of condition
under permission PF/06/0770 in relation to flood risk and contamination matters and
has raised no objections to the latest application subject to works being undertaken
in accordance with the previously approved details. As such, the proposal would
accord with Policies EN 10 and EN 13.
Sustainable Construction
Whilst the application partly complies with the requirements of the Policy EN 6
(based on the information submitted in the Sustainable Construction Checklist), the
Sustainability Co-ordinator has recommended that compliance with Policy EN 6 be
secured by way of planning conditions. Compliance with Policy EN 6 is somewhat
complicated by the different types of development proposed on the site but the
applicant is aware of the issues raised. Subject to the imposition of conditions the
proposal would accord with Policy EN 6.
Development Committee
23
3 May 2012
Protected Species
In previously considering the conversion of the frontage listed building to hotel
accommodation, the presence of bats was recorded and a mitigation strategy was
put in place. Whilst not expressly indicated from the outset with the latest application,
the applicant has confirmed that he proposes to use the same mitigation strategy in
respect of the conversion to four dwellings. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Landscape) has not raised an objection, subject to the
imposition of a condition requiring the development to be carried out in strict
accordance with the agreed mitigation strategy. The proposal is considered to accord
with Policy EN 9.
Landscape
In respect of landscaping, the applicant has previously submitted and had agreed a
landscaping scheme in respect of permission ref: PF/06/0770. An amended
landscaping scheme to reflect the changes proposed by the latest application is
awaited. Committee will be updated orally.
Foul Sewage
A number of residents have raised concerns regarding foul sewage issues in the
area. Anglian Water have been consulted and the Committee will be updated orally
on this matter.
S106 Obligation
The applicant proposes to amend the S106 Obligation as set out in Section 6 of the
supporting statement (as attached at Appendix 1).
The Planning Legal Manager has been consulted in respect of the proposed changes
and the Committee will be updated orally on this matter.
Other Material Planning Consideration
On 27 March 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect
which sets out the Government‟s intended direction of travel in respect of achieving
sustainable development. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF sets out ways in which Local
Planning Authorities should support a prosperous rural economy. “To promote a
strong rural economy local and neighbourhood plans should:

support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and
enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well
designed new buildings;

support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit
businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the
character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and
expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified
needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and

promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities
in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings,
public houses and places of worship”.
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF also states:
"Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for
enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but
which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the
disbenefits of departing from those policies."
Development Committee
24
3 May 2012
Given that the development as a whole would help enable provision of a significant
tourist asset in the form of a hotel with facilities including a restaurant and spa and
would also enable the delivery of a new village shop, it is considered that the
proposal would be compatible with the aims of the NPPF to foster economic growth,
provide employment opportunities and secure the future conservation of the heritage
asset.
Summary
The proposal as a whole involves the provision of a hotel and associated facilities
including a village shop, the overall provision of which would be financially enabled
by the conversion of the Grade II listed building into four residential dwellings and the
construction of 21 new build holiday cottages. Whilst some aspects of the latest
scheme challenge adopted Development Plan policy, taken as a whole and taking
into account the fact that permission has already been granted on this site for a
similar development and has since been implemented and considering that the
financial “enabling argument” is even more relevant under current economic
conditions, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the conflict with
adopted policy. As such it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to
the resolution of outstanding design matters, clarification of affordable housing,
traffic management and foul sewage matters and the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the submission of the required
design amendments, satisfactory resolution of the traffic management issues
(including variation to the previous Section 106 Agreement if necessary),
clarification of affordable housing and foul sewage issues, and the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
6.
LANGHAM - LA/12/0182 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to four
dwellings; Land at Glass Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd
- Target Date: 06 April 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Listed Building Alterations
See also PF/12/0181 above
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060015 LA - Alterations to buildings to facilitate conversion to hotel
Withdrawn 09/03/2006
PLA/20060771 LA - Alterations to building to facilitate conversion to hotel
Approved 09/12/2008
Development Committee
25
3 May 2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to convert a Grade II listed barn adjacent to North Street to four number
residential dwellings (2 x 3-bed and 2 x 4-bed). The conversion would comprise,
amongst other things, a limited number of new openings on the primary elevation
facing North Street and a number of new window openings on the rear (east
elevation). A small single-storey extension at the northern end is proposed (broadly
in the location of a previous structure). The internal space within the barn would be
subdivided and a floor added in order to facilitate conversion to four properties. This
is the application for listed building consent in association with planning application
PF/12/0181 above.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
No outright objection or support for this new application – See PF/12/0181 above for
detailed comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
See PF/12/0181 above for detailed comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Ancient Monuments Society - No response
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions (See full copy at Appendix 1).
Council for British Archaeology - No response
English Heritage - See PF/12/0181 above for detailed comments.
