Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
25 April 2016
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on WEDNESDAY 4 May 2016 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 26 May 2016.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P
High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith,
Mrs V Uprichard
Substitutes:, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 7
April 2016
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station; Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, for Broadland St Benedicts
Page 5
(Appendix 1 – page 104)
(2)
BLAKENEY - PM/15/1684 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0773 to allow detached annex building to be used for holiday
accommodation; Flinders, 132 High Street for Mr Garioch
Page 12
(3)
BLAKENEY - PF/16/0091 - Erection of 3 dormer extensions to front, 1 dormer
extension and 1 roof light to rear, and 1 first floor window to each side
elevation; 30 The Pastures for Dr & Mrs Cameron
Page 20
(4) BRINTON - PF/15/1786 - Creation of vehicular access with associated walls and
gates and erection of detached carports/store, with further storage in roofspace;
Grange Cottage, Old Hall Lane for Ocean Rock Properties
Page 23
(5)
BRISTON - PF/15/1746 - Erection of 12 shared ownership dwellings and garages;
Holly House, The Lane for Option for Homes Limited
Page 27
(6)
CROMER - PF/15/1553 - Erection of two and half-storey detached dwelling; Land
at Old Zoo Site, Howards Hill for Swallowtail Properties Ltd
Page 39
(7)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/15/1878 - Retention of timber workshop/shed; Brialey,
Raynham Road for Mr C Armstrong
Page 46
(8)
HICKLING - PF/16/0153 - Change of use of land to create campsite with
associated shower and toilet buildings; Land at Heath Road for Mr T Wright
Page 52
(9)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/16/0099 - Erection of a pair of semi-detached twostorey dwellings; Land adjacent to 12 Astley Terrace for Melbobby Ltd Page 55
(10) MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1534 - Erection of 44 dwellings, public open space and
associated infrastructure; Land off High Street and Water Lane for Dewing
Properties Ltd
Page 60
(11) SCOTTOW - PF/15/1676 - Retention of surfaced multi-use games area and
associated fencing; Douglas Bader Centre, Filby Road, Badersfield for Short
Stay School for Norfolk
Page 81
(12) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/16/0185 - Installation of fixed jetty to lower quay
wall and associated works; Tugboat Yard for Wells Harbour Commissioners
Page 86
(13)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 93
(14)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 94
(15)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 101
(16)
NEW APPEALS
Page 102
(17)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 102
(18)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 102
(19)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 103
(Appendix 2 – page 129)
(20)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 103
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 4 MAY 2016
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station; Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, for Broadland St Benedicts
Major Development
- Target Date: 08 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
This report is to provide an update to the Committee following the deferral of the above
application at the meeting on 25 February 2016.
BACKGROUND
This application was considered by the Development Committee on 25 February 2016
following a site visit which took place on 18 February 2016. The recommendation was
to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve the application subject to
completion of a section 106 agreement and appropriate conditions as set out in the
report.
A copy of the full report from the meeting of 25 February 2016 is contained in
Appendix 1.
Members resolved to defer determination to request the applicant to reconsider the
design of the site in terms of density and distribution of affordable housing. (see
minutes of 25 February 2016 in Appendix 1).
UPDATES
In terms of report updates, amended plans were submitted which seek to address the
reasons given by Members to defer the application. The amendments take the form of;
Previously Proposed
Detached 4 bed market dwelling (Plot 7)
Revised Proposals
3 x 1 Bed dwellings for affordable rent
(Plot 22, 23, 24)
Detached 3 bed market dwelling (Plot 13)
2 x 2 bed dwellings, 1 for affordable rent
and 1 on a shared ownership basis (Plot
17 & 18)
Development Committee
5
4 May 2016
3 x 2 bed affordable rent dwellings (Plot
2 x 3 bed market dwellings (Plot 10 & 13)
19-21) and 3 x 1 bed affordable rent
dwellings (Plot 22-24)
2 x 2 bed shared ownership (Plot 17 & 18) 2 x 2 bed affordable rent and 1 x 2 bed
shared ownership (Plot 19-21)
1 x 3 bed shared ownership (Plot 14) 1 x 3 bed affordable rent (Plot 14) –
attached
detached and redesigned
Detached 3 bed market (Plot 10)
Detached 4 bed market – revised house
type (Plot 7)
1 x 3 bed shared ownership (Plot 15) 1 x 3 bed shared ownership (Plot 15) –
attached
detached and redesigned to face on to the
open space
1 x 3 bed detached (Plot 6) – revised
1 x 3 bed detached (Plot 6) – revised
design
design
Other minor changes include;
 a change to the size/shape of the open space and replacement of bollards with
a landscaped area, to prevent through access by vehicles,
 a reduction in the size of the smaller landscaped verges to the west of the
access road from Walsingham Road, to accommodate parking for plots 22-24,
 changes to general parking arrangements across the site and in particular a
reduction in the size and number of spaces in the communal parking court to
the east of the site.
