OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 4 JULY 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management 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.
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/0135 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extension; Greenside, The Green for Mr P Clark
- Target Date: 01 April 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
PF/12/0289 HOU - Erection of two-storey side extension
Withdrawn by Applicant 20/04/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a two-storey side extension measuring approximately 5.3m wide by
5m deep by 7.3m high and a single-storey element measuring approximately 3.15m
wide by 1.4m by 3.5m high.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application. The proposed development will block most of the light from
the rear of the adjacent property known as Fox Cottage and will overshadow Fox
Cottage and Victoria Cottage. Furthermore, in spite of the Parish Council's previous
objections to Application PF/12/0289, this present application is for an even larger
rear extension.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 representations have been received, comprising 3 objections and 1 support.
Objections (summarised)
Size of the extension - even larger extension than previous application reference
PF/12/0289 and would make property longer than existing;
Site notices are misleading and will mean that people will have been led to
believe that the extension would be added to the side of the house parallel to the
road. Documents and notices should be amended and consultation period restarted;
Development Committee
1
4 July 2013
Impact on neighbouring properties given close proximity, resulting in shading,
shadowing, overcrowding, dominating effect and loss of light, including to Fox
Cottage and bathroom and utility room of Victoria Cottage. Only access Fox
Cottage has to sunlight is from the south/south-west and the new building would
remove this;
Object to footings extending into neighbour property;
Drainage concerns- access point on the soil drain is shown as being within
neighbour property;
Applicant's water meter and stopcock within neighbour property and attached to
wall of current utility room. Would have to be moved if wall demolished, which
would cause disturbance to neighbour and land where oil tank situated;
Disruption caused by scaffolding would be considerable and unacceptable;
Drawings lack detail as to how the wall would be demolished or reconstruction of
single-storey extension. No mention what would be done about repairing damage
caused to area around drains;
Pipe shown on single-storey wall which is not apparent on plan;
Increased level of damp around property and there will be virtually no sunlight to
assist with drying process;
Parking concerns as off-road parking on site has been eliminated since change in
ownership. Property has made itself reliant on multiple, permanent use of
concreted area creased on The Green opposite the house. The aspect of site and
property have been improved by the removal of what is a vital facility which is
perhaps a legal requirement is available;
Substantial single-storey blockwork and pantile storage building and sheds to
rear of site. The size, type and location of these structures needs to be
considered with the proximity of the proposal. Will this part of the site become
overcrowded by a two-storey extension? Can only be assessed by submission of
full and accurate details of all structures that exist on site. The site plan indicates
OS accreditation, but the missing building obviously predates the plan and it also
needs to be understood that there is no access to rear of site from The Loke;
Permission for a two-storey extension in the proposed location should not be
swayed by existence of a single-storey extension or configuration of internal
layout of existing house. At the time the house was built, the almost abutting
elevation mirrored those of Fox and Victoria Cottages. The house orientation and
location on site took full advantage of a south-west facing position looking along
the width of plot (viewed from road) which included the ground on which Nelson
House is now built;
Plot can accept further development, but not just where it is convenient to do so;
Limit of the two-storey house as built matches more or less the previously extant
Fox and Victoria Cottages;
Proposal makes little sacrifice in interior design to ameliorate these effects. By
placing it behind and totally in-line with existing house it increases from 3 bed to 5
maximising development on a capacious site to detriment of closest neighbours;
Open aspect would be achieved through a diminution of aspect, shading and
enjoyment of limited recreational areas of the two adjoining properties and total
loss of off-road parking for property;
Any two-storey extension should be located on side of property facing Nelson
House;
Potential to divide and alter and form a one-bed property at end;
Reconstruction of any single-storey extension should be set back from boundary
sufficiently to facilitate construction and scaffolding work;
Any limitation that can be imposed to prevent/prohibit necessity for intrusion of
plant, materials and workmen on neighbouring property would seem to be a
requirement;
Development Committee
2
4 July 2013
Support (summarised)
Development in no way detrimental to the Conservation Area and it is important
that the village has appropriate housing for families, because we are in danger
otherwise of becoming either a holiday location for second home owners or a
retirement community.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on Conservation Area/design
3. Impact on neighbouring amenities
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting to enable Members
to visit the site.
Principle of development
The site lies within the Aldborough Settlement Boundary, where proposals for
extensions to existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject
to compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies. The site also lies within a
Conservation Area, where development proposals are required to preserve and
enhance the character and appearance of the area.
The property is a detached, two-storey house, end on to The Green.
Planning permission was sought under reference PF/12/0289 for a two-storey side
extension to the same dwelling. That application was withdrawn by the applicant
following concerns raised in respect of impact on neighbouring amenity.
Impact on Conservation Area/design
The proposed development would involve the demolition of a single-storey extension.
It is not considered that the scale of the proposed extension would dominate the
original dwelling, nor harm its architectural character. At 7.3m, the proposed
extension would have a ridge-height lower than the existing property and would be
sited to the south-east side of the dwelling.
Development Committee
3
4 July 2013
Materials proposed are considered to be acceptable; a red facing brick, render and
tiles to match existing.
It is considered that the design as proposed would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with policies EN8 and EN4 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
Impact on neighbouring amenities
Greenside is built-hard-up to the north-east boundary. At its closest, the extension
would sit some 2.75m away from the closest neighbouring property (Victoria
Cottage).
In terms of impact on the neighbours to the north-east, it is recognised that the side
extension would be sited close to the boundary and the neighbouring properties
which both have facing windows. The Basic Amenity Criteria recommendations
would be met between the neighbouring tertiary window of Victoria Cottage and the
proposed ground floor blank elevation. Whilst there would be a potential shortfall with
the Basic Amenity Criteria recommendation in terms of the relationship with Fox
Cottage, given the existing relationship and given that the proposed first floor
rooflight would be high-level, it is not considered that the proposed development
would have a significantly detrimental impact in terms of overlooking.
In terms of loss of light/overbearing impact, with a modest eaves height of
approximately 2.6m and total height of 3.55m and a roof that would slope away from
the neighbouring dwelling, it is not considered that the proposed single-storey
extension would have a greater detrimental impact than the existing extension. In
fact, with the extension set in from the rear building-line by approximately 0.25m, it
would be sited further from the boundary than the existing extension.
The two-storey extension would be set approximately 1.6m in from the boundary with
an eaves height of approximately 5.3m and a total height of 7.3m, off-set from the
main ridge-line. Given that the extension would be set in from the rear building-line
and given existing close relationships between the properties, it is not considered
that refusal of permission would be justified in respect of loss of light or overbearing
impact.
The proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including the below:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the first submitted location plan
and in accordance with the amended plan (drawing titled proposed extension)
received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 April 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no additional window or
rooflight shall be inserted in the north-east rear elevations or roofslopes of the
two-storey or single-storey extensions hereby permitted unless planning
permission has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
4
4 July 2013
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
4
The rooflight proposed for the north-east rear roofslope shall be installed at
least 1.75m above the finished internal floor level of the room in which it would
be installed, and shall be thereafter so retained.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5
Materials to be used on the permitted extensions shall match those of the
existing building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge
satisfactorily with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2.
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0430 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 99/1235 to permit an additional three seasonal caravans; Moorland
Park, Holt Road for Mrs E Field
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 June 2013
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
AONB
Principal Route
Advertising Control
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19901644 PO - Erection of six timber holiday cabins and conversion of barn to
annexe
Refused 01/03/1991
PLA/19990923 PF - Use of land as a site for ten touring caravans
Refused 23/09/1999
PLA/19931402 PF - Extension of existing five pitch caravan site to fifteen pitches
Refused 16/12/1993 D 26/07/1994
PLA/19991235 PF - Use of land as site for 10 touring caravans
Approved 12/06/2000
PLA/19901644 PO - Erection of six timber holiday cabins and conversion of barn to
annexe
Refused 01/03/1991
PF/10/0226 PF - Use of holiday unit as residential annexe
Approved 28/04/2010
PF/12/0778 PF - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference 99/1235
to permit siting of three additional touring caravans
Refused 30/08/2012
Development Committee
5
4 July 2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to allow an additional three caravans on site. There is currently permission to
allow up to 10 touring caravans on site at any time and this application seeks
permission for 3 seasonal caravans.
The seasonal caravans would remain on site and be available to the owners between
March and October in any calendar year.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Helen Eales having regard to the North Norfolk District
Council Annual Action Plan 2013/14 and its support for the growth and expansion of
existing businesses within the district.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority (HA) - Object. There is a considerable history in
relation to this site, with the Highway Authority consistently stating that any
intensification of use of a private driveway directly accessing a section of the busy
and important A148 (Principal Route) would be likely to give rise to fundamental
highway safety concerns.
The previous applications 1993/1402 and 1999/0923 resulted in planning consent
being refused and the consent 1999/1235, now subject to variation, was granted at
Development Control Committee, contrary to Highway advice.
Permission was granted subject to conditions to ensure that no part of the application
site would be used as a tented campsite and subject to a binding legal agreement
made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (restricting the
number of touring caravans to a maximum of ten).
The applicant had inferred that there were previously higher traffic movements,
however, it transpired in 1994 that the site was neither a certified site by the Camping
and Caravan Club nor was it licensed under the Caravan Sites Act. This was detailed
in the Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision (planning reference 1993 1402/PF) of
26 July 1994, where the Appeal Inspector strongly supported the highway safety
objection.
At the time of the later application in 1999 (99/0923/PF), to change the use of the site
to ten caravans, it appears that the site was operating under the Camping and
Caravan Club Certified Site Scheme (5 Pitches) with 10 tented pitches. This
application was refused for highway reasons, as it was considered contrary to policy
applicable at that time (Corridors of Movement Policy 146).
The following application (99/1235/PF) for the use of the land for 10 touring caravan
pitches was recommended by Officers for refusal for the same reason as PF/99/0923
- Policy 146, however the Development Control Committee gave delegated approval
subject to a Section 106 agreement to remove General Permitted Development
rights.
Development Committee
6
4 July 2013
With consideration that the applicants agreed to, and signed the Section 106
agreement, which removed these PD rights and restricted the site to 10 units, any
arguments relating to previous levels of traffic generation are not relevant and unless
the Section 106 agreement is changed, the increases sought, cannot be made.
The proposed increase of 3 caravans represents an additional 12-15 daily
movements (30% increase) above the consented use for the site, which is restricted
to 10 caravans by condition and Section 106 agreement.
If the applicant sought to change the Section 106 agreement, the HA would repeat
our consistent objection to all of the previous applications.
The site access is situated on the A148 Holt Road, a busy and important stretch of
the highway network designated a Principal Route under the County Council‟s
adopted Route Hierarchy and a Corridor of Movement under the North Norfolk
District Council Local Plan. A148 Holt Road is witness to large volumes of traffic and
has the primary function of carrying traffic safely and freely between centres of
population.
The proposed application would result in a 30% increase in slowing, stopping and
turning movements and would result in right turning vehicles waiting for a clear gap
sufficient to enter the site by the private access, which would be of further detriment
to the free flow of traffic on this Principal Route.
Within the Appeal Decision of 1994, the Appeal Inspector recognised that 'the access
drive lacks convenient passing spaces close to the junction, so that incoming
vehicles from either direction might be compelled to wait in the principal road
carriageway for others to emerge. ~ I conclude that the access is at present
unsuitable to serve the proposed intensified use as a touring caravan site, and on
that ground your appeal fails.'
Whilst the Development Control Committee granted consent contrary to the Highway
Officers advice, the requirement for the applicant to enter into a S106 agreement to
restrict the overall use of the site shows that concerns regarding the level of use of
the access, at this location, were of particular importance.
As such, I recommend that the application to further increase the use of this site, be
refused, for the following reasons:SHCR 08 The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason
of its inadequate width and the proposal would therefore lead to the waiting of
vehicles on the highway to the detriment of highway safety. Contrary to Core
Strategy Policy CT5.
SHCR 09 The proposal would lead to an intensification in the use of a private access
directly onto the A148 Holt Road, which is a principle route and corridor of
movement, this would cause undue interference with the safe and free flow of traffic
on this important traffic route. Contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT5.
SHCR 11 The proposed development, if permitted, would lead to right hand turning
movements across the opposing traffic stream of a principal route which would
interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic and cause danger and inconvenience to
highway users. Contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT5.
Development Committee
7
4 July 2013
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EC 10: Static and touring caravans and camping sites (specifies criteria for
new sites and extensions or intensification of existing sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact upon AONB
3. Impact upon Highway Safety, particularly in relation to the Principal Route
APPRAISAL
The site lies within an area of Countryside and falls within the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Under Policies SS 2, EN 1 and EC 10 extensions or intensification of existing static
and touring sites are permitted in principle.