Georgian Group - No response
Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings - No response
Twentieth Century Society - No response
Victorian Society - No response
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
26
3 May 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the fabric of the listed buildings
APPRAISAL
The frontage building onto North Street is Grade II listed and the principle of
excluding the hotel from this principal building and replacing it with 4 no. dwellings
prompted initial concern from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. As
a functional former agrarian building dating from 1722, it was initially considered least
suited to supporting a residential use. However, upon detailed examination, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers the actual impact upon the
barn would be little different in real terms from the scheme previously approved.
Although it is conceded that the scheme would involve a slightly greater degree of
internal subdivision, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers
this would be more than offset by the loss of the rear glazed lean-to and the fact that
the barn would remain a detached structure. Factoring in the improved arrangement
of the rooflights on the rear elevation and the fact that the building has already been
heavily altered internally, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager does
not wish to raise an objection to this part of the scheme provided the materials are
carefully conditioned. As such, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
considers the conversion should not harm the remaining significance of the Grade II
Listed heritage asset and the proposal would accord with Core Strategy policy EN 8.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1106 - Continued use of former coal yard for
storage of boats and siting of portable office buildings; Former Coal Yard,
Maryland for Kiss Works Limited
Minor development
- Target Date: 30 November 2011
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Flood Zone
Contaminated land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20051799 PF - Continued use of former coal depot for steel fabrication (class
b2), retention of portable building and erection of steel storage area
Refused 08/02/2006
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application for the continued use of the former coal yard for storage
of boats and the siting and use of portable office buildings.
There are 8 portable buildings installed on the site, seven of which are positioned
along the length of the eastern boundary. Five of the portable buildings are mounted
Development Committee
27
3 May 2012
on a steel girder frame approx. 1.3m above ground level at the highest point due to
ground level sloping down towards the front of site. 3/4 small/medium boats are
parked on trailers at the north west corner of the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Terrington and Savory having regard to the following
planning issue:
Impact on neighbouring properties (hours of operation) and the need for appropriate
conditions
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection have been received from one neighbouring property on the
following grounds:
 description of proposal does not include dining room, two locker rooms and a wet
room the latter of which is mentioned at point 22 of the application form
 change of use was not completed by 30/05/11 - steel fabrication work has been
ongoing since the beginning of summer
 disagree with Officers advice (3/12/09) that temporary use covers off shore wind
farms
 application states car parking 'none required' & gates for pedestrian use only but
cars are parked in the yard and vans go in and out unloading
 question number of employees being '2'
 reference to 'low level lighting' is inaccurate as there is a floodlight that shines
into our bedroom until approx 11pm
 proposed hours of working are 7am-7pm but work is taking place until 9.30pm
 plan shows office layout situated 3m from the boundary wall but does not mention
the locker and wet rooms which are 2ft from boundary.
 planning application ref 05/1799 8/2/06 refused permission for retention of
portable buildings and steel fabrication under policy 17 - control of noise yet noise
from steel fabrication has been continuous for over 2 years
2 letters of support have been received on the following grounds:
 in the last 3 years there has been no noise pollution or any other disturbance
from Kiss Works or the Old Coal Yard
 the use is light industrial and fully in keeping with the area which is primarily
industrial
 when I moved into my property the coal yard was in use as a coal yard and the
building between (now Kiss Works) was a workshop for the Coal Yard. There was
some disturbance with coal dust and early hour deliveries however, this was in
keeping with an industrial area and known to me when I purchased my property
 anything that brings work and job opportunities to the area should be encouraged
 site is ideal for suggested use and appropriate for the area.
3 letters have been received making the following comments:
 unclear as to exactly what is being applied for and for whom
 interested in the flood risk implications which have curtailed clients plans for the
Old Mill building
 clarification required regarding description of the buildings being marked
industrial when policy area is residential
 I live next to the site and I have no objections whatsoever to the site being used
for offices and storage. It is good to have neighbours and since May 2010 I have
Development Committee
28
3 May 2012


had no cause for complaint with noise or any other reason.
It is pleasing to have new industry coming to the town
when I lived behind the coal yard when it was operating as a coal yard the noise
from riddling coal regularly woke us in the early morning but this was part of living
in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection. Site has no parking provision which is
contrary to policy, however, in light of the approved operations base for the wind
farm, to be sited at Egmere a temporary approval for the continued use of this site is
considered appropriate.
Environmental Protection Officer - No objection, subject to conditions and advisory
notes relating to hours of use and lighting.
Environment Agency
Response Plan.
- No objection - recommends submission of a Flood Risk
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of use in this location.
2. Economic development.
3. Impact on neighbouring amenity.
APPRAISAL
The proposal is a retrospective application for the continued use of a former coal
yard for the storage of boats and siting of portable office buildings. The previous use
as coal yard was a 'sui generis' use (in a class of its own) and the proposed usage
would be a mixed use of B8 storage and B1 office use. The site lies within the
Development Committee
29
3 May 2012
designated residential policy area with land immediately to the south falling within
designated employment land. Policy SS3 allows for compatible non-residential
development including small scale businesses within designated Residential Areas,
subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies. The site also lies
within the Norfolk Coast AONB and Environment Agency Flood Zone 3.