The amended plans were accompanied with an Addendum to the Design and Access
Statement explaining the changes that have been made and why the applicant
considers the proposal to address the points raised at Development Committee.
Revised landscaping details and a revised drainage strategy drawing have also been
received to reflect the changes to the site layout.
The applicant has reviewed the viability of the development in light of the amendments
and has confirmed that the viability of the proposed development has not changed as a
result of these changes.
The amendments have been produced after liaison with Planning Officers and it is also
understood that Binham Parish Council were contacted and advised of the proposed
changes prior to formal submission of the amended plans.
Re-advertisement and re-consultation has taken place in relation to the amended
plans.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES IN RELATION TO AMENDED PLANS:
A consultation response has been received from the Landscape Officer who has
concerns that there is insufficient planting incorporated into the main access road into
the site and the planting proposed is detailed and ornate and not sufficiently structural
to have any visual impact. There is scope for specimen tree planting within rear
gardens adjacent to the main access road (rear gardens of plots 4 and 12) so that
canopies would be visible and would assist in softening the hard built form.
The Conservation Design and Landscape Team Leader has the following comments to
make with regards the revised layout. “The re-distribution of the affordable units and
Development Committee
6
4 May 2016
the re-configuration of the other plots have certainly reduced the number of properties
on the eastern side of the development (and thus the impact upon Priory Crescent),
the basic ingredients of the scheme are largely as originally submitted. The retention
of Plot 9, even in its reoriented form, still feels like a plot too far in terms of the impact
upon the wider countryside, and is perhaps the best illustration of how the scheme is
seeking to make maximum use of the site.
One of the knock-on consequences of the reordering is that the built form on the
western boundary would become even more concentrated. Indeed with Plots 22-24
now introducing a new terrace into this street scene, those entering the village from
Walsingham would be greeted by an even more solid ‘wall’ of development with only
modest gaps between the individual blocks. Along with the pumping station and the
additional subdivision on this side of the development, these revisions are not
considered to be to the overall benefit of the Binham Conservation Area”.
There are no Conservation and Design objections to the principle of this development
or much of its detail. Whilst Officers consider the proposals acceptable as they
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (as
required by s72 of the Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas Act, 1990), the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader has suggested further minor
design improvements. Committee will be updated as to whether the suggested
changes have been made and accepted.
The Housing Strategy and Community Development Team have commented that they
remain supportive of the proposal as there remains an identified local housing need in
Binham and its adjoining parishes. The applicant’s revised site layout now distributes
and spaces the dwellings across the site and provides better integration of the
affordable and market dwellings.
The County Council as Highway Authority have confirmed that they have no objection
to the revised proposals, subject to the conditions and off-site highway improvements
previously recommended.
Binham Parish Council maintain their objection to the proposed development and have
made the following comments;
‘At the planning committee meeting on 25 February, this application was deferred and
the applicants were asked to look again at the density and distribution (integration) on
the site.
We believe that the second requirement has been met, with the affordable housing
now spread throughout the site, and with more space being given to this and also to
parking. We are pleased to see this.
However, the request for the density to be looked at appears to have been ignored.
Binham Parish Council has consistently requested the reduction in the total number of
market houses to bring the site density, currently 24.6 dph and higher than any
comparable area in the village, nearer to the other two positive subsidy contributors in
the five villages scheme, Edgefield 14.9 dph and Erpingham 17.1 dph respectively.
Binham’s high overall density when coupled with the 90% subsidy contribution the
village makes to the scheme is a justifiable source of much resentment. A reduction
would also be more in keeping by making the majority of housing on this exception site
affordable.
Development Committee
7
4 May 2016
With our formal comments on the two earlier applications Binham submitted a paper
with cost projections. The initial one justified reducing market house numbers to 10
giving a balanced funding situation for the 14 affordable houses in the village and the
second one, as a gesture of compromise, to reduce to 12 which would generate nearly
£600,000 of subsidy with proposals for how the remaining modest amount needed
could be raised within the spirit of supporting local affordable housing.
As both have seemingly been dismissed without any discussion with us, it is with regret
Binham Parish Council objects to the present application.