Policy EC 10 states that any intensification or extension to sites will only be permitted
where the proposal;
1) conclusively demonstrates a very high standard of design and landscaping and
minimal adverse impact on its surroundings;
2) is appropriate when considered against the other policies of the plan.
The application seeks to allow the siting of three extra caravans within the existing
site boundary and no extension of the site is proposed. The three proposed caravans
appear to already be in place and this application is therefore retrospective in nature.
The caravan park is bordered with a woodland to the south east and has a row of
mature trees along both the north east and north west boundaries. The caravan park
is not readily visible from the A148 (over 70m away) to the south due to the location
of the applicant's bungalow and several mature trees.
The site is located within the AONB where Policy EN 1 only permits development
which is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area
or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area and does not detract
from the special qualities. The impact upon the wider Countryside and AONB is
considered to be minimal, with the new pitches not readily visible from anywhere
except the park itself. As such the proposal is considered to comply with policy EN 1
and the first part of policy EC 10.
Development Committee
8
4 July 2013
The second part of policy EC 10 stipulates that the proposal needs to comply with the
other policies within the Core Strategy. In this case policy CT 5 is considered
particularly relevant in respect of the transport impact of new development. Located
to the north of the A148, the park is accessed via an unmade driveway running along
the west of the site. The Highway Authority have advised that intensification of the
use at Moorland Park is anticipated to be detrimental to highway safety. The access
itself is considered to be unsuitable due to its width, prohibiting two lanes of traffic
and therefore resulting in waiting of vehicles on the highway. Intensification of use of
the access directly onto a Principal Route, to include right hand turning across the
opposing traffic stream, would interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic and
cause danger and inconvenience to highway users. As such the proposal is
considered to conflict with policy CT 5 and therefore also to fail in respect of
compliance with Policy EC 10.
Paragraph 28 of the NPPF is relevant to this application. It supports economic growth
in rural areas, supporting sustainable growth and expansion of all types of
businesses and enterprises in rural areas. In addition there is also support within
paragraph 28 for sustainable tourism which respects the character of the countryside.
As one of district's rural businesses providing a facility for tourism the proposed
increase in the number of caravan pitches, which would have a minimal impact upon
the local character, is considered to be compliant with the NPPF.
However,
Members will appreciate the objection to the proposal on the grounds of highway
safety.
In terms of the grounds of objection from the Highway Authority only one of the three
points could potentially be mitigated. With the applicants owning land to the south
east of the access there is potential for this access to be widened, creating a
driveway which could accommodate two lanes of traffic, therefore preventing the
need for vehicles to wait on the highway.
Whilst these material considerations (the NPPF and potential amendment to the
access drive) can be offered weight to this decision, they are not considered to
outweigh the Highway Authority concerns regarding the intensification of use of a
private access onto a principle route, and the increase in the amount of right hand
turning movements occurring.
The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal, on the grounds of the proposed development would engender danger
and inconvenience to road users due to;
the unsatisfactory access, by reason of its inadequate width, which would
lead to the waiting of vehicles on the highway to the detriment of highway
safety,
an intensification in the use of a private access directly onto the A148 Holt
Road, which is a principal route and corridor of movement. This would
cause undue interference with the safe and free flow of traffic on this
important traffic route,
it would lead to right hand turning movements across the opposing traffic
stream of a principal route which would interfere with the free and safe flow
of traffic and cause danger and inconvenience to highway users.
The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies EC 10 and CT 5.
Development Committee
9
4 July 2013
3.
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road
for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 18 July 2013
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
The proposed development would replace the former Cromer police station and
magistrates court building. The apartments would be contained within one large block
and would consist of 20 x 1 bed and 15 x 2 bed units intended specifically for elderly
people. Communal areas in the building would consist of a lounge, laundry room,
internal refuse store, mobility scooter charging room and guest suite. Externally
there would be a shared landscaped garden to the rear and 19 car parking spaces to
the front.
There are a pair of former police houses linked to the principal existing building. It is
proposed that the majority of the house closest to the principal building will also be
demolished as part of the overall redevelopment.
The proposed building would measures 54 m wide (fronting the road) with a plan
depth of 25m. It would have an overall height of approx 12.8m to the highest part of
its roof. It would be set between 1.5m and 2.5m forward of the existing building's
main front elevation.
The construction of the building would for the most part comprise a flat roof,
disguised to the front and sides by a series of pitched roofs. It would be
approximately 3m higher than the existing building on the site.
The rear elevation would include a number of a large balconies which would serve
the respective units. Balconies are also incorporated in the upper floor of the front
elevation. In addition a shared roof terrace is proposed at the north-east corner of
the building.
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Statement of Community involvement
Transport impact and Parking Provision report
Building and Heritage Assessment
Drainage Survey
Viability Assessment
Habitat Report
Tree Survey
Sustainability Statement
Development Committee
10
4 July 2013
Committee will note that application 13/0112 for Conservation Area consent for the
demolition of the building is also for consideration as a separate item on this agenda.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a
Committee site visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, the wrong type of housing and
concern in regards to the vehicular access.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of support on following grounds:
Would be good for the more senior residents of Cromer to downsize from larger
properties if the size of the apartments are big enough and prices reasonable.
Two letters of objection on the following grounds:
The building should be re-used rather than demolished.
The building is ideal for re-use as a medical practice which is much needed by
Cromer residents.
There is no further need for housing for the elderly in Cromer, the site should be used
for a use that would keep the youth in Cromer.
The application would not „boost the economy‟ as suggested in the design and
access statement – it would not bring new industry or spending in the local area, only
put a further drain on existing services.
The lack of on site parking for residents and their visitors would result in street
parking in the surrounding area.
4 letters received neither indicating support or objection, but offering the following
comments:
Interest in occupying an apartment in the development
The site is ideally located for the supermarket, shops and town centre
There is much need for a retirement development of this kind with nothing similar in
the area at present.
The proposal is a great opportunity to improve the main gateway into Cromer
The building would be taller than the old building but would not block out sun to those
houses to the rear.
The design for the front of the building looks a bit messy with too much glass.
Houses and gardens will be partly overlooked but border fencing and planting of
evergreen trees would overcome this.
Query what noise/vibration the proposed air source heat pump might make.
Bats have been seen in the area.
Letter received from the Cromer Preservation Society - Objects as follows:
As the site is in the Conservation Area and is on the Councils „Local List‟, any
replacement building according to the NPPF should make an equal, if not greater,
contribution to the Conservation Area and be at the very least, of equal architectural
merit. The proposal is of an institutional design of no architectural merit and would
by its sheer mass, dominate and overshadow the surrounding street. As such we do
not consider the proposal would make a positive contribution to the Conservation
Area. In addition we do not consider that the proposal would benefit the local
community nor does it appear to have the overwhelming support of the community.
We do not therefore believe that the proposal will achieve substantial public benefits
that outweigh harm or loss.
Development Committee
11
4 July 2013
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water – Advises that there is presently available capacity at Cromer Sewer
Treatment Works and in the sewerage network to cater for the foul drainage from this
development.
The submitted surface water strategy indicates discharge via infiltration, however site
specific infiltration testing has not been undertaken and therefore, connection to a
public surface water sewer may be required. If connection to a public surface water
sewer is required, a surface water drainage strategy will need to be submitted and
approved to be secured by a condition.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Indicate that whilst the parking provision is
not in accordance with the general provision in the adopted standards, it is
appropriate for the Category 2 accommodation provided at the site, where car use
and ownership is reduced and therefore raise no objection subject to conditions.
Conditions include the construction specification of the access, the restriction of
gates and bollards opening on to the highway and the closing up of the existing
access.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) – Require a fire
hydrant which can be secured by way of condition, and indicate that as the
development will place pressure on the existing library service, a contribution of
£2,100 (i.e. £60 per dwelling) is sought to increase the capacity of Cromer library.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue – Taking into account the location and infrastructure
already in place and type of premise proposed, Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service will
require an additional hydrant to be installed. A condition is requested to secure the
fire hydrant.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The level of open space requirement for this
development has been calculated in terms of the additional population generated.
Based purely on population (38 adults) the open space contribution for this
development should be a total of approx £51,000 (approx £24,000 for parks, £6,000
for play, £9,000 for green space and £11,800 for allotments). The level of
contribution however should be related to the proposed development, for retired
residents only, and as such requiring a contribution towards parks and play is not
appropriate.
There is a waiting list for allotments and further land is being sought, and the
Meadow approx 200m away requires minor improvements in terms of tree planting.
It is appropriate to seek contributions towards these requirements.
Therefore on the basis that the proposed development is for retired people, and with
an appreciation that the commercial viability of the scheme is marginal, a contribution
of £10,000 towards allotment provision and £5,000 towards improvement to the
Meadow is sought.
Strategic Housing Manager - Comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) States as follows:
The building presently standing on the site of the proposed development was
identified as a Building of Local Special Architectural or Historic Interest by the
Council on 12 November 2012 and thereby added to the „Local List‟ of nondesignated Heritage Assets. The Cromer Conservation Area Appraisal and
Management Plan was adopted by the Council on the same date.
Development Committee
12
4 July 2013
Located within the Cromer Conservation Area and occupying a prominent position at
the entrance to the town centre, the former Police Station and Magistrates Court is a
very significant building. Built in 1938, it has a distinctive and unique style, but not
untypical of the period between the wars. So in itself the architectural design is
reflective of a specific time and period in history. Clearly also the building is very
much a demonstration of local civic pride. In short the social history and community
engagement associated with the building should not be overlooked.
Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the adopted Policy
EN8 (Historic Environment) in the North Norfolk Local Development Framework and
the Conservation Area Appraisal provide the policy context. In addition the English
Heritage Practice Guide to the former PPS5 (historic Environment) remains in force
at this time.
As has been pointed out by English Heritage, under Para.128 of the NPPF applicants
are required to provide a description of the significance of any heritage asset affected
by a development proposal, including any contribution made by its setting. The
information supplied is deficient and as a result it is difficult to fully assess the merits
or otherwise of the proposal and to measure them against the heritage value of the
building and any public benefit which may accrue. Refusal of this application could be
justified upon this basis alone – lack of an adequate heritage statement. For instance
views towards the building and up and down Holt Road with the town and its
townscape in the background have not been assessed.
The development would be a substantial one and whilst Para.137 of the NPPF
encourages Local Planning Authorities to look for opportunities for new development
in Conservation Areas, they are also reminded of the need for new proposals to
preserve those elements of Conservation Areas and their setting which make a
positive contribution or to better reveal the significance of an area.
In this regard, the design of the proposed apartment block is not considered to be
appropriate. The proposed development fails to achieve „local resonance‟ and has
little or no „local distinctiveness‟. The scale and form of the development is excessive
and the architectural style insufficiently connected with Cromer. Furthermore the site
itself is not large enough for the size of the building proposed and as such constitutes
„over-development.
To conclude, the proposed building is inferior in character and design to the building
it would replace. It would not be an improvement on the current building and would
not in my view enhance the appearance, character and setting of the Cromer
Conservation Area. Whilst the provision of 35 apartments and thereby homes would
seemingly provide some public benefits I do not consider that this outweighs the
serious harm that could be done to a designated heritage asset (i.e. Cromer
Conservation Area) and the non-designated asset which is the former Police Station
and Magistrates Court.
Consequently the proposed development should be refused in accordance with
Policies EN4 (design) and EN8 (Historic Environment) of the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework and Paras.128 and 134 of the NPPF.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Comments as
follows:
The application is supported by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey dated 14
February 2013. This concludes that further surveys are required to determine
whether any bats (a European Protected Species) may be using the site or roosting
Development Committee
13
4 July 2013
in the building proposed to be demolished (and possibly the bunker). The report
suggests that the buildings hold moderate roosting potential, therefore we must
ascertain whether any roosts or bats are present within the buildings and if so the
numbers and species of bat present. It is not clear from the report whether the
buildings and roof voids (if present) were surveyed internally, as these will need to be
checked for evidence as well. Dusk and dawn activity surveys (following the Bat
Conservation Trust‟s Good Practice Guidelines) will need to be undertaken. The
optimum time for these surveys is between May and August, therefore these could
be done as soon as possible.
Until the additional survey information has been provided the Council is not in a
position to determine the application whilst having due regard to the requirements of
the Habitats Regulations (The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 as amended). Paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 stipulates that “it is essential
that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be
affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission
is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been
addressed in making the decision".