The proposed office use is intended for a temporary period whilst the occupiers of the
site await development of purpose built offices and warehouse at land off Edgar
Road, Egmere (ref: 11/0528). The use is in connection with the Sheringham Shoal
Offshore Windfarm Project. The renewable energy industry is becoming an
increasingly important part of the local economy and this proposal plays a small but
significant part in supporting that industry.
The proposal includes 8 portable buildings on the site 5 of which are indicated for
office use. The other 3 were proposed as two locker rooms and a dining room. One
objection to the proposal has been received raising several concerns, in particular
the impact of the building nearest to their property on their residential amenity. An
amended plan has been submitted to indicate that this building will not be used.
With regard to flood risk, as the application is for a change of use (not more
vulnerable) the sequential test is not required and a Flood Response Plan has been
submitted which the Environmental Protection Officer has advised is sufficient
provided that the application is for a temporary use. In addition the Environment
Agency has advised that a Flood Response Plan would be sufficient in this instance
provided that efforts have been made to ensure that the temporary buildings would
not become buoyant during a flood event. The applicant has confirmed that the
portable offices are secured to the raised main frame and would be unlikely to
become buoyant during a flood event.
Several other concerns raised regarding noise nuisance from the activities on the site
have been the subject of an investigation by Environmental Protection. The
Environmental Protection Officer has advised that the investigation has concluded
and he is satisfied that statutory noise nuisance is not occurring from the site but
requests noise control measures to be applied to any permission to protect adjacent
neighbours. Conditions setting out operating hours are also requested.
In terms of visual impact the portable buildings are partially visible from outside of the
site with the majority of the buildings being sited along the eastern boundary and
protruding approx 0.5 - 1m above the boundary walls. The building marked as
redundant is visible from Hill House residential property's garden and the majority of
the site is visible from a couple of their upstairs windows, in particular the building
nearest to their boundary. Whilst the applicants have agreed not to use this building
in order to minimise/eradicate any potential nuisance to the neighbour they have
stated that it is not physically possible to remove this building from the site whilst the
other buildings remain in situ. Whilst it is considered that the buildings are not out of
scale with their surroundings the building type would not be considered compatible
with the surroundings if permanent consent was sought. However, given the site's
position and previous use the proposed buildings and their layout is not considered to
introduce any significant detrimental visual impact on the wider street scene or
surrounding AONB.
The application also seeks to provide for the storage of boats. At the time of the site
visit 3 boats were on trailers at the north west corner of the site. It is considered that
the number of boats that could be stored would be controlled by the site size and
layout and a condition regarding the times of delivery and removal of boats would be
Development Committee
30
3 May 2012
appropriate, being mindful that sailing is especially a weekend and bank holiday
activity which is dependent on tide times.
The County Council has advised that although no parking provision is available which
is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT6 and the Parking Standards for Norfolk 2007,
it is mindful of the temporary nature of the proposal and considers continued use is
appropriate until staff are relocated to the forthcoming operations base at Egmere.
No objection is therefore raised.
Subject to restricting the permission to a temporary period it is not considered that
the proposal would materially conflict with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Temporary 2 year approval subject to the following conditions:
1. This permission shall expire on 31 May 2014 and unless on or before that date
application is made for an extension of the period of permission and such application
is approved by the Local Planning Authority,
(a) the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and
(b) the portable buildings including any supporting framework and any boats shall be
removed from the site which is the subject of this permission.
Reason:
To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the proposed
development in the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy
EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2 This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plan received by the
Local Planning Authority on 5 January 2012 and the details contained in the letter
from Joergen Christensen dated 2 February 2012 and received by the Local Planning
Authority on 6 February 2012.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3 Boats shall not be taken to or despatched from the site outside the hours of 0800
- 1800 on any day.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
4 No use of the office buildings shall take place on the premises outside the
following times: 0700 to 1900 hours on any day except in the case of emergency.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
Development Committee
31
3 May 2012
5 The portable building shown as "redundant" (locker room B) on the approved
plan received on 5 January 2012 shall remain vacant during the course of this
permission unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the LPA.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
8.
WORSTEAD - PF/12/0356 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0418 to permit retention of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and
fencing; Solar Farm, Heath Road for Renpower Investments UK Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 May 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/11/0418 PF - Construction of 5mw solar generating facility
Approved 24/05/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to retain buildings, perimeter fencing and 11 number CCTV
cameras erected on site not in accordance with permission ref: PF/11/0418.
The buildings to be retained are located on the northern tip of the site and comprise a
1 x main high voltage switch room, a UK Power networks substation (including
export/import measuring kiosk) and a CCTV substation.
The wire mesh fencing to be retained is 1.8m high (1.9m to top of barbed wire).