We understand that previously it was the intention of the applicants to arrange for the
boundary of the 30mph speed limit to be moved further south on Hindringham Road,
making it safer for the increased traffic at the junction of Walsingham
Road/Hindringham Road/Front Street. This alteration seems to have been deleted
from the current plan. We believe this is a retrograde step and we would like to see it
reinstated. We have shown evidence from our SAM2 speed monitor to justify the
necessity of this move.
On another matter, we cannot understand the need for the roadway spur (beside plot
10) to serve plots 19,20, and 21. We think it would better for these three houses to be
served from the entrance on Walsingham Road. This would enable the green area to
be extended to the east, although perhaps an additional two parking spaces could be
made in the south-eastern corner.
REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RELATION TO AMENDED PLANS:
No further comments have been received from members of the public as a result of the
reconsultation on the amended plans.
KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the proposed amendments address the resolution of the Development
Committee in relation to the design of the site in terms of density and distribution of
affordable housing.
APPRAISAL
Density of Affordable Housing
Revisions have been made to the distribution of affordable housing across the site with
the total number of dwellings proposed remaining at 28 as previously considered, with
the proportion of market and affordable housing remaining at a 50% split with 14
market and 14 affordable dwellings (10 affordable rent and 4 shared ownership).
The applicant has evidenced previously within their Viability Assessment, which
remains unchanged, the important contribution that this development makes to the
delivery of the other four sites put forward as part of the same package of delivery and
which were considered and granted resolution to approve at a previous committee on
25 February 2016 and has also explained this situation at the previous committee.
Subject to Members and Officers being comfortable that the development of the total
number of dwellings proposed on this site can be accommodated in an appropriate
layout and which complies with development plan policies and the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF), then there appears no justification to ask for the total
number of dwellings proposed to be reduced. The Committee will note that the
Conservation and Design Team Leader has no in principle objection to the scheme but
Development Committee
8
4 May 2016
has highlighted some risks to the success of the scheme and whether the character
and appearance of the conservation area are preserved or enhanced.
Although there have been extensive changes to the layout and distribution of
affordable housing across the site resulting in some changes to house types and
design of both affordable and market dwellings the mix of dwellings proposed within
each tenure remains the same as previously considered.
The revised distribution of affordable housing across the site reduces the number of
dwellings accessed from Priory Crescent from 12 to 9, of which 7 are affordable
dwellings and 2 are market dwellings. The remaining 7 affordable dwellings are now
accessed from Walsingham Road. The density in the area adjacent to Priory
Crescent, which was of greatest cause for concern for the parish council previously,
has reduced from approximately 42 dwellings per hectare to 31 dwellings per hectare.
The density across the site as a whole remains at 25 dwellings per hectare due to the
total number of dwellings proposed remaining the same as previously submitted. The
parish council within their comments suggest that the density of the site is too high
when compared to other development in Binham and also when compared to the
density proposed on the other cross subsidised rural exception sites with committee
resolution to approve at Edgefield (15 dph) and Erpingham (17 dph). The density of
development in Binham varies greatly depending on when it was constructed. The
village core is characterised by the close-knit relationships between its older buildings
which are at a greater density than more modern development. Up until recently
density of new development was greatly increased to meet density standards of 30 to
50 dwellings per hectare. The consideration within policy now is to make the most
efficient use of land and indeed a density of 25 dwellings per hectare is in fact lower
than the minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare that Policy HO7 of the Core
Strategy encourages. However, a density of 25 dwellings per hectare is not
considered out of place in this location, directly adjacent to existing development on
the edge of the village and taking into account the location of the development on the
edge of the Binham Conservation Area. The development is therefore considered
appropriate for this site and complies with the provisions of paragraph 47 of the NPPF
which states that local authorities should set their own approach to housing densities
to reflect local circumstances.
Distribution of Affordable Housing
The revised plans propose a much wider distribution of affordable housing across the
site with both market and affordable dwellings accessed from both Priory Crescent and
Walsingham Road. Previously the affordable rent and shared ownership dwellings
were located towards the north and east of the site with 12 of the 14 affordable units
accessed from Priory Crescent and parking provided for 7 of those dwellings and 2
existing dwellings within a communal parking area to the east of the site.
The change has certainly reduced the number of properties on the eastern side of the
development and also made a positive impact on the space required for parking in the
communal parking area to the east of the site with the number of parking spaces
required in this area reduced slightly, resulting in a less cramped appearance of
development in this area of the site.
Other positive changes to the scheme include the provision of greater garden space
for the three one bedroom units proposed to the west of the development and the
redesign and reorientation of the dwelling on Plot 15 better addresses the open space
and improves the appearance of the development as viewed from Priory Crescent.