In accordance with statutory duties and guidance provided by Natural England
Standing Advice (November 2011), recommends that the application is deferred until
the relevant survey information has been provided, or that the application is refused
under Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
In respect of the proposed landscaping of the site, there are trees and planting
worthy of retention on the site. Together with the Tree Survey and Tree Constraints
Plan, two Landscape Proposals Plans have been submitted. These indicate that
some of the existing trees on the site will be retained and supplemented by additional
planting and landscaping. However, the plans do not identify exactly which trees will
be retained. In addition to this there is no plan illustrating the Root Protection Areas
of the trees and therefore it is not possible to identify the impact of the proposals on
the retained trees and what methods of tree protection will be required. Whilst there
is no objection in principle to the proposed landscaping, further detailed plans are
required to enable a full assessment to be made.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - States as follows:
The courthouse and police station were built in 1938-9 to a refined design in the neo
Georgian style. The symmetrical plan has the courtroom itself to the centre with
flanking wings slightly advanced. The tall arched courtroom windows are elegant and
the roof is furnished with a small domed bell cote. The design is distinguished with
good door cases, shallow hipped roofs and other details. The new building added to
the site compromises the symmetry of the façade but it is loosely attached and could
easily be disposed of.
There is no doubt that the building makes a positive contribution to the significance of
the Conservation Area and its loss should be treated as substantial harm. (Paragraph
138 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). In view of this every effort
should be made to find alternative uses for the building which recover and maintain
its special character.
English Heritage - A summary of the comments received is as follows:
The existing building sits at one entrance to the Conservation Area where it forms a
group with the former railway station. Its replacement with a more visually prominent
residential building will have a substantial impact on the Conservation Area.
Development Committee
14
4 July 2013
The applicant has failed to assess the full significance of the existing building and its
contribution to the Cromer Conservation Area and fails to comply with Para 128 of
the NPPF.
Despite the lack of detailed assessment it seems clear that the building has played
an important role in the life of Cromer for a significant part of the last century. It is
also a building that sits within a tradition of civic architecture and design for police
and judicial functions and one which combines with the former railway station to give
a certain character to this part of the Conservation Area. The proposed replacement
building does not respond to the character of the part of the conservation area in
which the application site is found and is not a convincing, high-quality design
inspired (as the application suggests) by other historic buildings in the Conservation
Area. From this we conclude that the loss of the existing building and its
replacement as proposed would result in harm to the Conservation Area under
paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Recommends refusal.
Refer to the full response in Appendix 1.
Environmental Health - No objection, however would draw the applicant‟s attention
to the late night bar/disco which is directly opposite which is licensed with 24/7
opening hours. There have been historic complaints regarding noise nuisance but
none in the past few years. The applicant is advised of potential noise which may
affect residents of the proposed retirement homes and consideration should be given
to the design and layout to minimize the potential for residents to be affected.
Conditions are requested requiring a contaminated land survey, details of external
lighting to be approved, details of any extraction/ventilation and precise details of the
air source heat pump to be approved, a SUDS scheme for surface water disposal to
be submitted and advisory notes in respect of demolition and any potential asbestos.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Advises that the application proposes Code Level 3
and the use of an air source heat pump for the communal areas, however no specific
energy information has been provided showing whether this will meet the 10%
requirement under Policy EN6. Further information is required to show whether
compliance with this part of the policy would be achieved. The application should
only be approved subject to conditions to secure Code Level 3 and the additional
information as to how the 10% requirement will be achieved.
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.
Development Committee
15
4 July 2013
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 SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy 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).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - March 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design issues and the impact upon heritage assets
3. Amenity issues
4. Affordable Housing
5. Developer contributions
6. Highway impact and car parking
7. Protected species
8. Sustainable construction
9. Landscaping
10. Loss of a Locally Listed Historic Building
APPRAISAL
The site lies on the southern side of the Holt Road opposite the entrance to
Morrisons supermarket, a public house and the railway station. It is rectangular in
shape (approx 0.38 ha.) and is currently occupied by the former police station and
courthouse building. The site slopes up steeply at the rear with planted banks around
an existing rear parking area.
The existing building is set back from the site's frontage with Holt Road with its
ground floor elevated above road level and a front parking area. The main building is
single storey, neo-Georgian style built in approximately 1938 and is relatively
unassuming within the streetscene.
To the eastern side of the site is a two storey dwelling (former police house) and to
the west there is a row of bungalows (on rising ground). To the rear of the site there
are three rows of two storey dwellings set at a higher ground level positioned
perpendicular to the rear site boundary.
Development Committee
16
4 July 2013
Principle of development
The site lies within the designated residential policy area where the principle of new
residential development (in this case retirement apartments) is acceptable subject to
compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Design issues and the impact upon heritage assets
The site lies with the designated Conservation Area. Furthermore as part of a recent
review of the Conservation Area (Cromer Conservation Area - Character Appraisal
and Management Proposals - adopted by the Council in November 2012) the former
court house and police station building is 'locally listed'.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
places a general duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a
Conservation Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core Strategy policy
EN8, which requires development to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area, and the NPPF.
Assessment of this application therefore needs to consider what the impacts would
be upon the character of the Conservation Area, both as a cause of the loss of the
existing building and by the proposed new development. Both the Conservation Area
and the locally listed building are heritage assets to which policy EN8 of the Core
Strategy and the NPPF seek to protect and enhance.
The NPPF (Para.128) requires applicants to describe the significance of heritage
assets and the contribution their setting might make to that significance. Sufficient
information should also be provided to enable an understanding of the potential
impact of new development on such assets. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises
great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and any harm or
loss should require clear and convincing justification. It is not considered that the
documents submitted with the application fully establish the significance of the locally
listed building or its contribution to the Conservation Area, and on this basis both
English Heritage and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advise that
either further information is required before a decision can be made, or that this
forms a reason for refusal.
Notwithstanding this it will be noted that both the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager and English Heritage consider that the design of the proposed
building fails to adequately respond to this part of the Conservation Area and is not a
building that is of a convincing high quality design, or inspired by other historic
buildings in the locality. It is considered that the proposed building lacks any local
distinctiveness and that in terms of its scale, form and architectural style has no
connection to Cromer. Furthermore it constitutes overdevelopment of the site.
It is therefore contended that the proposed redevelopment of the site would result in
serious harm to heritage assets and as a consequence would be contrary to the
objectives of Core Strategy policies EN8 and EN4.
The NPPF identifies two levels of harm to heritage assets, either “substantial harm”
or “less than substantial harm” when assessing the relative significance of the
element affected and its contribution to the significance of the conservation Area as a
whole. Paragraph 133 states that in cases of 'substantial harm' consent should be
refused unless it can be demonstrated that 'substantial' public benefits would be
achieved that outweigh any harm or loss to a heritage asset. Whereas paragraph 134
states that in cases of 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of a heritage
Development Committee
17
4 July 2013
asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal,
including securing its optimum viable use.
In this case there is serious harm (the current building would be completely
replaced). However, taken in the context of the whole of the Cromer Conservation
Area it can be argued that it is „less than substantial‟. In such instances Para 134 of
the NPPF applies. This requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefit of
the proposal. Other than the delivery of retirement housing in the area and bringing a
currently disused site into active use there are no other public benefits being
provided as part of the proposed development. It is considered that on this occasion
these benefits do not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the heritage
asset.
To conclude, the concerns regarding the proposed development upon the historic
environment are twofold:
1.The insufficient heritage statement which does not fully assess the significance of
the asset, (contrary to the requirements of Para.128 of the NPPF).
2. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
the Cromer Conservation Area as required by Policy EN8. Its design is not suitable
for its context as required by Policy EN4. It would result in serious harm to the
character, appearance and significance of the Conservation Area and this harm
would not be outweighed by any public benefits, contrary to paragraphs134 and 137
of the NPPF.
Amenity issues
In terms of the level of amenity provided for the future occupants of the new
development, the majority of apartments would have private balconies and there
would be a communal sun terrace and a landscaped garden to the rear. The
applicant contends that in view of the nature of the accommodation and their
experience with this form of development, the proposed amenity space to be more
than adequate to serve the particular needs of the residents. Given the proposed use
for retirement apartments, the amenity areas proposed are considered adequate.
In response to the Environmental Health Officer's comments regarding potential
conflict with the late night disco/bar opposite the site, the applicant has indicated that
an enhanced glazing specification is proposed for those apartments on the road
elevation. In addition background ventilation would be provided which will avoid the
need for trickle vents in windows, thus improving the acoustic insulation of the
apartments. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this respect.
Potential impacts of the development upon neighbouring residential amenities are
mainly confined to existing properties to the rear of the site and primarily relate to
loss of privacy from proposed windows, balconies and roof terrace.
The dwellings directly to the rear are side on to the proposed development and at a
higher ground level. The relative distance between the proposal and those dwellings
meets with the minimum distance set out in the Council's Basic Amenity Criteria and
the relationship is therefore considered to be acceptable.
No.5 (the former police house to be retained) and 5a to the east would not be unduly
overlooked and these relationships are considered acceptable.
The relationship with no.11 Holt Road, which is the closest bungalow on rising land to
the west of the site, would be very close. To make this relationship acceptable, a
number of side windows on the proposed development would need to be obscurely
Development Committee
18
4 July 2013
glazed and one balcony either deleted or the boundary treatment along the western
boundary be conditioned to ensure it adequately screens that property from
overlooking.
Subject to conditions indicated above it is considered the proposal would result in no
significant harm to the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties.
Affordable Housing
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires 45% of developments of 10 or more dwellings to
be affordable, subject to viability. or an equivalent contribution made for off-site
provision. Normally affordable housing provision should be on-site, however in the
case of this specialised form of development on-site provision would be impractical
and therefore a contribution towards off-site provision (if viable) is considered more
appropriate.
The applicant has submitted an assessment to indicate that the scheme would not be
financially viable to provide any affordable housing contribution.
At the time of writing this report, comments are awaited from the Strategic Housing
Manager in response to the viability assessment and Committee will be updated
orally.
Developer contributions
On schemes of 10 or more dwellings where there is not sufficient capacity in
infrastructure, services, community facilities or open space, Policy CT2 indicates that
improvements should be sought in order to make new development acceptable. The
nature and scale of any planning requirements sought to improve facilities,
infrastructure and services should be related specifically to the type of development
and its potential impact on the surrounding area.
The Committee will note the comments of the Council‟s Parks Manager who
suggests that in the event of approval the need for a contribution of £15000 towards
off-site open space provision, as well as the response from County Council requiring
a contribution of £2100 towards library provision (and a fire hydrant).
The submitted viability assessment indicates that there is no viability within the
scheme to provide any contribution towards these community facilities. The fire
hydrant, however, would be secured by condition.
The submitted viability assessment is still under consideration and the comments of
the Strategic Housing Manager are awaited in this respect. The Committee will be
updated orally in respect of this matter.
Highway impact/car parking
In respect of the access to the site, the existing access is to be relocated slightly
further west. Subject to conditions to ensure its appropriate construction, the
Highway Authority raise no objection.
In terms of parking provision, 19 car parking spaces are proposed, this falls short of
the Councils parking standards, which equate to 36 spaces for this development.
There is therefore a shortfall of 17 parking spaces. However, the County Highway
Authority has raised no objection. Given the type of accommodation proposed and
the justification submitted with the application regarding the typical car ownership and
usage of their residents, coupled with the location close to the town centre and
facilities, services and public transport, it is considered that a reduced parking
Development Committee
19
4 July 2013
provision in this instance can be justified and would result in no significant harm to
highway safety.
The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of highway impact and
parking provision in accordance with policies CT5 and CT6 of the Core Strategy.
Protected species
Policy EN9 advises that development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect
adverse effect to protected species will not be permitted unless measures are in
place to mitigate those impacts and the benefits of the development outweigh those
impacts. It indicates that where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected
species, applications should be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence,
and, if present, the proposal must be sensitive to and make provision for their needs.
In addition paragraph 118 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to
conserve and enhance biodiversity, and indicates that if significant harm resulting
from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort,
compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
The application is supported by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey which
concludes that further surveys are required to determine whether any bats (a
European Protected Species) may be using the site or roosting in the building
proposed to be demolished. This additional survey work has not been submitted and
until this has been provided the Council is not in a position to determine the
application as it is unable to assess the impacts on protected species having due
regard to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. Determination of the
application would either need to be deferred until the relevant survey information has
been provided, or the application refused under Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy and
Para.118 of the NPPF. In this case, given that it is considered there are other
reasons to refuse permission, and that the additional survey work is yet to be
submitted by the applicant, it is recommended that the inadequate information
submitted in terms of protected species be an additional reason for refusal.