The 11 no. CCTV cameras to be retained are located within the mesh fenced area,
five of which are located at intervals along the western boundary, four cameras
located at intervals along the eastern boundary and two further cameras on the
southern boundary. The applicant has indicated that the cameras are set on wooden
poles and are approximately 5m tall. Onto the poles are also set a number of pieces
of CCTV related equipment including movement detectors, lights, speakers/horns,
and various electrical junction boxes. The CCTV cameras are electronically rotatable
and the CCTV imaging and control of the cameras is undertaken by an off-site third
party company/contractor.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Williams in respect of the following planning issue:
Impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, but comment that the CCTV cameras are used properly within the law.
(Privacy Act, Data Protection Act and Human Rights).
Development Committee
32
3 May 2012
REPRESENTATIONS – Two letters of objection have been received.
Summary of objections:
1. The original plans have not been followed;
2. Fencing should be 10 metres from my boundary but in places is only 4.9 metres;
3. Resulted in significant loss of value (£40,000 and £20,000 for adjacent
properties);
4. 11 CCTV cameras are located on the site four of which overlook my property;
5. The CCTV cameras breach Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – “Right to
respect for private and family life”;
6. On several occasions cameras 1 and 11 have been viewing my home (two
bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom and back door) and this is clearly not
acceptable;
7. There is a public address system that goes off randomly without anyone being on
site which is a nuisance;
8. Pixellating the cameras to protect my privacy is not acceptable and can easily be
unpixellated;
9. The security system should not be monitoring my property;
10. We no longer have faith or trust in the applicant that this matter will be resolved;
11. The solar panels have an adverse impact on amenity;
12. The buildings are far greater in number and size than we were originally led to
believe;
13. Our privacy has been invaded when in our own back garden;
14. The applicant has not kept to their word;
15. The previous proposal was rushed which has led to a lot of unhappiness for
neighbours and problems now to resolve;
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Comments awaited
Environmental Protection – Comments awaited
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
See Appraisal section below.
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 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
33
3 May 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1.
Principle of the development
2.
Impact on residential amenity
3.
Impact on landscape
4.
Impact on crime and disorder
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside Policy Area where proposals for renewable
energy projects are considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
relevant Core Strategy Policies, including Policy EN 7 which specifically considers
Renewable Energy.
In considering this proposal the Committee will be aware that permission was
granted in 2011 for the construction of a 5mw solar generating facility under planning
ref: PF/11/0418. Whilst that scheme has been implemented and the scheme has
been substantially completed, during the course of the construction complaints were
received that the development was not being built in accordance with the approved
plans and that subsequently 11 CCTV cameras were installed around the perimeter
of the site.
This application therefore seeks permission to retain elements of the proposal as
constructed (boundary fencing, buildings and 11 no. CCTV cameras and poles).
Whilst the boundary fencing and the buildings to be retained are not considered to
have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties and do not therefore
give rise to significant planning concerns, Officers have significant concerns about
the potential adverse impact that a number of the CCTV cameras installed on the site
have on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In
particular cameras 1, 2 and 3 and to some extent camera 11 (as detailed on
submitted drawing no: VO6) are likely to facilitate overlooking or the perception of
being overlooked at 1 and 2 The Gatehouse, Heath Road.
The applicant has not specifically set out to explain the need for the CCTV system
other than to confirm that security measures are required by insurers to protect the
solar investment from theft. The applicant has been asked if there are alternative
methods of adequately securing the site from equipment theft without the need for so
many CCTV cameras. The applicant has indicated that limitations can and will be put
in place to reduce the impact of the CCTV cameras on neighbouring properties in
certain areas.
The applicant has also offered to pixellate the camera imagery so that the privacy of
occupiers of these properties are maintained. Notwithstanding the proposed
mitigation, as it stands it is considered that the intrusion and impact of a number of
the cameras on residential amenity is likely to be so severe that approval cannot be
recommended without the benefit of further improvements.
The application is retrospective in nature and adjacent residents are already suffering
the impacts of the cameras as installed. Officers are therefore seeking to establish
what measures can be taken to lessen the impact of the cameras, either through
removal or wholesale redesign and the Committee will be updated orally.
In respect of landscape impacts, although likely to be localised in nature, the
Committee will be updated orally once the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager are known.
Development Committee
34
3 May 2012
In respect of noise impacts, the Committee will be updated once the views of the
Environmental Protection Team are known.
In summary, whilst there are no objections to the boundary fencing and buildings as
constructed, there are significant concerns regarding the CCTV system as installed.
Whilst the operator would need to comply with the requirements of BS8418:2010 Installation and remote monitoring of detector-activated CCTV systems - Code of
Practice, there is genuine concern that the CCTV system, unless significantly
modified, would continually breach the rights of occupiers of neighbouring properties
under Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life. It is ultimately a matter
of planning judgement for the Committee in balancing the need for the CCTV
cameras to prevent theft of the solar equipment against the impact on residential
amenity that would arise.
RECOMMENDATION:
Committee will be updated orally.
9.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HIGH KELLING – PF/12/0278 – Demolition of single storey dwelling and
erection of two storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms Elwood.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Referred by Head of Planning and Building Control to enable the Committee to
appreciate the proposal in terms of its context in view of the contemporary design
and receipt of local objections.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
Development Committee
35
3 May 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
10.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
UPDATE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
January to March 2011, covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes. Figures are also included for land charge searches.