Development Committee
9
4 May 2016
In making any significant changes to the layout of the scheme, consideration needs to
be given to previous comments made by the Conservation, Design and Landscape
section. The Conservation, Design and Landscape section had previously explained
that the western edge of the site and its interaction with and transition into the open
countryside beyond is an important consideration. The changes to the layout have
resulted in the built form on the western boundary becoming even more concentrated
with one detached 4 bedroom market dwelling being replaced with a terrace of three,
one bedroom affordable rent dwellings.
The Conservation and Design Team Leader comments that, “when entering the village
from Walsingham people are greeted by an even more solid ‘wall’ of development with
only modest gaps between the individual blocks. Along with the pumping station and
the additional subdivision on this side of the development, these revisions are not
considered to be to the overall benefit of the Binham Conservation Area”.
However, although one dwelling is effectively being replaced with three, the detached
dwelling being replaced was one of significant size and bulk and an amendment to the
position of the dwelling on the adjacent plot to the south means that the revised
proposals do not appear too bulky and are separated from built form on adjacent sites.
Another unfortunate consequence of this layout change is the introduction of more
parking to the front of the dwellings along this section of the access road and the loss
of some of the smaller landscaped verges to the front of these dwellings to allow for
access to a greater number of dwellings. The Landscape Officer has raised this as a
concern and has suggested how more structural planting could be provided on the
opposite side of the road within gardens in such a way that tree canopies would be
visible in the street scene, improving the appearance of the development when
entering from Walsingham Road. The applicant is considering this landscaping
change and this detail could be secured through a planning condition to provide a
revised landscaping scheme. Committee will be updated as to whether the
suggested changes have been made and accepted.
The changes to the layout in relation to the impact on the significance of the Binham
Conservation Area or other designated heritage assets are such that there remains
‘less than substantial harm’ to designated heritage assets. When weighed against
the public benefit of the provision of affordable housing to meet an identified local need
on this site and acknowledgement of the contribution that this site makes to the
delivery of a substantial amount of affordable housing on this and other sites across
the District through the generation of a substantial level of surplus, this is considered to
be the ‘clear and convincing’ justification sufficient to outweigh the less than
substantial harm to a designated heritage asset as required by paragraph 132 and 134
of the NPPF.
On balance it is considered that the proposed changes to the layout and design of the
development would continue to preserve the character, quality and appearance of the
Conservation Area and surrounding countryside and complies with Policies EN4 and
EN8 of the Core Strategy.
Other matters
Within the parish council comments reference is made to previous intentions of the
applicant to arrange for the boundary of the 30mph speed limit to be moved further
south on Hindringham Road, which have been deleted from the current plan. Such a
revision to the speed limit on Hindringham Road did not form part of the plans reported
to committee previously. The Highways Officer previously commented with regards
this matter and has also provided further comment to explain the situation as set out
Development Committee
10
4 May 2016
below;
‘There is no need to extend the 30mph speed further south, as it already extends
significantly beyond the junction with Walsingham Road (275m south), so there would
be no benefit in extending it further. Extending it further into the Countryside will
actually weaken its impact as it will be too remote from the more built up areas.
Visibility to the south from Hindringham Road will be improved to the appropriate
standard based on the results of the speed survey undertaken by the applicant and the
existing 30mph speed limit. The proposed improvements will ensure all new and
existing vehicles using this junction have the appropriate level of visibility for the
measured vehicle speeds. Therefore, we could not insist the developer provide the
speed limit extension.’
Therefore, on the basis of the above the suggested extension of the 30mph speed limit
location on Hindringham Road is not considered necessary to make the application
acceptable on highways grounds and therefore cannot be secured through this
planning application. An extension to the 30mph speed limit location is however
proposed to Walsingham Road as previously reported.
The development still complies with the Councils parking standards. The revised
plans have not raised any highways objection.
The basic drainage strategy has been altered to accommodate the proposed layout
changes.
The development as amended will not have a more significant detrimental impact of
residential amenity of the occupiers of proposed or existing dwellings than previously
considered.
Conclusion
This rural exception housing scheme accords with paragraph 54 of the NPPF and will
deliver a significant amount of local needs affordable housing.
The principle of subsidy moving from one site to another has been an accepted
method of delivering affordable housing off-site in the past, through the payment of
financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing provision. In this instance
the delivery of development on this site and the surplus generated will make a
significant contribution towards the delivery of a District-wide affordable housing
strategy.
Without the surplus generated from this site the resulting reduction in the overall
scheme surplus could potentially have a significant impact on the viability of the
District-wide strategy.