Sustainable construction
Subject to a condition to ensure compliance with code level 3 of the Code for
Sustainable Homes and 10% of energy from on-site renewables (details of how the
proposed air source heat pump will achieve this figure), the proposal would comply
with policy EN6 of the Core Strategy.
Landscaping
The existing trees and planting on the site are worthy of retention, however the
submitted plans are not clear which trees are to be retained and how they will be
protected.
The Councils Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager indicates that there is
no objection in principle to the landscaping proposals, however more detailed plans
must be submitted so that the trees to be retained can be adequately identified
together with their Root Protection Areas and the actual development proposals.
Furthermore it is considered that further tree planting will be required to boost levels
of screening to the perimeter of the site at the rear.
In the event of permission being granted, plans showing the retained trees and the
development would need to be approved prior to issue of the decision, and a
landscaping condition would need to be imposed to make the scheme acceptable.
Development Committee
20
4 July 2013
Conclusion
Whilst the principle of developing this site for 35 retirement apartments is acceptable
and this would contribute towards housing growth in the District in accordance with
the adopted Development Plan, the public benefit accruing as a result does not
outweigh the harm potentially done to a heritage asset.
In terms of access arrangements, car parking, amenity issues, landscaping and
sustainable construction, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable,
or can be made acceptable by the imposition of appropriate conditions.
However, there is a further outstanding issue in relation to protected species (bats),
which although this could be resolved by further survey work, this aspect remains
unresolved. As submitted, the application is deficient in respect of assessing the
potential impact on protected species and could be refused on these grounds as well
as the impact on the historic environment.
The development viability and the consequent lack of contribution towards affordable
housing, public open space, or library facilities is still under consideration and the
comments of the Councils Strategic Housing Manager are awaited. The Committee
will be updated in respect of this matter.
To conclude, the main issue to be considered in determining the application relates
to the impact of the proposal on the Historic Environment. A balanced judgement is
required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the
heritage asset. Notwithstanding the inadequate assessment of the heritage asset
submitted, it is considered that the proposal fails to preserve or enhance, and in fact
results in serious if not substantial harm to the heritage asset and that this is not
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Consequently the proposal
conflicts with policies EN4 and EN8 of the Core Strategy and Paras 128, 134 and
137 of the NPPF.
The proposal is therefore contrary to current Development Plan policy and refusal is
recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to refuse, subject to any further comments of the Council's
Strategic Housing Manager, for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
EN 9 - Biodiversity and geology
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)(published 27 March 2012) is
also material to the determination of the application.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to adequately
assess the significance of the heritage assets contrary to the requirements of Para.
128 of the NPPF.
Development Committee
21
4 July 2013
Furthermore, the proposal fails to preserve or enhance either the character or
appearance of the Cromer Conservation Area and is not suitably designed for its
context, contrary to Policies EN4 and EN8 of the Core Strategy. It would result in
harm to the character, appearance and significance of the Conservation Area
contrary to Paras 134 and 137 of the NPPF and this is not considered to be
outweighed by the public benefits in this instance.
Additionally, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not
result in harm to protected species, contrary to the requirements of policy EN9 of the
Core Strategy and Para. 118 of the NPPF.
Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan.
4.
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
- Target Date: 13 June 2013
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Conservation Area Demolition
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks Conservation Area consent for the demolition of part of the two former police
houses, the existing police station and magistrates court building.
It is proposed that whilst the majority of the police house closest to the building would
be demolished, a small part would be retained for housing of an air source heat
pump.
The existing frontage wall would be demolished and replaced.
The retaining wall to the rear of the site would be re-configured.
The building would be replaced with an apartment block for the retired consisting of
35 apartments and communal facilities.
Committee will note that application 13/0111 for full planning permission for the
replacement building on the site is also for consideration as a separate item on this
agenda.
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Statement of Community involvement
Building and Heritage Assessment
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a
Committee site visit.
Development Committee
22
4 July 2013
TOWN COUNCIL
Object as the demolition of the building does not conform to Core strategy policies
EN4 and EN8.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support on the following grounds:
Agree with the heritage report. The building should be demolished and the site
developed.
One letter of objection on the following grounds:
The building should not be demolished.
The building should be retained and re-modelled
Letter received from Cromer Preservation Society - Objects as follows:
As the site is in the Conservation Area and is on the Councils „Local List‟, any
replacement building according to the NPPF should make an equal, if not greater,
contribution to the Conservation Area and be at the very least, of equal architectural
merit. The proposal is of an institutional design of no architectural merit and would
by its sheer mass, dominate and overshadow the surrounding street. As such we do
not consider the proposal would make a positive contribution to the Conservation
Area. In addition we do not consider that the proposal would benefit the local
community nor does it appear to have the overwhelming support of the community.
We do not therefore believe that the proposal will achieve substantial public benefits
that outweigh harm or loss.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – No objection. Require advisory notes in respect of the
need for notice to be served on the Council prior to demolition; submission of a
demolition plan which should include an asbestos survey and the means of
controlling noise and dust; and should asbestos be located this should be dealt with
in accordance with the appropriate health and safety requirements.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - Objects to the application.
The building presently standing on the site of the proposed development was
identified as a Building of Local Special Architectural or Historic Interest by the
Council on 12 November 2012 and thereby added to the „Local List‟ of nondesignated Heritage Assets. The Cromer Conservation Area Appraisal and
Management Plan was adopted by the Council and made a „material consideration‟
in the planning process on the same date.
Located within the Cromer Conservation Area and occupying a prominent position at
the entrance to the town centre, the former Police Station and Magistrates Court is a
very significant building. Built in 1938, it has a distinctive and unique style, but not
untypical of the period between the wars. So in itself the architectural design is
reflective of a specific time and period in history. Clearly also the building is very
much a demonstration of local civic pride. In short the social history and community
engagement associated with the building should not be overlooked.
Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the adopted Policy
EN8 (Historic Environment) in the North Norfolk Local development Framework and
the Conservation Area Appraisal provide the policy context. In addition the English
Heritage Practice Guide to the former PPS5 (historic Environment) remains in force
at this time.
Development Committee
23
4 July 2013
As has been pointed out by English Heritage under Para.128 of the NPPF applicants
are required to provide a description of the significance of any heritage asset affected
by a development proposal, including any contribution made by its setting. The
information supplied is deficient and as a result it is difficult to fully assess the merits
or otherwise of the proposal and to measure them against the heritage value of the
building and any public benefit which may accrue. Refusal of this application could be
justified upon this basis alone – lack of an adequate heritage statement. For instance
views towards the building and up and down Holt Road with the town and its
townscape in the background have not been assessed.
The development would be a substantial one and whilst Para.137 of the NPPF
encourages Local Planning Authorities to look for opportunities for new development
in Conservation Areas, they are also reminded of the need for new proposals to
preserve those elements of Conservation Areas and their setting which make a
positive contribution or to better reveal the significance of an area.
In this regard, the design of the proposed apartment block is not considered to be
appropriate. The proposed development fails to achieve local resonance and has
little or no „local distinctiveness‟. The scale and form of the development is excessive
and the architectural style insufficiently connected with Cromer. Furthermore the site
itself is not large enough for the size of the building proposed and as such constitutes
„over-development‟.
To conclude the proposed building is inferior in character and design to the building it
would replace. It would not be an improvement on the current building and would not
enhance the appearance, character and setting of the Cromer Conservation Area.
Whilst the provision of 35 apartments and thereby homes would seemingly provide
some public benefits I do not consider that this outweighs the serious harm that could
be done to a designated heritage asset (viz. Cromer Conservation Area) and the
non-designated asset which is the former Police Station and Magistrates Court.
Consequently the proposed development should be refused in accordance with
Policies EN4 (design) and EN8 (Historic Environment) of the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework and Paras.128 and 134 of the NPPF.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - States as follows:
The courthouse and police station were built in 1938-9 to a refined design in the neo
Georgian style. The symmetrical plan has the courtroom itself to the centre with
flanking wings slightly advanced. The tall arched courtroom windows are elegant and
the roof is furnished with a small domed bell cote. The design is distinguished with
good door cases, shallow hipped roofs and other details. The new building added to
the site compromises the symmetry of the façade but it is loosely attached and could
easily be disposed of.
There is no doubt that the building makes a positive contribution to the significance of
the Conservation Area and its loss should be treated as substantial harm. (Paragraph
138 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). In view of this every effort
should be made to find alternative uses for the building which recover and maintain
its special character.
English Heritage - A summary of the comments received is as follows:
The existing building sits at one entrance to the Conservation Area where it forms a
group with the former railway station. Its replacement with a more visually prominent
residential building will have a substantial impact on the Conservation Area.
Development Committee
24
4 July 2013
The applicant has failed to assess the full significance of the existing building and its
contribution to the Cromer Conservation Area and fails to comply with Para 128 of
the NPPF.
Despite the lack of detailed assessment it seems clear that the building has played
an important role in the life of Cromer for a significant part of the last century. It is
also a building that sits within a tradition of civic architecture and design for police
and judicial functions and one which combines with the former railway station to give
a certain character to this part of the Conservation Area. The proposed replacement
building does not respond to the character of the part of the conservation area in
which the application site is found and is not a convincing, high-quality design
inspired (as the application suggests) by other historic buildings in the Conservation
Area. From this we conclude that the loss of the existing building and its
replacement as proposed would result in harm to the Conservation Area under
paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Recommends refusal.
Refer to the full response in Appendix 1.
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 EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of the demolition of the building on heritage assets
APPRAISAL
The site lies with the designated Conservation Area. Furthermore as part of a recent
review of the Conservation Area (Cromer Conservation Area - Character Appraisal
and Management Proposals - adopted by the Council in November 2012) the former
court house and police station building is 'locally listed'.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
places a general duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a
Conservation Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core Strategy policy
EN8, which requires development to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area, and the NPPF.
Development Committee
25
4 July 2013
Assessment of this application therefore needs to consider what the impacts would
be upon the character of the Conservation Area, as a result of the loss of the existing
building. Both the Conservation Area and the locally listed building are heritage
assets to which policy EN8 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF seek to protect and
enhance.
The NPPF (Para.128) requires applicants to describe the significance of heritage
assets and the contribution their setting might make to that significance. Sufficient
information should also be provided to enable an understanding of the potential
impact of new development on such assets. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises
great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and any harm or
loss should require clear and convincing justification. It is not considered that the
documents submitted with the application fully establish the significance of the locally
listed building or its contribution to the Conservation Area, and on this basis both
English Heritage and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advise that
either further information is required before a decision can be made, or that this
forms a reason for refusal.
A balanced judgement in respect of redevelopment of a site such as this is required
having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage
asset. As detailed above, as the significance of the heritage asset has not been fully
established, this balanced judgement cannot be made.
Policy EN8 indicates that demolition of a locally listed building should only be
permitted in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that all
reasonable efforts have been made to sustain existing uses or find viable new ones.
It does indicate that where a building makes little contribution to the area, consent for
demolition will be given provided that, in appropriate cases, there are acceptable and
detailed plans for any redevelopment or after-use.
The applicant indicates that options for the retention of the building were explored,
however they considered that its conversion and extension to residential use did not
produce a commercially or architecturally viable scheme particularly given the
constraints of the site.
Notwithstanding the inadequate heritage assessment, both the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager and English Heritage consider that the design of the
proposed replacement building fails to adequately respond to this part of the
Conservation Area and is not a building that is of a convincing high quality design, or
inspired by other historic buildings in the locality. Harm would result from the loss of
the locally listed building within the Conservation Area and it is not considered that
the buildings loss has been adequately compensated for by an appropriate redevelopment of the site.
To conclude the concerns regarding the proposed demolition of the locally listed
building upon the historic environment are twofold:
1. The insufficient heritage statement which does not fully assess the significance of
the asset, contrary to the requirements of Para.128 of the NPPF.
2. Harm would result from the loss of the locally listed building within the
Conservation Area and it is not considered that the buildings loss has been
adequately compensated for by an appropriate re-development of the site, contrary
to Core Strategy policy EN8 and the NPPF.
As such the development does not accord with Government advice of adopted
Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
26
4 July 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reason:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)(published 27 March 2012) is
also material to the determination of the application.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to adequately
assess the significance of the heritage assets contrary to the requirements of para
128 of the NPPF.
Furthermore, the heritage assets would be harmed as a result of the loss of the
locally listed building within the Conservation Area and it is not considered that the
buildings loss has been adequately compensated for by an appropriate redevelopment of the site, contrary to Core Strategy policy EN8 and the NPPF.