Table 1A (Appendix 2) sets out performance in processing planning applications for
the final quarter of 2011/12.
Seven major applications were determined in the quarter, compared with four in the
previous two quarters. 122 minor applications and 193 „other‟ applications were also
determined. In terms of speed of determination, figures for minor and other
determinations increased by over 10% in the first category and over 8% in the latter.
Within these categories, performance improved in each month through the quarter,
although even for the best month (ie. March), performance was below target at
58.8% and 64.5% respectively. For the year as a whole, performance on minor
applications was a little over 39%, and for „other‟ applications, over 53%. When
compared with the previous two years it will be noted that the service still has much
ground to catch up in order to achieve performance levels close to previous years.
In terms of major applications, only one application of the seven was determined
within the 13 week period. This was a consequence of a number of the schemes
being complex, including a major infrastructure project, a supermarket and two major
residential developments involving legal agreements for which it is extremely difficult
to achieve sub-13 week decisions. The achievement of a successful outcome in
terms of the delivery of housing and affordable housing has always been considered
as more important than speed of determination per se. In the year as a whole, 19
major applications were determined, of which 6 (31.58%) were within the 13 week
period.
Table 1B indicates workload for the service and shows that there was a significant
increase in work during this quarter compared with the previous quarter, no doubt in
part attributable to the significant fall in workload in December. For the year as a
whole, the number of applications submitted fell by 97 to 1543; for both preapplication enquiries and „Do I need planning permission?‟ questions, both
increased in number when compared with 2010/11. Application workload was still
over 300 greater than during the comparable period in 2009/10.
The general picture, therefore, shows a slightly lower level of applications in the year
and application performance gradually increasing, but with significant progress still
being required to be made.
Pre-application enquiry work has increased, but this is likely to be affected by the
introduction of fees on 1 May. Although this will reduce workload for formal
enquiries, significant improvement in response times will be required as this work
assumes a higher priority from now on. Furthermore, there are likely to be new
pressures on staff from people seeking pre-advice through the Duty Officer system
and from telephone enquiries. Overview and Scrutiny Committee has requested
consideration of this matter once the new system has been running for six months.
Development Committee
36
3 May 2012
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarter showed a further increase in the
percentage of decisions delegated, to 95.71%, with a cumulative figure for the year
being 93.28%, slightly higher than in the previous two years.
As far as appeals are concerned, only two decisions were made, with both of these
being dismissed. The cumulative figure for the year indicates that 4 decisions out of
14, (i.e. 28.57%), were allowed, a figure which is better than the national average
and an improvement compared with the previous year.
In terms of land charge searches, Table 3 indicates an increase in the number of
official searches when compared with the same quarter twelve months ago, and a
marginal increase in personal searches. In terms of the year as a whole, official
searches were 30 higher at 1,805, but personal searches were more than 100 fewer.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
11.
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
This report outlines progress being made in clearing the backlog of outstanding
enforcement cases which had built up by the end of 2011.
Members will recall that at the meeting on 20 February 2012 the Committee
considered the quarterly schedule of current enforcement cases. The Committee
also noted that initiatives had been put in place to reduce the backlog of cases.
Higher priority was being given to enforcement and one of the Planning Officers was
helping with the work. A programme of site inspections was being arranged and
local Members would be contacted by Officers to agree courses of action with the
aim of resolving cases expeditiously.
The latest quarterly schedule of enforcement cases is the subject of an exempt report
to the Committee on this agenda. At the end of the most recent quarter there were
162 cases on hand compared with 165 which were on hand at the beginning of the
quarter. However, an unusually large number of cases was registered during the
quarter (69) because of the backlog which had built up, and 72 cases were resolved
during the quarter as a result of the initiatives which have been put in hand, a third
more than were resolved during the previous quarter. Furthermore, the number of
cases more than three months old at the end of the quarter reduced from 109 to 85.
There is clearly a long way to go to reduce the backlog, and the situation is being
monitored on a monthly basis. However, it is considered that by concentrating
resources on this part of the service and with the assistance of Members in resolving
cases in an efficient and appropriate way, there is reasonable confidence that
performance should steadily improve over the coming months.