The proposed revisions to the layout greatly improve the density and distribution of
affordable housing across the site without having a significant detrimental impact on
other planning considerations.
The development complies with relevant development plan policies or provisions
within the National Planning Policy Framework and approval of the application on this
basis is recommended.
Development Committee
11
4 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms
set out in the report.
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and construction
worker parking, provision of a visibility splay, construction traffic
management plan, off-site highway works and Traffic Regulation Order,
securing appropriate design details and materials, hard and soft
landscaping, arboricultural and ecological mitigation, surface and foul water
drainage, provision of a fire hydrant, contamination site investigation,
details of use of renewable technologies and any other conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(2)
BLAKENEY - PM/15/1684 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0773 to allow detached annex building to be used for holiday accommodation;
Flinders, 132 High Street for Mr Garioch
- Target Date: 08 January 2016
Extension to 11 May 2016
Case Officer: Mr B Smith
Application for Variation of Reserved Matters Condition
CONSTRAINTS:
LDF – Settlement Boundary
LDF – Residential Area
LDF – Coastal Service Village
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
PO/13/0092
Land at rear of 138 High Street, Blakeney
Outline Application for: Erection of detached one and a half-storey annexe in connection
with 132 High Street
Withdrawn by Applicant - 13/03/2013
PO/13/0509
Flinders, 132 High Street, Blakeney
Outline Application for: Erection of single-storey residential annexe associated with 132
High Street, Blakeney
Approved - 11/06/2013
(All matters except access were reserved for subsequent
approval).
Note: Condition 3 of this Outline approval stated:“The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes
which are ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 132 High Street,
Blakeney.”
For the reason:“Due to the relationship of the proposed accommodation and surrounding properties a
separate dwelling unit would not be appropriate in terms of Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.”
Development Committee
12
4 May 2016
PM/14/0773
Flinders, 132 High Street, Blakeney
Reserved Matters application for: Erection of detached annexe associated with 132
High Street, Blakeney
Approved - 14/08/2014
(Details of the building’s design approved)
Note: Condition 2 of this Outline approval stated:“The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes
which are ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 132 High Street,
Blakeney.”
For the reason:“Due to the relationship of the proposed accommodation and surrounding properties a
separate dwelling unit would not be appropriate in terms of Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.”
Note: The approved drawings showed 3 vehicle spaces in front of the annexe, for use
by the house and annexe together.
THE APPLICATION







The application submitted is for the Variation of Condition 2 of reserved matters
permission ref: 14/0773 regarding occupancy, to allow the newly built detached
single storey annexe building to be used for holiday accommodation. This would
replace the ancillary residential annexe use.
As stated in the planning history section above, the previous 2014 approval
(14/0773) includes an occupancy condition (Condition 2) limiting it to ancillary
residential use to the main dwelling.
The applicant’s proposal to vary the current condition (Condition 2), replacing it
with a new holiday accommodation occupancy condition 2, to read as follows:“The annexe hereby permitted shall be used for holiday purposes only and shall
not be occupied as the sole or main residence of the occupiers and it shall be
available for commercial holiday lets for at least 140 days a year and no let must
exceed 31 days and a register of lettings / occupation and advertising will be
maintained at all times and shall be made available for inspection to an officer of
the local planning authority on request.”
The annexe building has been built and furnished, but has not been occupied as a
residential annexe. The application is therefore to vary the condition on an
unoccupied new residential annexe building where the permitted use (in
authorised occupation terms) has not yet commenced. The annexe was originally
built as accommodation for the applicant’s mother-in-law, having purchased the
main dwelling as his permanent main residence.
The reasons given for removing the condition are that the applicant’s situation has
changed and his mother-in-law no longer requires the annexe.
Subsequently, in response to the Highway Authority refusal recommendation
letter of December 2015, the agents submitted an Additional Statement
(Highways) dated January 2016, followed by a detailed solicitors letter of February
2016, both addressing highways issues for the application As stated below (under
Consultations), the Highway Authority responded and addressed these extra
application submissions in February 2016, which has been copied to the
applicants.
For information, the same ancillary residential occupancy condition was attached
as Condition 3 on the original ‘parent’ 2013 Outline permission for the annexe
(Ref: PO/13/0509). The applicant wished to include an additional proposal to vary
this condition as a late amendment to the current variation application. Whilst it
was recognised this might ‘tidy up loose ends’, the Council considered that the
Development Committee
13
4 May 2016
variation of a condition on a wholly separate permission cannot be considered
under a single application. The applicant was advised to make a separate
application for this on 20 January 2016.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is brought to Committee at the request of Ward Councillor Andrew
Wells.