Accordingly the proposal is contrary to Government advice and Development Plan
policy.
5.
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31
Norwich Road for The Royal British Legion
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 June 2013
Case Officer: Mr C Mohtram
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Erection of an entrance canopy to Halsey House. The proposal has a metal frame
with a curved roof, with glazing to the roof and sides. It is approximately 3.6m long,
2.87m wide and 2.5m high.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the local Members, Councillors Cox and Lee, on the grounds that
the design is acceptable and will not be detrimental to the appearance of the building
on the area and proposal is required for safety and comfort.
TOWN COUNCIL
Has no objection to the application
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager - Halsey House lies within the
designated Cromer Conservation Area. Whilst the building is not 'listed', by virtue of
its age form, materials and detailing it makes a significant contribution to the
Development Committee
27
4 July 2013
prevailing character of the area.
The Baroque entrance to Halsey House is one of the buildings key features. Whilst
the works would not involve any loss of fabric the entrance canopy would obscure the
pediment and associated quoin voussoir detailing of what is a rather grand entrance.
In terms of design, the plain metal and glass structure does little to reflect its
architectural context and will it is feared standout as an unsympathetic insertion into
what is a well-balanced frontage.
In terms of visual impact, the canopy will be visible from the public domain.
Overall, the scheme offers little design or detailing merit and will neither preserve nor
enhance the character of the host building or wider conservation area.
By virtue that the proposal will harm the significance of the heritage asset, C&D
recommend the application be refused under policies EN4 and EN8 of the local
development framework.
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, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1.Impact on Conservation Area
2. Impact upon host property
APPRAISAL
Halsey House is a prominent and attractive building located within the Cromer
Conservation Area where Core Strategy Policy EN 8 states that the character and
appearance of Conservation Areas will be preserved, and where possible enhanced.
This is consistent with the requirement under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for decision makers to pay special
attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of
that area.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has objected to the proposal on
the grounds that the plain metal and glass structure would do little to reflect the
architectural context of the host building and the proposal would stand out too
prominently within the existing well balanced frontage. Halsey House, even though
not listed, has important and valuable architectural features which will not be
enhanced by the proposed canopy where the plain metal and glass design would do
little to enhance the host building.
Whilst there may be a functional purpose to the entrance canopy, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager is of the opinion that the entrance area should
Development Committee
28
4 July 2013
remain without any sort of canopy that would detrimentally alter the architectural
appearance of the building.
In conclusion the proposal offers little design or detailing merit and would not accord
with the architectural quality of Halsey House. The proposal would neither preserve
nor enhance the character of the host building or the wider Conservation Area and
would conflict with the aims of Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the Development Plan to
secure high quality design.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal, on the following grounds:
1
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
The proposed entrance canopy would be attached to Halsey House which lies
within the Cromer Conservation Area. The host building makes a significant
and positive contribution to the prevailing character of the area due to its age
form, materials and detailing. The proposal offers little design or detailing merit
and will neither preserve nor enhance the character of the host building or
wider Conservation Area. For these reasons it is considered that the impact of
the development upon the character of this part of the Conservation Area
would be significantly adverse and would be contrary to the aims and
objectives of Policies EN4 and EN8.
6.
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/0042 - Construction of replacement roof with increased
height and side facing dormer window, roof lights and gable end windows to
provide first floor habitable accommodation; 1 Birch Court for Mr & Mrs S
Gaskins
- Target Date: 07 March 2013
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20021793 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of five bungalows
Refused 09/05/2003
PLA/20030777 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of four bungalows
Approved 24/06/2003
PLA/20031337 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of two bungalows and
garages
Refused 02/10/2003
PLA/20031756 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of 2 bungalows
Approved 18/12/2003
Development Committee
29
4 July 2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a replacement roof, of an increased height, with a side facing dormer.
The ridge height would increase from 5.6m to 6.15m and allows for first floor
accommodation.
Two rooflights and two gable windows are also proposed.
Following discussions with the agent an amended plan was received. The two roof
lights on the east elevation remain, but are set higher than 1.7m above the internal
floor level. A window in each gable is introduced in order to comply with Building
Regulations. The dormer window would remain obscured.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Norman Smith having regard to the following planning
issues: overlooking of neighbouring properties and development out of character for
the Close.
PARISH COUNCIL
Erpingham Parish Council offered no objection to the original plans, and no objection
to the amended plans. However they did comment on their response to the amended
plans that there are concerns that the development may overlook neighbouring
properties.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection from 4 dwellings received. 3 dwellings sent letters objecting to
both the original and amended plans, whilst the 4th property only sent a letter in
relation to the original plans. Points raised in relation to the original plans;
1. New upstairs window (dormer) would overlook the courtyard at the back of
Middlebank (aka Springbank). Currently not overlooked by anyone
2. Transforms a bungalow into a 4 bedroom house; out of character with the rest of
the bungalows in the close
3. Overlooking and overshadowing into/for 4 Birch Court, Holly Cottage and 25
Jubilee Close from the roof lights (currently no overlooking at all occurs for some
properties)
Additional comments in relation to the amended plans;
1. The interior ceiling level is approx 2.3m. The proposed roof lights are approx
0.65m tall. The roof light are stated to be <1.7m above floor level – how is this
possible?
2. The building work will be disruptive to the neighbours, and may not be able to be
completed given the distance between the eastern wall and the boundary
3. Gable windows would enable overlooking of more properties and increase the
level of overlooking in some cases
4. Three windows would now be overlooking the rear of 4 Birch Court
5. Properties were built as affordable homes; surely this extension would render the
dwelling unaffordable to most?
6. When the bungalows were built chalet bungalows or dwellings were discouraged
– there must have been good reason for this
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
30
4 July 2013
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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Suitability of design
3. Impact upon neighbouring amenities
APPRAISAL
Principle of development/Suitability of design
The site lies within designated Countryside, where extensions to existing dwellings
are acceptable in principle under Policy SS 2, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
Birch Court, located off Jubilee Close, currently consists of 5 bungalows, 4 of which,
including the applicants, were built under application PF/03/0777. Although the only
style of property currently found in Birch Court are bungalows, the character of the
wider area is varied in nature.
The increase in height to the roof would be 0.55m, from 5.6m to 6.15m. The pitch
would go from approx 40° to 45°. A dormer window would be inserted in the western
elevation, serving a bathroom. Two roof lights would be located on the eastern slope
and a single window inserted into each gable end at the first floor.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the development would have some impact upon the
character of the close, it must also be recognised that a very similar development
could be achieved without the need for planning permission, (albeit with no increase
in the height of the roof ridge). The character of this area of Erpingham is very varied.
As such the relatively small increase to the roof height, together with the introduction
of windows, is considered to be compatible with this part of the village. With control
over the materials used and any potential further alterations to the roof controlled via
a condition, the development is considered to be, on balance, acceptable in terms of
appropriateness for the local context.
With the dwelling located within a residential part of the village the property is not
readily viewed from the wider Countryside and the development, given its limited
wider impact, is acceptable under Policy HO 8.
Development Committee
31
4 July 2013
Impact upon neighbouring amenities
The bungalows within Birch Court are relatively close together, as such there is a risk
that any development here could result in overlooking or overshadowing, impacting
upon neighbour's residential amenity.
The roof would increase in height by 0.55m, remaining dual pitched. As such a
degree of additional overshadowing is expected for some neighbours, especially the
bungalow 'Holly Cottage' to the east. However with the rear garden sited 4m from the
applicant's dwelling and the distance between the two dwellings 15m, the impact of
this limited extra height upon the residential amenity is not anticipated to be
significant. Any overshadowing experienced by other properties would be minimal.
Overlooking could cause a significantly detrimental effect upon neighbours residential
amenity for several neighbours. However with the imposition of suitable conditions
the windows can be installed to reduce these impacts significantly. Roof lights on the
eastern elevation are proposed to be sited above 1.7m from the internal floor and the
dormer window and windows in the gable ends would all be conditioned to be
obscure glazed and to be hung to minimise the level of overlooking. With such
conditions in place the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of limiting
overlooking and loss of privacy.
The existing parking arrangements would not be altered. There is currently one
garage and a driveway which can fit two vehicles in. Three parking spaces meets the
Parking Standards within the Core Strategy, complying with Policy CT 6.
The application has been readvertised with the amended description to include
reference to the rooflights and gable windows. At the time of writing this report the
site notice period had not yet expired.
On balance, with the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered
to comply with policies SS 2, CT 6, HO 8 and EN 4 of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection
following expiry of the amended site notice and the following conditions:
2. This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 0222/03 Rev B) received by the Local Planning Authority on 4 April 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. Except as required by conditions 4, 5 and 6 below, materials to be used on the
permitted extension shall match those of the existing building, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily
with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
32
4 July 2013
4. The first floor bedroom window hereby permitted within the northern elevation
shall be hung on the eastern side only and installed with obscured glazing with a
degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5, unless otherwise first agreed
in writing the Local Planning Authority. The type of windows and glazing shall
thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5. The first floor bedroom window hereby permitted within the southern elevation
shall be hung on the western side and installed with obscured glazing with a
degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5, unless otherwise first
approved in writing the Local Planning Authority. The type of windows and
glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6. The first floor bathroom window hereby permitted within the western elevation
shall be hung on the southern side and installed with obscured glazing with a
degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5, unless otherwise first
approved in writing the Local Planning Authority. The type of window and glazing
shall thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows shall be
inserted in the replacement roof hereby permitted unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
8. The hereby permitted roof lights within the eastern elevation shall be sited 1.7m
or higher above the floor of the room in which they are installed, and thereafter be
retained as such.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
33
4 July 2013
7.
FELBRIGG - PF/13/0587 - Erection of single-storey rear/side extension;
Driftway Farm, The Driftway for Mrs J Oliver
- Target Date: 12 July 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761559 PF - Front extension of lounge and porch over front door
Approved 26/11/1976
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single storey rear/side extension to provide a music room,
study and other additional accommodation for domestic purposes.
The proposal is approximately 8m deep, 13m wide (maximum), with a maximum
height to the ridge of approximately 4.7m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management as the applicant is related
to the Deputy Leader of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response received at the time of writing this report.
REPRESENTATIONS
Site notice expires on 20 June 2013. No representations received at the time of
writing this report.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 1 - Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
EN 4 - Design
HO 8 - House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
2. Design
3. Impact on the countryside
Development Committee
34
4 July 2013
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated countryside (where the principle of an extension is
acceptable under Policy SS2) and AONB where proposals to extend existing
dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant Core
Strategy policies.
The proposal seeks to erect a single storey rear/side extension to the two storey
dwelling. The dwelling has cream rendered walls on brick plinth with clay tiled roof
and white upvc joinery. Materials for the extension are proposed to match the
existing. The proposal would provide additional living space which the applicant has
confirmed is for domestic purposes for the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse only. The
plans indicate a music room, study and 3 music studies although the applicant says
the rooms currently labelled as 'music study' are intended as home office spaces and
an additional guest bedroom/spare room.
The scale of the extension ensures that the architectural character of the original
building is not harmed and remains dominant and uses forms, detailing and materials
which are considered compatible with the original building. It is considered that the
position of the dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties means that the proposal
would not introduce any detrimental impacts on the amenities of those properties. It
is further considered that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the
AONB nor would it increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside. The proposal is therefore acceptable under policies EN1,
EN4 and HO8.
A tree shown on the plan to be removed had already been removed at the time of the
site visit. This did not require consent.
The proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan and
is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to appropriate conditions, including use to remain ancillary to
the residential use of the dwelling.
8.
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/12/1436 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 18
Aylsham Road for Mr & Mrs M L Mansfield
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 February 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Tree Preservation Order
Gas Pipe Buffer Zone
THE APPLICATION
Is an outline application for the erection of one single-storey dwelling on land to the
south-west of 18 Aylsham Road.
Development Committee
35
4 July 2013
Initially, all matters were reserved for subsequent approval, but access and parking
are now for consideration under an amended plan submitted. Approval of layout,
scale, appearance and landscaping remain reserved matters.
A vehicular access to the site would be created on to Aylsham Road
Two parking spaces for the existing and the proposed dwelling are proposed to the
north-west of the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object because of overdevelopment of the site which will cause extra vehicles onto a
very busy road. Members wish this application to be called into Committee.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two representations have been received (from the same person) raising the
following objections (summarised):
Road and pedestrian safety and unsuitable access;
Additional traffic;
Conservation of land beside the bridge;
Hope would be reasonable distance between bungalow and fence. Potential loss
of light;
Query in relation to overall height and length of garage;
Concerns in relation to access to rear of garage, close to fence, for maintenance
of roof and gutter;
May be more neighbour-friendly for the garage building to come level with rear
wall of neighbour bungalow (21 Simpson Close) out of objector's line of sight.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway)- Amended plan addresses both the access and parking
concerns previously expressed.