The Committee is asked to note the situation, which will be considered by Overview
and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 23 May 2012.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control, ext 6135)
Development Committee
37
3 May 2012
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ASHMANHAUGH - PF/11/1373 - Erection of detached double garage; Rustics,
Stone Lane for Mr Garrod
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/12/0095 - Removal of agricultural occupancy restriction
(condition 3 of planning permission reference 82/0192); Park Farm Cottage, Park
Road for Mr P West
(Full Planning Permission)
BACONSTHORPE - NP/12/0338 - Prior notification of intention to erect
agricultural storage building; Hall Farm Piggeries, Hall Lane for Miss C Rhatigan
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BACTON - PF/12/0237 - Change of use from vehicle repair garage to coastguard
rescue station and erection of radio aerial; The Garage, Pollard Street for
Maritime & Coastguard Agency
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/12/0090 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with
raised patio area; 1 Coronation Cottages, Staithe Road for Mr Brandon-Jones
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1218 - Extension of outbuilding to provide annexe; Old
Garden Cottage, 8 The Quay for Mrs E Wootten
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/1237 - Erection of extension; Old Garden Cottage, 8 The
Quay for Mrs E Wootten
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1404 - External alterations including installation of double
doors, steps, ramp, balcony and cladding; Lifeboat House, Blakeney Point for
National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0219 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
boundary wall/fence; Orchard House, Samphire Close, New Road for Novus
Homes
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0234 - Erection of detached garden room; 130 High Street
for Mr M Gowers
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0288 - Erection of single-storey extensions to side bay; Vine
Cottage, 60 Morston Road for Mr & Mrs B Thompson
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/12/0193 - Removal of Condition 17 of planning permission ref:
11/1062 to permit drainage to septic tanks; Crayford & Abbs and North Norfolk
Garden Machinery, Weybourne Road for Crayford & Abbs and North Norfolk
Garden Machinery
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
38
3 May 2012
BRININGHAM - PF/12/0242 - Erection of two-storey rear extensions and
insertion of first floor dormer casement window; Moriah Cottage, Dereham Road
for Mr P Williams
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - PF/12/0243 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Swallow
Barn, Dereham Road for Mr P Williams
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/12/0019 - Retention of boiler room extension; Crossways Barn,
Norwich Road for Mr M Davis
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/12/0024 - Erection of two single-storey side extensions; 29
Church Street for Miss J Eke
(Householder application)
BRISTON - NMA2/10/1147 - Non-material amendment request for revised
boundary and fencing arrangements; 125-131 Fakenham Road for Victory
Housing Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/12/0298 - Erection of car port; 1 Vincent Close for Mr I Ruston
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/12/0284 - Erection of agricultural storage building.; White House
Farm, Limes Road for Jocelyn B Gardiner Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0315 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Woodland View, The Fairstead for Mr & Mrs Earl
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/12/0240 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Well Cottage, 7
Church Road for Mrs V Williamson
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/0218 - Erection of two-storey side
extension with rear conservatory and detached garage; The Cottage, Norwich
Road, Corpusty for Jacobs & Gee Ltd
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/0251 - Formation of vehicular access and
driveway; Hillside Farmhouse, Post Office Lane, Saxthorpe for Mr K White
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/0043 - Construction of two dormer windows, installation of
three roof lights, alterations to existing roof lights and infilling of window;
Upton House, 2 St Margarets Road for YoDude Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0072 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with enclosed
deck above; 16 Jetty Street for Mr & Mrs D Saunders
(Householder application)
Development Committee
39
3 May 2012
CROMER - LA/12/0073 - Internal and external alterations including single-storey
rear extension with roof terrace; 16 Jetty Street for Mr & Mrs D Saunders
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/12/0081 - Conversion and extension of hotel to form nine
residential apartments; Anglia Court Hotel, 5 Runton Road for Abbey Mill
Estates LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0111 - Erection of pergola, planters with bench seating and
gate and paving of forecourt; The Kings Head, High Street for Punch
Partnerships
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/12/0112 - Construction of pergola, gate and planters; The Kings
Head, High Street for Punch Partnerships
(Listed Building Alterations)
DILHAM - PF/12/0151 - Erection of two-storey side extension and detached
garages; 1 & 3 Brickground, Honing Road, Dilham for Mr & Mrs Hardingham
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/1078 - Retention of single-storey restaurant extension and
two single-storey extensions to provide bed and breakfast accommodation with
single-storey link extension, change of use of adjoining land to additional car
parking and pub garden and retention of children's play area.; The Three Pigs,
Norwich Road for The Pigs Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/11/0280 - Non material amendment request for change of
gable finish from flint to brick; Dollys Cottage, Holt Road for Mr R Major
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ERPINGHAM - PF/12/0197 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey side/rear extension; Laurel Cottage, School Road for Mr A Francis
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1260 - Erection of three one and a half storey dwellings; 11
The Drift for Mr & Mrs K Topping
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0125 - Erection of front extension; Hain Frozen & Chilled
Foods Ltd, Holt Road for Hain Celestal Group
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AN/12/0130 - Display of non-illuminated hanging sign; 17-19
Bridge Street for Specsavers
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0156 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (café); 9 Norwich
Road for Miss J Neale