Councillor Wells wishes the Committee to consider the potential for allowing the holiday
accommodation use but restricting future users by condition or agreement to occupation
by charities providing supported holidays for people with disabilities.
Note: The Planning Legal Manager has advised against the use of a user restricted
condition in this case as it fails the legal tests of Paragraph 206 of the NPPF, and that
there is also not a planning reason to legally restrict any holiday accommodation use to
a particular group through a legal agreement.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL:
Blakeney Parish Council – Object to the change of use for holiday use only, when
Blakeney is in need of affordable rented accommodation for local people.
REPRESENTATIONS
One Objection has been received, regarding:
 intensification of the use of a sub-standard access;
 loss of parking for main dwelling;
 resulting in an increase in on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council - Highways Development Management Officer (Highway
Authority):Response to Original Application
In response to the original application, in December 2015 the Highway Authority
provided a detailed 2 page letter of assessment & comments, and recommended
refusal of this application for 3 reasons, covering: unsatisfactory inadequate width access, to the detriment of highway safety;
 inadequate visibility splays provided at junction, to the detriment of highway
safety;
 loss of existing parking facilities (for main dwelling) by separation of buildings –
leading to undesirable on-street parking, to the detriment of highway safety.
Response to Applicant’s Additional Information Statement of January 2016 on
Highways Matters
The Highway Authority responded in February 2016 to challenges to their highway
advice, contained in a later statement from the Agent and in an advice letter to the
applicant from Howes Percival solicitors.
The Highway Authority maintained their recommendation to refuse the application,
stating that:“The Highway Authority can see no reason to change the advice that we have provided.
The application is clearly not Policy compliant. We maintain the view that the LPA
Development Committee
14
4 May 2016
should refuse this application.” The applicant’s advisors: “have clearly
misunderstood not only the Policy but also the reasons behind the Highway Authority
imposing the condition in the first place - restricting the use of the annex to ancillary
accommodation. Our reasons were made very clear at pre-application stage prior to
planning permission even being sought.”
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 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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The Transport impact of New Development (specifies criteria: to ensure
safe and convenient access by foot, cycle, public and private transport addressing the
needs of all, and 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 EC 7: The Location of New Tourism Development (provides a sequential
approach for new tourist accommodation and attractions
Policy EC 9: Holiday and Seasonal Occupancy Conditions (specifies the conditions to
be attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
- Paragraphs 203-206 - Use of Planning conditions and obligations
- Paragraph 32 – Promoting Sustainable Transport, and achievement of safe and
suitable access for all people.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The Main Issues in this case are considered to be:
 Principle: Location of Tourism Development - SS 1 & SS 3, SS 5, EC 7
 Principle: Use of Holiday Occupancy Conditions - EC 9
Development Committee
15
4 May 2016
 Transport Impact and Safe Access - CT 5 and NPPF
 Parking Provision Impact - CT 6
APPRAISAL
Site and Surroundings
 The site is located to the western side of High Street, Blakeney, midway between
the quay to the north and the A149 coast road to the south.
 It lies on the south side of a private track, running off the west side of the High
Street.
 Access is via an un-made narrow driveway between Nos. 138 and 134 High Street,
with the site itself being to the southern side of the driveway and to the west side
and rear of No 138.
 The rear of the main dwelling, number 132, lies on the north side of this narrow
un-made driveway.
 The application site is occupied by a detached, single storey, pitched roof
residential annexe building, with an ‘L’ shaped plan form. The building has not yet
been occupied (January 2016).
 The annexe provides a 1 bedroomed self-contained unit, containing a bathroom,
kitchen and living room area, built to a detailed design contained in Reserved
Matters approval of 2014 (Ref: PM/14/0773). Three 3 car parking spaces are
provided on the north side, for shared use with the main dwelling.
 Development in the area is concentrated. Given the dense nature of development
in the area there are a number of properties in close proximity to the site: namely
Cranford, No. 3, to the west which is a single storey dwelling abutting the un-made
driveway; No.134 High Street, a Grade II, two storey dwelling which fronts high
Street and abuts the driveway to the north; and No. 138 High Street which is
orientated east-west and has a frontage on the highway.
 To the south is No. 140 High Street, a large two storey dwelling set in an extensive
garden, which has a garage/outbuilding abutting the eastern boundary of the site.
 The site lies within the Settlement Boundary for Blakeney, a Coastal Service Village
settlement for growth as defined by the North Norfolk Core Strategy (Policy SS 1), in
a designated Residential policy area for Housing (SS 3).It also lies within Blakeney
and Glaven Valley Conservation Areas (EN 8), and within the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (EN 1).