No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions regarding gates, bollard, chain or
other means of obstruction, provision of a visibility splay, provision of the access, car
parking and turning areas, and addition of an informative note.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) The site lies within the designated North Walsham Conservation Area. 18 Aylsham
Road has also been identified as a Locally Listed Building within the adopted North
Walsham Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and makes a
significant contribution to the prevailing character of the area.
The plot holds a prominent position in the street scene lying on the junction of Park
Lane and Aylsham Road. The area is dominated by the highway, the green areas
and vegetation to the west of the plot and either side of the bridge represent
important interruptions to the otherwise hard urban grain.
With regard to the proposal, the 3 bed bungalow will follow the existing building line
and roughly cover the same footprint as number 18. The general form and layout of
the plot raises no heritage cause for concern.
Development Committee
36
4 July 2013
Given the site's prominence within the Conservation Area, the eventual acceptability
of the scheme will depend greatly on the overall design, materials and elevational
treatments. That said Conservation and Design have no overriding objection in
principle.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)- I do not object to the
removal of the mature holly tree in the Conservation Area to facilitate the above
development. The site does not offer any real potential for landscaping or for a
replacement tree therefore no conditions are suggested.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - recommends condition requiring dwelling to meet Code
Level 3, Sustainable Homes.
British Pipeline Agency Ltd - This proposal will not affect BPA pipeline responsibilities
Health and Safety Executive (PADHI) - Do not advise against proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
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 SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council‟s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
Development Committee
37
4 July 2013
3. Impact on Conservation Area
4. Impact on neighbour amenities
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting to enable Members
to visit the site.
Principle of development
The site lies within a Residential Area, where the erection of dwellings is considered
to be acceptable and compliant with the aims of Policies SS1, SS3 and SS10 of the
Development Plan.
Highway safety
The access has been revised to meet County Council Highway requirements, with
the garage removed, allowing parking and turning for vehicles.
Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and compliant
with the aims of Policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Impact on Conservation Area
It is considered that, subject to a suitable design, materials and elevational treatment
being submitted at reserved matters stage, the proposed development would
preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with
policies EN8 and EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Impact on neighbour amenities
Policy EN4 requires that development proposals should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings
should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Taking into account the above, it is considered that a single-storey dwelling and
garage would sit comfortably within the plot, whilst also providing sufficient private
amenity space, respecting the existing character and area form and without having a
significantly detrimental impact on neighbouring dwellings.
Summary
In summary, the proposed dwelling is considered to raise no highway safety
implications. In addition, the scale and layout would accord with Core Strategy
policies, having no significantly detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby
properties or on the visual amenity of the area. The proposal is therefore considered
to comply with the Development Plan subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of the following
conditions:
1
Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Approval of these reserved matters (referred to in condition 2) shall be
obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development
is commenced. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later
than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters,
or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such
matter to be approved.
Development Committee
38
4 July 2013
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.
2
These reserved matters shall relate to the layout, scale, appearance and
landscaping of the proposed development and this condition shall apply
notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in
the current application.
Reason:
The application is submitted in outline form only and the details required are
pursuant to the provisions of Article 3(1) to the Town and Country Planning
(General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and the Town and Country
Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order
2006.
3
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 10 C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 April 2013, in so
far as it indicates the proposed access and parking areas only.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The proposed dwelling hereby approved shall be single storey only.
Reason:
To protect the residential amenities of the nearby residential properties in
accordance with Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
The dwelling hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating or above in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:
Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house design
that replaces that scheme). The dwelling shall not be occupied until a Final
Code Certificate has been issued and submitted to the Local Planning
Authority certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved unless an
alternative timescale is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no gate, bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall
be erected across the approved access unless details have first been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
39
4 July 2013
7
Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted a visibility splay
shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved
plan. The splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction
exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the proposed onsite car parking and turning areas for the new dwelling and 18 Aylsham Road
shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plan. They shall be retained
thereafter for those specific uses.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0191 - Erection of single-storey extension,
installation of cladding and conversion and extension of cart-shed to annexe
and garages; Orchard Barn, Aylsham Road for Mr Schonhut
- Target Date: 15 April 2013
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Consultation Area (Grade II)
Contaminated Land
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/92/0387 - Renovation & conversion of redundant barn to residence
Approved 30/06/1992
PLA/19940783 PF - Erection of porch
Withdrawn 05/10/1994
PF/12/0871 PF - Formation of attenuation pond
Approved 14/09/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a single storey side extension, install cladding and convert and extend
the cart-shed to an annexe and garage.
Amended plans received following discussions with the agent and some of the
neighbours. The amendments include taking out a proposed hipped zinc roof and the
introduction of a gable ended extension. The Air Source heat pump has also been
removed from the application. Amendments readvertised and re-consultations
undertaken.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Virginia Gay and Ann Moore having regard to the
following planning issue; suitability of design
Development Committee
40
4 July 2013
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to both plans.
Original plans; lack of clarity on the plans, materials are not in keeping with the
surrounding properties and there are flooding problems connected with the dyke
which has been filled in. Request that a site visit is held and the application is called
to Committee.
Amended plans; flooding problems connected with the dyke and the installation of
solar panels (Town Council do not know the size). Request that a site visit is held
and the application is called to Committee.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters of objection received from 3 properties and 2 letters of comment from 1
dwelling (letters came from all of the adjacent barns and the farmhouse). The letters
were all received during the consultation of the original plans only. Summary of
objections;
New zinc roof on the side extension is out of character. Unclear if zinc would
be extended to the main part of the dwelling too
Cladding the main house would not blend in with the surrounding properties.
Cladding on the southern gable end would encroach upon a neighbour's
property
Proposed solar panels would be out of character
Resulting scheme would be a mixture of zinc, timber, solar panels and Norfolk
pantiles.
Does not preserve the character of the immediate area, which includes three
Listed Buildings
Proposed Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) could create a noise problem,
located close to two neighbouring dwellings
Zinc roof and solar panels would be clearly visible from The Old Stables
Cart shed conversion could create a problem for The Old Stables from light
reflection from the windows and potential noise problems and loss of privacy.
The garage section appears to be on the boundary, this may create
maintenance problems
Site has a high flood risk problem and has flooded on several occasions.
Additional footprint could exacerbate the problem
Bats could be roosting at the site, they are frequently seen in the immediate
area
Summary of comments only;
The proposed materials are inappropriate, but if they are changed to
traditional materials of Norfolk red brick and Norfolk pantiles then no objection
offered
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority – no objection, but asks for a condition restricting the use of the
annexe due to the restricted visibility onto the B1145.
Landscape – no objection, but has asked for a note to be added in relation to the
possibility of bats being found. The building has low roosting potential with greater
roosting opportunities available in the immediate vicinity at other buildings.
The garage and excavation for the driveway may result in some harm to the nearest
beech tree. However it is in the ownership of the applicant, has limited public amenity
value and is not worthy of a TPO. Therefore there is considered no justification to
condition the protection of this tree.
Development Committee
41
4 July 2013
Environmental Health - no objection. Two conditions have been requested in light of
the historical drainage issue in this immediate area (this issue should be resolved by
the implementation of a separate planning application, reference PF/12/0871). One
condition would request information on flood proofing measures before the
development begins. Another condition would ensure that there is capacity within the
soak away to accommodate any extra water created from the larger footprint.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager - Advised verbally that the proposal did
not affect the setting of any nearby listed buildings.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Suitability of design
3. Impact upon neighbouring properties
4. Impact upon the setting of the Listed Buildings
5. Drainage
APPRAISAL
The principle of extensions to dwellings and the creation of annexes within the
Countryside is acceptable under both Policy SS 2 and Policy HO 8.
Development Committee
42
4 July 2013
In addition the application needs to be considered under policies EN 4, EN 8, EN 9,
EN 10, EN 13, CT 5 and CT 6. Permitted development rights were removed from the
site under planning reference 92/0387.
In terms of the design of the development the amended plans have addressed
several previous concerns of Officers. The amended plans now show the single
storey side extension to the main dwelling as a separate gable ended section,
retaining the existing form of the existing side extension. (The previously proposed
zinc, hipped roof which was also of concern to neighbours is no longer proposed).
This part of the dwelling where the extension is proposed has poor brick work and
has clearly been altered and extended over time. The existing and proposed side
extension would be clad in natural finished larch, retaining a brick plinth. This section
has been deliberately designed to be different from the main building, utilising larger
glazing areas (grey powder coated aluminium) and cladding, together with traditional
materials (matching Norfolk pantiles, matching red bricks and conservation roof
lights). Three additional roof lights would be added to the main dwelling, all of a
conservation style. By keeping the form of the existing extension and utilising some
traditional Norfolk materials this part of the development is considered to be
acceptable, to have due regard to the local context and to conserve the character of
both the area and host dwelling.
The impact of the extended side extension upon any neighbour's residential amenity
is considered to be minor. It would not be viewed from anywhere except within the
applicant's own site.
The existing cart lodge is located to the north of the dwelling and is not realistically
useable as a cart shed or garage due to the lack of turning area between the
entrance and side extension. The cart lodge proposal reflects the design of the side
extension; brick plinth, Norfolk pantiles, natural larch cladding, grey powder coated
aluminium windows and oak timber posts. The cart lodge is in a similar condition to
the extension. Whilst it is clearly of some age there is evidence of several
alterations/repairs. A such there is no objection to the addition of cladding on the
majority of elevations and its use on the extension. Three matt black solar panels are
proposed on the southern elevation, located at the western end away from the
neighbouring dwelling to the east. This part of the development is also considered to
be acceptable, to have regard to the local context and to conserve the character of
both the area and host dwelling.
The development to the cart shed would involve the creation of an annexe in the
existing section, and a double garage in the extended section. The annexe would
have no windows along the eastern elevation, which is on the boundary with
neighbouring 'The Old Stables'. The proposed annexe would lie a minimum of 13m
away from the neighbouring dwelling. There is no concern that this would have a
significant impact upon their residential amenity.
Policy EN 4 is therefore considered to be complied with in this instance as there is no
anticipated significant impact upon any neighbour's residential amenity and the
designs are considered acceptable and to have regard to the local context.
Whilst the dwelling is located adjacent to a grade II listed farm house, and in close
proximity of two grade II listed barns, the proposals are not considered to impact on
the setting of the listed buildings and the setting of the listed buildings would
therefore be preserved. As such policy EN 8 is considered to be complied with.
Development Committee
43
4 July 2013
With the appropriate conditions relating to SUDs (sustainable urban drainage
system) and suitable flood proofing measures the proposal is considered to minimise
potential pollution and flooding and comply with policies EN 10 and EN 13.
The potential of causing a direct or indirect adverse effect to protected species,
notably bats, is considered to be low. As such a note is suggested to be added
advising the applicant and agent that work must stop immediately if bats or evidence
of bats is found, and an ecological consultant or the Council's ecologist contacted for
further advice before works can proceed. Policy EN 9 is therefore considered to be
complied with.
The proposal includes two parking spaces in the new garage and an extended
driveway area. As a 3/4 bedroom house the parking standards require 2 or 3 parking
spaces. Although not formally marked, it is clear that sufficient parking would be
retained on site, complying with Policy CT 6.
The vehicular access onto the B1145 (Aylsham Road) does have restricted visibility.
As such it is considered prudent to restrict the use of the annexe to be incidental to
the main dwelling. With this condition Policy CT 5 is considered to be complied with.
In the light of the above the development is considered to comply with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, with the following conditions;
2. This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans
(drawing numbers 1258/05/A, 1258/06/A, 1258/07/A) received by the Local
Planning Authority on 1 May 2013 and with the amended details specified
in the agent's Design and Access Statement and Barilla Solar Collector
F22 AR Technical Information sheet received by the Local Planning
Authority on 1 May 2013..
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted
shall be in full accordance with the details submitted in the planning
application, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of
the visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority
wishes to retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to
be used in the approved development, to ensure the acceptable
appearance of the building in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design
Guide.
4. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme of flood proofing
measures for the annexe/garage and side extension hereby permitted,
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The annexe/garage and side extension hereby permitted shall
Development Committee
44
4 July 2013
not be occupied until the flood proofing measures, as approved, have
been implemented in full.