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
40
3 May 2012
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0202 - Conversion of dwelling to two residential flats; 11
Queens Road for Mr & Mrs S Whattey
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0253 - Erection of replacement porch/canopy; 2 Toll Bar for
Mr B Sofrin
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0264 - Erection of extension to club house; Fakenham
Cricket Club, Field Lane for Fakenham Cricket Club
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0166 - Erection of replacement two-storey side and
single-storey rear/side extensions; 98 Holt Road for Mrs Reeves
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0170 - Erection of storage shed; Land adjacent 39 Park
Lane for Mr Pugh & Ms Robertson
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - LA/12/0180 - Blocking up of door opening; The Annexe Wensum
House, 4 Dereham Road for Ms S Mackintosh-Kirk
(Listed Building Alterations)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0241 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey
extensions; Treetops, 12 Avenue Road for Pike Partnership
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0203 - Erection of two-bay cart shed garage;
Hollybanks, Foulsham Road for Mr Caston
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0065 - Erection of detached garage; 56A Hempstead Road for Mr &
Mrs D J Outred
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0206 - Erection of rear conservatory; 23 Coronation Road for Mr M
Craske
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/12/0231 - Installation of replacement front windows; Byfords, 1-3A
Shirehall Plain for Byfords
(Listed Building Alterations)
HONING - PF/12/0178 - Change of use of outbuilding to residential
annexe/holiday accommodation; Mill House, Lock Road for Mr B Thirtle
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/12/0150 - Erection of attached garage/workshop; Fir Tree House,
6 Hillside Road for Mr P J A Lewis
(Householder application)
Development Committee
41
3 May 2012
HOVETON - PF/12/0083 - Installation of acoustic louvres; Telephone Exchange,
Church Road, Hoveton St John for British Telecom
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - AI/12/0153 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Unit 2a, Station
Road Business Park, Horning Road West for Gordon Barber Funeral Home
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOVETON - NMA1/11/1507 - Non-material amendment request for retention of
existing roof; Treedona, Tunstead Road for Mr L Barrell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LANGHAM - PF/12/0209 - Erection of outbuilding and sunroom and alterations
to roadside outbuilding, including new roof; Orchard House, Field Dalling Road
for Mr Iles
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - LA/12/0210 - Demolition of outbuildings, alterations roadside barn,
erection of sunroom, internal alterations and installation of replacement
windows; Orchard House, Field Dalling Road for Mr Iles
(Listed Building Alterations)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/1362 - Erection of single-storey
replacement dwelling and partial re-construction of front boundary wall; The
Den, Holt Road for R G Carter Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LE/11/1363 - Demolition of single-storey
dwelling and partial demolition of front boundary wall; The Den, Holt Road for R
G Carter Farms Limited
(Conservation Area Demolition)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/11/0441 - Change of use from recycling activities/outside
storage to agricultural storage; Unit 2, Little Snoring Airfield, Thursford Road
for Ralph Harrison & Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/12/0186 - Raising of roof and erection of two-storey extension;
The Homestead, Lovers Lane for Mr A Tedder
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/12/0226 - Variation of Condition 3 of permission reference:
97/0999 to permit permanent residential occupation; Horseshoe Cottage, 4A
Fritton Road for Mrs M Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0129 - Retention of replacement single-storey rear
extension; Seaview Manor, Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Hankinson
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/11/0279 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dimensions and roof of kitchen extension, revised conservatory roof and
changes to fenestration; 20 Meadow Drive for Mr R Collins
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
42
3 May 2012
NEATISHEAD - PF/12/0176 - Installation of photo voltaic panels on garage roof;
Alderfen Cottage, Common Road, Threehammer Common for Mr L Hendry
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0110 - Erection of two-storey office/control room
building; Station Yard, Norwich Road for British Pipeline Agency
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0148 - Erection of additional garage extension; 27A
Happisburgh Road for Mr & Mrs Maisner
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0217 - Change of use from car sales showroom to
retail of multi electrical goods and alterations to front and rear elevations; 13-21
Bacton Road for Hughes Electrical
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0187 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 10
Foundry Close for Mr & Mrs Barratt
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0157 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
11/0631 to omit chimney stack from gable end of single-storey extension; 10
The Londs for Mr & Mrs J Muttram
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PF/12/0158 - Erection of single-storey side extension with raised deck
and detached double garage; Hillcrest, Mundesley Road for Mr Smith
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/12/0190 - Conversion of Foundry Cottage garage to habitable
accommodation, installation of door and erection of walls, fences and gates and
detached garage; Foundry Cottage, The Street, West Raynham for Mr Reed
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/12/0161 - Erection of two-storey side extension and detached
garage; 232 Roughton Road for Mr J Clarke
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - LE/12/0233 - Demolition of redundant outbuilding; Lor Cot, Cross
Street for Mrs P Johnson
(Conservation Area Demolition)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0687 - Conversion and extension of workshop/store to
residential dwelling & office and erection of workshop; Bramble Oaks,
Fakenham Road for Mrs R Allum
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0189 - Erection of first floor extension; Roshpina,
Fakenham Road for Mr C Haller
(Householder application)
Development Committee
43
3 May 2012
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0692 - Erection of community hall with access and
parking; Holly End, Holway Road for Tesco Stores Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0052 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 14 The