Principle: Location of Tourism Development - Policies SS 1 & SS 3, SS 5, EC 7
The application site is located within the settlement boundary and residential area for
Blakeney, as defined under Policies SS1 and SS3 respectively of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy. In this location Policy SS1 allows a small amount of new
development in Coastal Service Villages to support their role as housing, employment,
retail and service centres, and to support rural sustainability. In designated Residential
Areas, Policy SS3 permits appropriate residential development and compatible
non-residential development including small scale business, community, leisure and
social uses.
Policy SS 5 (Economy) supports tourism and the tourist industry by retaining a mix of
accommodation and encouraging new accommodation and attractions which will help
diversify the offer and extend the season. Under this Policy, proposals should
demonstrate that they will not have a significant detrimental effect on the environment.
Development Committee
16
4 May 2016
Policy EC 7 (The Location of New Tourism Development) advises new tourist
accommodation should be located in accordance with the sequential approach as
follows:
“Within the ….Coastal Service Villages (i.e. including Blakeney) …proposals for new
tourist accommodation and attractions will be permitted in accordance with other
policies for……Employment Areas…”. This can include Policy SS5 on the Economy,
which advocates supporting the tourist industry by retaining a mix of accommodation
and encouraging new accommodation, and therefore complies with this Policy EC 7.
The supporting text to Policy EC 7, at Para 3.4.26, states that: ”Within the Service
Villages…proposals should first look to re-use of existing buildings and extensions to
existing businesses in order to protect the countryside from development that could
erode the character of the area”.
The proposed holiday accommodation use in this newly erected building, in this village
location, is considered to be compatible with the area and is supported in principle by
Policies SS1 and SS3.
In addition, the proposed holiday accommodation would add to the accommodation
offered locally and therefore is considered to comply with Policy SS 5.
Further, the holiday accommodation will re-use an existing building within the Village
settlement boundary, and can contribute to bringing economic and tourism benefit to the
area, complying with the aims of Policy EC 7.
All of the above are subject to the proposed use also satisfying a range of other policy
requirements, including being acceptable in terms of highway safety and parking
provision.
Principle: Use of Holiday Occupancy Conditions – Policy EC 9
Policy EC 9 (Holiday and Seasonal Occupancy Conditions) requires that holiday
occupancy conditions will be placed on new unserviced holiday accommodation, with a
list of requirements.
Paragraph 3.4.34 states that: “The intention of the conditions (required by this Policy) is
to create a clear distinction between residential dwellings (which may or may not be
used as second or holiday homes) and properties that are used as commercial holiday
lets and therefore bringing economic benefit to the area.” Paragraph 3.4.35 states:
“The conditions therefore require that properties are available as commercial holiday
lets, which can support the rural economy through servicing and visitor spend at
attractions and facilities”. This is to help meet the demand for self-catering holiday
accommodation across North Norfolk; and to help strengthen the local tourism industry.
Paragraph 3.4.37 states: “The conditions will only be applied to new properties being
built/ converted to holiday accommodation”. This proposal falls within the latter category
as the potential condition alteration would effectively allow a change of use to
self-contained holiday accommodation. The Policy specifies occupancy condition
wording.
If the ‘ancillary to residential use’ condition was replaced, this would allow the change of
use of the permitted detached annexe building to a one-bedroom self-contained
unserviced holiday accommodation unit. The property is suitable for year round holiday
occupation, and no seasonal condition is suggested. If the condition change were to
be permitted, in principle, the use of the proposed new replacement wording for the
proposed holiday accommodation use matches exactly the specified wording in the
Policy, and therefore the proposal would be considered to comply with Policy EC 9.
Development Committee
17
4 May 2016
Transport Impact and Safe Access – Policy CT 5 and NPPF
Policy CT5 (Transport Impact of New Development) requires that there is safe access to
the highway network. The Policy includes the statement that development proposals
such as this will be considered against the following criteria:

The proposal provides for safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, public and
private transport addressing the needs of all, including those with a disability; and

The proposal is capable of being served by safe access to the highway network
without detriment to the amenity and character of the locality.
The supporting text, at Paragraph 3.5.17 also states: “A primary planning consideration
is to ensure that development proposals achieve a suitable connection to the highway
that is safe for pedestrians , cyclists and occupants of vehicles.”
Additionally, the NPPF, in its ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’ section at Paragraph
32, states that decisions on developments should take account, amongst other things,
of whether:
“ safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people ”.