Reason:
To protect the property and its inhabitants from the potential risk of
flooding, and in accordance with the requirements of Policies EN 10 and
EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application no
development shall be carried out until details of sewage disposal from the
annexe/garage and extension hereby permitted have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that satisfactory drainage is provided for the development in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6. The annexe accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the
use of the main dwelling and shall not be occupied as a separate and unassociated unit of accommodation
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0258 - Demolition of seven garages and erection of
four flats; Land at Cooper Road for Victory Housing Trust
Minor Development
- Target Date: 30 April 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761500 PO - Residential use for ten dwellings plus garages
Approved 28/04/1978
DE21/11/0236 ENQ - Conversion of Garage Blocks to Provide Two Units of
Affordable Housing
08/08/2011
THE APPLICATION
The proposal seeks to demolish a block of 7 garages and erect 4 flats, two ground
floor and two first floor, each with its own separate garden area and car parking
space with two additional visitor spaces. The proposal requires the demolition of a
block of 7 garages and the loss of 7 parking spaces.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Seward having regard to the following planning issues:
Crime and equality.
Development Committee
45
4 July 2013
TOWN COUNCIL
Support
REPRESENTATIONS
2 objecting representations have been received on the following grounds:
currently rent one of the garages as car supplied by motability due to disablement
has to be garaged for insurance purposes
alternative garage offered but this is unsuitable due to the increased distance and
steep path
would spoil neighbouring properties outlook
create more parking misery
increased vandalism to cars
Cars parking on the proposed development will be a danger due to the nature of
the junction (Melbourne Road/Cooper Road) especially in the winter with snow
and ice on the road
visibility from Cooper Road onto Melbourne Road is poor
concern that cars parked off Cooper Road may be subject to vandalism
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): Original comments - No objection subject to the
opportunity to comment further following consideration of any objections received.
Recommend conditions in relation to the accesses and parking provision.
Further comments awaited in respect of local concerns regarding the loss of
garaging.
Strategic Housing: Support. This scheme has been developed in conjunction with the
Housing Strategy team to meet a proven housing need for 1 bedroom flats in North
Walsham.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to the following considerations. The
disposal of surface water needs to be in line with SuDs, disposal via the main sewer
is not a sustainable method. The applicant will need to submit the details surface
water disposal in line with SuDs, condition required. An advisory note should be
attached in relation to the demolition method. Applicant should also be advised that
as the existing roof is made of asbestos appropriate steps regarding any Health and
Safety issues should be taken. The Health and Safety Executive may be able to
advise on this.
Norfolk Constabulary (Crime Prevention Design Advisor): No objection. The overall
layout of the site is acceptable and as this is a Victory Housing Trust development full
Secured by Design certification will be required.
In addition I do not have any particular concerns that there would be an increase of
criminal damage / car crime for the following reasons:As part of this planning application Victory Housing will be giving the 5
residents who currently rent garages alternative garages nearby.
The 7 parking spaces will be removed and replaced with 6. 4 for the residents
and 2 for visitors.
The provision of four new flats will increase the guardianship and natural
surveillance of the area of the junction of Cooper Road and Melbourne Road.
Although Melbourne Road has suffered from a number of Criminal damages
to vehicle these are mainly due to the offenders using the road to return home
from town after being out drinking.
Development Committee
46
4 July 2013
Cooper Road has suffered no vehicle related crime for the last 3 years, I
would put this down to the fact that it is not on a through route for late night
drinkers returning home.
However I am unable to say equivocally that the four flats would not increase crime in
the area. One factor that is an unknown is who the future occupants will be. But on a
development this small I cannot justify having an objection based on crime figures.
Equality Officer: No objection. Issue [regarding equality matters in relation to the loss
of the garages] should be dealt with by Victory Housing Trust.
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. (See comments from
Crime Prevention Officer).
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Implication of loss of garages in relation to crime and equality
2. Design
3. Relationship with adjacent properties
4. Access and parking.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated residential area where the principle of new
residential development is considered to be acceptable subject to compliance with
Development Plan policy. The application site is located within an area of
predominantly terraced houses. Blank gables face the site to the north and east.
The proposal seeks to meet a proven housing need for 1 bedroom housing in North
Walsham. The building would be set back from the road frontage (Melbourne Road)
Development Committee
47
4 July 2013
maintaining part of the existing grassed area. Six car parking spaces are proposed,
one each for the flats and 2 visitor spaces.
The design of the flats is to give the appearance of a pair of semi-detached houses.
The form, character and scale of the proposal is considered acceptable and it is
considered that the proposal would not introduce any significant detrimental impacts
on the amenities of any neighbouring dwellings. The windows proposed to the
eastern elevation would, because of the positioning of the building within the site,
face the blank gable end of the neighbouring dwelling. Some overlooking may be
introduced to the front of the neighbouring dwelling but it is considered that this area
is already within public view. The proposal is considered acceptable under policy
EN4.
Notwithstanding the local concerns, the Highway Authority has raised no concerns in
respect of access arrangements or highway safety. Further comments are awaited
regarding the local concerns in respect of the loss of garages.
In respect of the concerns around crime the Crime Prevention Design Advisor has no
objection to the proposal (see above for full response) and suggests that the
provision of four new flats will increase the guardianship and natural surveillance of
the area of the junction of Cooper Road and Melbourne Road.
Consideration has also been given to the role of the planning authority in relation to
matters of access and disability equality. The Council's Equality Officer has advised
that in this instance the issue is a matter for the applicant to deal with in their
relationship of landlord and tenant.
Given the above, and subject to the Highway Authority confirming that it has no
objections in respect of the loss of garages, the proposal is considered to comply
with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Highway
Authority and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
11.
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0408 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/0322 to permit permanent residential occupation; Damson-Lea,
Honing Road, Lyngate for Mrs C Tunstall-Turner
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 June 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20021154 PF - Extension of garage to form annexe
Approved 30/08/2002
PLA/20030322 PF - Extension to garage to form holiday unit
Approved 29/04/2003
Development Committee
48
4 July 2013
PLA/20051635 PF - Removal of condition 2 of 20030322 to allow holiday unit to be
occupied as a separate residential dwelling
Refused 07/12/2005 Appeal dismissed 25/05/2006
PLA/20061220 PF - Alterations to vehicular access and formation of new vehicular
access
Approved 21/09/2006
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to remove the holiday occupancy condition attached to planning permission
ref. 03/0322 to permit permanent residential occupation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Williams having regard to the following planning issue(s):
This application should be considered by the Committee to clarify the issue of single
units within the commercial category.
PARISH COUNCIL
Refuse as it will set a precedent for all holiday accommodation in the Parish.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways - The access has restricted visibility so request improvements to the
access.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the building meets the quality of the building test set out in point 2 of Policy
HO 9
APPRAISAL
The application site is a holiday cottage which is within the Countryside policy area
approximately 0.5 km from the main settlement of Worstead. The removal of the
holiday condition would only be permissible under Policy HO 9 if the building was
considered worthy of retention due to its appearance, historic, architectural or
landscape value.
Development Committee
49
4 July 2013
When Policy HO 9 was first adopted it identified areas around selected settlements
where, subject to tests of the quality of the original building, soundness and scale,
the conversion of buildings to residential would be acceptable. The application site
is not within an identified HO 9 zone. However, following Government guidance
published in the National Planning Policy Framework the Council considered that
Policy HO 9 was no longer fully aligned with the NPPF and adopted a more
permissive approach to the residential use of buildings outside the HO 9 zones. The
implication of this change of approach is that lifting the holiday restriction of good
quality buildings, i.e. those worthy of retention due to their appearance, historic or
architectural or landscape value, and in a non-commercial use is now permissible.
The application building is a single holiday unit and is not considered in commercial
holiday use for the purposes of the policy and so it passes the first test of the
modified Policy HO 9.
The main issue for this application is whether the building meets the quality test. The
holiday property is formed from the conversion of the roof space above the existing
double garage and an extension behind the garage. Accessed from the rear garden
it provides limited accommodation on the ground floor with an open plan kitchen and
living area with two bedrooms and bathroom on the upper floor. The larger
proportion of the ground floor remains as a double garage although there is no
restriction on the original permission preventing the conversion of the double garage
to living accommodation.
There is adequate parking and turning in front of the building to serve a dwelling
The public view the building retains the appearance of a modern double garage with
a very steep roof with an equally steep roofed extension projecting rearwards. In its
proportions and form it has none of the appearance of a conventional rural building
and as such the building is not considered to pass the quality test as a building
worthy of retention under Policy HO9.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse as the proposal does not comply with Policy HO 9 in that the building
does not meet the quality test set out in that policy as being worthy of
retention.
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - NMA1/12/1017 - Non material amendment request to re-position
side dormer window and install cladding to side cheeks; 14 Beechwood Avenue
for Ms J Melvin
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BACTON - AN/13/0305 - Continued display of non-illuminated advertisement;
Junction of Mill Lane and Coast Road for Tingdene Holiday Parks Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BARSHAM - LA/13/0574 - Construction of chimney and internal alterations.; Red
House, Green Way, North Barsham for Mr F & Lady Chapman
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
50
4 July 2013
BARTON TURF - PF/13/0415 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 04/2035 to permit full residential occupation; The Coach House,
Church Road for Mrs J Skipper
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0514 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions and application of render to external walls; Breckland, Sheringwood
for Mr & Mrs Lawrence
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/13/0467 - Installation of entrance gates and erection of summer
house; Old School House, Warham Road for Mr R Winkley
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0418 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, single-storey
extension with balcony above and replacement single-storey front extension
and cladding of gable in flint/timber cladding; Lark Cottage, 146 Morston Road
for Mr M Goff
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/10/0752 - Non material amendment request to permit the
insertion of French doors to ground floor rear elevations; Arterial Engineering,
Morston Road for Swans Homes
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0477 - Erection of first floor extensions with balconies and
installation of side dormer windows, windows, rooflights and second floor side
rooflight, solar panels, Air Source Heat Pump and erection of garage; Pinewood,
Saxlingham Road for Stuart Farrow Builders
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0482 - Erection of replacement porch; 52 High Street for Mr
Allen
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PO/13/0509 - Erection of single-storey residential annexe
associated with 132 High Street, Blakeney; Flinders, 132 High Street for Mr N
Garioch
(Outline Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/0521 - Demolition of porch and erection of replacement
porch; 52 High Street for Mr Allen
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/12/0681 - Non-material amendment request for changes to
elevation treatments of facades and garden walls, revised fenestration and car
ports; Land west of Langham Road for Hill Residential
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BODHAM - PF/13/0534 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide
home office/guest annexe; 1 Stone Cottages, The Street for Miss J Peters
(Householder application)
Development Committee
51
4 July 2013
BRISTON - PF/13/0440 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; Land
adjacent Lineside, Macks Loke for Mr G Babbage
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/12/1220 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling;
Arcady, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M Warren
(Conservation Area Demolition)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/12/0600 - Non material amendment request to
change gate piers material to oak and design of gate; Umgeni, Coast Road for
Miss R Barker
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0607 - Erection of replacement conservatory; Cley
House, The Fairstead for Mr & Mrs J Everett
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0070 - Erection of an agricultural
livestock building (Building A)and creation of new access and access road; Hill
Farm House, Briston Road, Saxthorpe for D & J Perry-Warnes
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0071 - Erection of an agricultural
livestock building (Building C) and creation of new access and access road; Hill
Farm House, Briston Road, Saxthorpe for D & J Perry-Warnes
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0072 - Erection of an agricultural
livestock building (Building B)and creation of new access and access road; Hill
Farm House, Briston Road, Saxthorpe for D & J Perry-Warnes
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0431 - Demolition of existing
garage/workshop and erection of detached annexe; Halcyon, Briston Road,
Saxthorpe for Mr D Wood
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/0502 - Conversion of first floor office space (B1) to three
residential units (C3); 63 Church Street for Threadneedle Property Investments
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0257 - Change of use from residential to A1 (retail); 30 Louden
Road for Mr D Medhurst
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0268 - Installation of roof window; Flat 5, 12 Cliff Avenue for Mr
R Houlston
(Householder application)
CROMER - AI/13/0364 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 1 West Street for
Lloyds Banking Group
(Advertisement Illuminated)
Development Committee
52
4 July 2013
CROMER - PF/12/1221 - Alterations and refurbishment to provide two ground
floor retail units and four residential flats; Balcony House, 1 Mount Street for
Chestnut Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LE/12/1222 - Demolition of single-storey retail unit; Balcony House, 1
Mount Street for Chestnut Limited
(Conservation Area Demolition)
CROMER - PF/13/0188 - Erection of attached garden shed/store; Ferndale
House, 10A Cliff Drive for Mr & Mrs Fields
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/0541 - Erection of first floor side extension; Holly Blue
Cottage, 11 Ruston Reaches, Chapel Road for Mr and Mrs J Heath