Driftway for Mr Clover
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0077 - Erection of single-storey front and side extensions
and alterations to roof including dormers; Salcombe, 12 Norfolk Road for Mrs
Nash
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0239 - Proposed single storey rear extension; The Lodge,
Sheringham House, Cremers Drift for Mr Hewitt
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0271 - Erection of rear extension; Atara, Morley Road
North for Mr Wright
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/12/0093 - Erection of 6 flats and 1 dwelling (extension of period
for commencement of permission reference: 08/1516); Land to the rear of 110
High Street for Stuart Attwood Builders (Norwich) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/0146 - Erection of stable block, tack room and hay barn; Land
at Chapelfield Farmhouse, Chapelfield Road for Mr & Mrs Overton
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/12/0196 - Erection of one and a half storey extension; 126 High
Street for Mr R Woolsey
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PO/12/0205 - Erection of dwelling (extension of period for
commencement of planning permission reference: 09/0194); Land adjacent
Millside Bungalow, Yarmouth Road for Mr D Futter
(Outline Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - CL/12/0089 - Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use of property
as C3 (residential dwelling) without complying with agricultural occupancy
restriction; Hillcrest, Church Road, Bessingham for Mrs Barrett
(Certificate of Lawfulness - Existing Use)
SUTTON - PF/11/0893 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation and erection of conservatory; Boundary Farm, Hickling Road
for Mr C Bracey
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/11/1560 - Erection of garage/shed; Broads Haven, The Street for
Mr Bunton
(Householder application)
Development Committee
44
3 May 2012
TATTERSETT - PF/12/0250 - Erection of side extension; 16 Maple Drive, Wicken
Green Village for Mr B Owen
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/12/0195 - Erection of side conservatory; Cottage Farm,
Walsingham Road for Mr & Mrs Rheinberg
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - NMA1/12/0036 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dimensions and window to side extension and addition of window to rear
extension; 23 Pyghtle Close for Mr K Rendle
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
TUNSTEAD - PF/12/0283 - Removal of Condition 1 of permission reference:
11/0329 to remove requirement for submission of contamination assessment;
17 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street for Rev Paul
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/12/0238 - Variation of Condition 4 of permission reference:
07/0970 to permit permanent residential occupation; 8 The Old Vicarage,
Scarborough Road for Mrs J Pepper
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0141 - Erection of single-storey rear extension
and raising of roof, erection of three-storey front bay extension and installation
of dormer window; 9 Tunns Yard for Mr & Mrs Tetlow
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0188 - Erection of single-storey front extension;
17 Market Lane for Mr N Ely
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0191 - Erection of single-storey side extension,
installation of flue and installation of flint facing to north and east gables; The
Gables, 2 Church Street for Mr Hall
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - EF/12/0262 - Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed
use of former physiotherapy room as ancillary residential accommodation;
Southview, Plummers Hill for Mrs J Hutchinson
(Certificate of Lawfulness - Proposed Use)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0267 - Alterations to roof to provide rear gable
and insertion of window in new gable; 12 Jolly Sailor Yard for Mr C Rose and Ms
S Wise
(Householder application)
WEST BECKHAM - NMA1/11/1114 - Non material amendment request to insert a
rooflight, omit a rooflight and insert one high level window in north elevation;
William's Barn, Church Road for Mr & Mrs McNeil Wilson
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
45
3 May 2012
WEYBOURNE - DP/11/1452 - Prior notification of intention to demolish
redundant building; RAF Weybourne, off Coast Road for Ministry of Defence
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/0220 - Erection of detached garden room; Abbey
Farmhouse, The Street for Mr C Hay-Smith
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/12/0121 - Erection of extension to potato unloading bay and
extension to acoustic screen; Heinz Frozen & Chilled Foods, Station Road for H
J Heinz
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/12/0184 - Continued use of land for storage of haulage
vehicles and trailers; Adjacent Brockley Farm, Station Road for W.H.Davison
Haulage Contractor
(Full Planning Permission)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
INGWORTH - LA/12/0245 - Demolition of porch and erection of single-storey
extension; Erpingham Lodge, Butts Common, Banningham Road for Mr B
Mackintosh
(Listed Building Alterations)
RYBURGH - PF/12/0255 - Erection of two-storey side extension; The Coach
House, Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr B Kerrison
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0230 - Erection of two detached dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1238 - Construction of new roof to provide habitable
accommodation in roofspace; 15 St Austins Grove for Mr Welch
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
Development Committee
46
3 May 2012
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Site at route between Weybourne Hope
(TG104,436) and Little Dunham (TF868,118) for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SUSTEAD - ENF/11/0235 - Building of an unauthorised dwellinghouse; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham INFORMAL HEARING 23 May 2012
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for
Castaways Holiday Park
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr Barnes
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road for Mr T Merchant
CROMER - PF/11/1099 - Erection of conservatory; Flat 1, Kingswear, 30 Cliff
Avenue for Mrs Gibbons
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane for Isis Builders Ltd
LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;
Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures for Mrs R Fittall
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for ES Renewables Ltd
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing single-storey
wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells Road for
Mr & Mrs Baker
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No items
Development Committee
47
3 May 2012