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - NMA1/12/0636 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dimensions of extension, revised rear door and re-location of boiler; 16 The
Street, Calthorpe for Mr N Palmer
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FAKENHAM - NMA3/12/0543 - Non material amendment request to permit
fenestration changes to north-west and south-east elevations, insertion of
rooflights in north-east and north-west elevation roof slopes, re-location of
balustrade, installation of chimney, addition of brick details to eaves, change to
external materials to garage block and cladding to plot 1.; 204 Norwich Road for
GCMD Developments Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0442 - Erection of detached garage; 87 North Park for Mr &
Mrs A Syer
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0458 - Erection of replacement timber trolley bays; Tescos,
17 Oak Street for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/12/1377 - Re-location and formation of car-park; Land at
Felbrigg Hall for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/13/0512 - Erection of detached annexe; 22-26 Binham Road
for Mr J Madden
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/13/0344 - Erection of replacement hobbies workshop
building; Land at Field House, Little Marsh Lane for Mr F Camilleri
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/13/0389 - Erection of two-storey front extension,
construction of dormer window and alterations to existing dormer windows, reinstatement of first floor side window and demolition of conservatory; School
Lane Cottage, 10-11 School Road, Saxlingham for Mr & Mrs I Farmer
(Householder application)
Development Committee
53
4 July 2013
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0424 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Garden
Cottage, 10 Southrepps Road for Mr D Billingham
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0575 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
insertion of front and rear dormer windows; The Sheiling, Beacon Road for Mr N
Armstrong
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/13/0078 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden
land and erection of three-bay cart shed; Hall Farm Barns, Field Dalling Road,
Bale for Mr H Carter
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0298 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 04/0764 to permit full residential occupation of Unit 1; West Barn,
Church Farm, Church Street for Mrs P Baldwin
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0367 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 95/0109 to permit continued full residential occupation; Long Acre
Barn, Grub Street for Mr P Hale
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/13/0240 - Retention of tennis court and fencing; Painswhin
Farmhouse, Rudham Road for Mrs Lapping
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/13/0290 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 04/1385 to permit approval of materials following commencement of
development and variation of Condition 6 to permit retention of existing
landscaping; Brymur Farm, The Common for Mr B Ward
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/13/0531 - Conversion of outbuilding to habitable
accommodation and erection of link extension; Parsley Cottage, 39 Park Lane
for Mrs E Pugh
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - NMA1/13/0001 - Non material amendment request to permit
change of external painted softwood cladding to Marley weatherboard; 8 The
Street for Mr S Taylor
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HICKLING - PF/13/0499 - Creation of new access for caravan site; Heath Farm,
Sutton Road for Mr & Mrs K Elliott
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/0421 - Retention of single-storey dwelling as constructed
(revised siting, door and window arrangements and materials) and variation of
Condition 2 of planning permission reference PF/12/1003 to allow revised
garage design and siting; 3 Wincliff Drive for Mr D Cockaday
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
54
4 July 2013
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0426 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden,
erection of stables and single-storey extension to form annexe; Walnuts Rest,
Mill Farm, Mill Lane for Mrs S Finch
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0551 - Erection of 1.80m high boundary wall; Bob's
Cottage, Blakeney Road for Mr A Moncur & Ms F Thompson
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0536 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 02/0434 to permit permanent residential occupation; 1 Hindringham
High Barns, Blakeney Road for Prof D Hill
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0501 - Erection of 2m high flint boundary wall; 7
Hindringham High Barns, Blakeney Road for Mr N Tilley
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/13/0436 - Change of use from D1 (non-residential institution) to B1
(Business); 41 Bull Street for Max Wiley & Co Solicitors
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/13/0080 - Non material amendment request to permit change of
timber cladding to flint (napped) below windows on south elevation.; The Grove,
Cromer Road for Miss A Murday
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - PF/13/0373 - Erection of two-storey side extension to workshop;
Sanders Coaches, Heath Drive for Sanders Coaches Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/13/0225 - Erection of building to house swimming pool and
construction of tennis court; 1 The Grove, Cromer Road for Mr T Bradley & Miss
A Murday
(Householder application)
HOVETON - NMA2/10/0452 - Non material amendment request to replace garage
door with window on front elevation; 8 Summer Drive for Mr D Sabberton
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOVETON - PF/13/0578 - Erection of porch; 42 Waveney Drive for Mrs Mellon
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/13/0498 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; Sunny
Cottage, The Street for Mr & Mrs Foster
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - PF/13/0366 - Erection of detached double garage; 2 Pond Cottages,
Pond Road for Mr S Farmer
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - NMA1/06/0770 - Non-material amendment request for re-alignment
of doors and windows, formation of recessed entrance and installation of
additional oak beams; Shed to North, Glass Barn, North Street for Avada Homes
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
55
4 July 2013
LANGHAM - NMA1/12/0721 - Non-material amendment request for replacement
of ground floor windows with French doors and window; The Langham, North
Street for Avada Homes
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LESSINGHAM - NMA1/11/0288 - Non material amendment request to permit
replacement of garage door with single window and allow garage space to be
used as bedroom; 1 Moat Cottages, East Ruston Road for Mr Renouf
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/13/0599 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Hawthorns, 10 Stevens Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/13/0323 - Erection of side/rear extension and siting of oil tank; 4
Latchmoor Park for Mr & Mrs Rodgers
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/13/0450 - Change of use of land from agricultural to keeping of
horses and erection of stable block; Mill House, High Mill Hill, Yarmouth Road
for Mr W Trowse
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/13/0303 - Change of use from B1 (light industrial) to A1
(hairdressing salon); The Old Fire Station, Yarmouth Road for Mr O Francis
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/13/0361 - Use of land for siting storage containers
and erection of 2.5m security fencing; 18B Tower Bank Industrial Estate,
Hindolveston Road for Fineline Frames
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0129 - Construction of Multi Use Games Area with
associated fencing and flood lighting; Land at Gold Park, off High Street for
Mundesley Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0455 - Erection of 2.1m high boundary fence; 53 Nelson
Way for Mr D Nichols
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LE/12/1333 - Demolition of remaining structure to facilitate
erection of flats and shop; 4 Market Street for MAZdev Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0362 - Variation of Condition 4 of permission
reference: NMA/11/1483 to permit change of window style; Malthouse Plain,
Mundesley Road for Lovell Partnerships Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0528 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
2 Spenser Avenue for Ms Haystead
(Householder application)
Development Committee
56
4 July 2013
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0525 - Extension and refurbishment of science
block; Paston Sixth Form College, Park Lane for Paston Sixth Form College
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0322 - Erection of two polytunnel covers to provide
aircraft storage; Land at Northrepps Aerodrome, Winspurs Farm, North
Walsham Road for Mr C Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0449 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
Hilltop, Norwich Road for Mr R Shepherd
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/0404 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 93/0472 to permit permanent residential occupancy; 22A High Street
for Mr R West
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PF/13/0398 - Erection of replacement summer house and decking;
Paston Old House, Mundesley Road for Ms W Fenwick
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/13/0615 - Erection of open-fronted rear entrance porch; Wren
Cottage, Helhoughton Road, West Raynham for Mr and Mrs D Mason
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/13/0529 - Change of Use of former aircraft hangar buildings to
B2 (general industrial)/B8 (storage); Hangars T3 & T4, Raynham Airfield, West
Raynham for Norfolk Oak Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/13/0571 - Erection of single-storey rear/side extension; Brambles,
6 Incleborough Close, East Runton for Mr & Mrs B Comar
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/13/0445 - Erection of one and a half storey rear extension; Stone
House, 48-52 Station Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr and Mrs Waldron
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/13/0510 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 17 Filby
Road, Badersfield for Mrs A Read
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/12/1181 - Conversion of public house and function room into 2
detached dwellings; Three Horseshoes, North Walsham Road for Broadside
Property Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0444 - Erection of shelter/toilets; Sheringham Golf Club,
Sweet Briar Lane for Sheringham Golf Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0585 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 09/1165 to permit use of first floor by staff employed by Age UK; 1
Huntley Crescent for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
57
4 July 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0339 - Retention of 1.6m high boundary fence; 1
Laburnum Grove for Mrs B Fosberry
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0345 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling,
formation of vehicular access and revised access road; Plot 1, Land at 20
Abbey Road for Mr A D Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0527 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 1 St
Josephs Road for Mr I Mutton
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0316 - Erection of replacement single-storey dwelling;
The Bungalow, Thorpe Road for Graham Hayward Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/0384 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 03/2011 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn 1 West End
Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mrs B Mayes
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PM/13/0394 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; Broadside
Chalet Park for Stalham Chalets Limited
(Reserved Matters)
STALHAM - PF/13/0232 - Erection of replacement pavilion; Stalham Football
Club Rivers Park, Brumstead Road for Stalham Football Club
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - PF/13/0472 - Change of use of land from agricultural/amenity land to
residential curtilage and construction of tennis court; Hunworth Mill, Thornage
Road, Hunworth for Mr N Hamwee
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/12/1443 - Conversion of one dwelling to two holiday dwellings
including erection of two-storey rear extensions; Boundary Cottages, Hickling
Road for Mr C Bracey
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/13/0337 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Barn at Hall
Farm for Mr D Tatam
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/13/0517 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 8 Laxfield Road
for Mr A Nudd
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/13/0519 - Retention of vehicular access, fences and gates;
Bradfield Common for C B Arnold Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
58
4 July 2013
SWAFIELD - PF/13/0493 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
conservatory and conversion of outbuilding to garden room; Hill Fruit Farm,
Trunch Road for Mr and Mrs M Buckingham
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/13/0443 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Field House, Aylsham Road for Mr & Mrs G McAnsh
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/13/0422 - Erection of two-storey side extension;
Fieldfare, The Street for Mr R Langston
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/13/0568 - Erection of front conservatory; Ambleside, The Street
for Mr & Mrs Westbrook
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/13/0462 - Variation of condition 2 of planning ref:
13/0044 to permit installation of photo voltaic panels to front elevation and air
source heat pump to rear elevation; Green Farm, Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs J
Perry
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/13/0540 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Fern
Hollow, 5 Balls Lane for Mrs D Dann
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/13/0320 - Erection of extensions to garage; Land rear of 16
Church Street for Miss S Burwood
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0532 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Ebb Tide, Blowlands Lane for Mr S Proffitt and Miss S Marriage
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/12/0902 - Non material amendment request to
permit revised fenestration/doors position to rear elevation to dwellings; 21 Mill
Road for Townrange (Norfolk) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WITTON - PF/13/0391 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 08/1691 to permit use of annexe as holiday accommodation; Annexe
to The Orchard, Happisburgh Road, Ridlington for Mr R Fitches
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - LE/13/0552 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling; Fairway, The
Street for Mr Mears
(Conservation Area Demolition)
WIVETON - PF/13/0508 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling;
Fairway, The Street for Mr G Mears
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
59
4 July 2013
WOOD NORTON - PF/13/0288 - Erection of first floor front extension and porch;
Ryors Lodge, Stibbard Road for Mr & Mrs I Summons
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/13/0504 - Erection of single-storey rear/side extensions;
Nortuna, Church Road for Mr and Mrs Jeary
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0108 - Change of use of land from agricultural to cemetery,
formation of access and parking area; Land adjacent cemetery, Vicarage Road
for Worstead Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - PF/13/0390 - Raising part of roof and conversion of garage/stable to
residential dwelling; Pine View, Gloucester Place for Mr J Graves
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/13/0456 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Galloway Cottage,
The Street for Mr & Mrs Slater
(Householder application)
HOLT - AN/13/0481 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; 1 White Lion
Street for Sue Ryder
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0416 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 13 Pit Street
for J Donald & Sons
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
LANGHAM - PF/13/0076 - Erection of one and half storey rear extension; 2
Marryats Loke for Mr Banks
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items.
Development Committee
60
4 July 2013
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0387 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1783 to permit use of chapel of rest/office building for a mixed use
of chapel of rest/office/overnight sleeping accommodation; Abbey Pets
Remembrance Gardens And Crematoria Ltd, Britons Lane for Mr R Edwards
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0568 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings with
garages; Land adjacent 25 Cremers Drift for Mr S Pigott
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1179 - Installation of five replacement front
windows; 5-7 High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No items
Development Committee
61
4 July 2013