In assessing the access arrangements, it is worth noting that if this application is
approved, the annexe would no longer be ancillary to the main dwelling. It would
effectively become a new, independent extra unit - for holiday accommodation, with its
own resulting access and parking requirements and new impacts.
The annexe building given Outline approval in principle in June 2013 under permission
PO/13/0509 is sited on a small parcel of land which originally provided open parking, bin
storage and oil storage facilities for 132 High Street, with the annexe conditioned to
remain ancillary to the main dwelling due to the shortcomings of the access
arrangements on to the High Street (unique public highway reference:U14163). The
High Street in Blakeney is a narrow, sinuous, long road, running in a roughly north-south
direction, and is regularly constrained by on-street parking, particularly during the peak
tourist periods, when obstructive parking regularly occurs restricting access along the
High Street for refuse, deliveries, and of particular concern emergency service vehicles,
where any potential for increased on-street parking must be resisted.
The Highway Authority have advised that the site is accessed via a very narrow access
with severely substandard access arrangements due to roadside fronting walls to 134
and 138 High Street, which restrict visibility onto the High Street.
The Highway Authority have assessed the access for the proposal in detail. They have
found that the access narrows to around 2.4m, some 4.0m back from the High Street
junction and is incapable of allowing 2 way traffic movements off-carriageway, which
would result in conflicting movements in the vicinity of the significantly substandard
junction, to the detriment of highway safety.
On visibility, guidance is given in the Department for Transport document "Manual for
Streets" which sets out the requirements, for a road controlled by a 20mph Order (which
is the case here), as being 33m x 2.4m x 33m. Visibility at the site access is restricted to
6m to the south and 4m to the north at the required 2.4m setback providing only 18% of
the required distance in the trafficked direction and 12% to the north. This situation only
improves marginally to 7m (21%) and 4.5m (13.5%) respectively, at the minimum
permissible setback of 2.0m.
Development Committee
18
4 May 2016
The Highway Authority have advised the Local Planning Authority that the proposed
separation of the buildings would result in intensification of use of a severely
substandard access and a loss of parking for the main dwelling resulting in an increase
in on-street parking and use of a sub-standard access, to the detriment of highway
safety. On safe access, they therefore recommend the proposal is refused on both
inadequate access and inadequate access visibility grounds.
The proposal is therefore not considered to comply with Core Strategy Policy CT 5 and
NPPF paragraph 32 requirements to provide and achieve safe, suitable and convenient
access to the site and highway for all people. Refusal on these grounds is
recommended.
Parking Provision Impact – Policy CT 6
Policy CT 6 (Parking Provision) requires that adequate vehicle parking facilities to be
provided by the developer to serve the needs of the proposed development.
The reserved matters approval 14/0773 of 2014 for the detailed design of the dwelling’s
annexe building shows an open area in front of it, on its north side, titled “Parking for
No.132 and New Annexe”, with 3 car parking spaces illustrated. This is also shown on
the original Outline approval 13/0509 of 2013 for the detached residential annexe
associated with 132 High Street, including means of access. At the time of considering
both applications, the officer reports recorded that, given that this would be annexe
accommodation used in association with the main dwelling there was no requirement to
provide additional car parking. As such, the provision of three parking spaces for the
dwelling including the residential annexe was considered to be adequate. This front
parking space area has therefore been planned for the use of the existing dwelling and
residential annexe use, as one planning unit.
This annexe building is on land which also currently provides off-road parking for 132
High Street. The approved annexe layout provides a retained parking area which allows
manoeuvring to take place utilising the access track, prior to re-entering the highway.
The applicant proposes to subdivide this, retaining only 2 spaces for the main dwelling
and a single place for the proposed holiday accommodation use, which would lead to a
reduction in parking for the main dwelling, thus increasing the potential for on street
parking on the narrow High Street.
The Highway Authority have advised the Local Planning Authority that the proposed
separation of the buildings would result both in a loss of parking for the main dwelling
and the intensification of use of a severely substandard access resulting in an increase
in on-street parking and use of a sub-standard access, to the detriment of highway
safety. On parking provision, they therefore recommend the proposal is refused on
inadequate parking facilities grounds.
The proposal is therefore considered not to comply with Core Strategy Policy CT 6 to
provide adequate vehicle parking facilities. Refusal on these grounds is recommended.
Conclusions
The proposed new holiday accommodation use is acceptable in principle in this
location.
However, the proposed separation of the existing annexe and change of use to holiday
accommodation, if allowed, will have serious vehicular access and parking requirement
implications for highway and pedestrian safety and parking congestion in this close knit
Development Committee
19
4 May 2016
and densely built part of this historic village.
It is therefore considered that the proposed variation of condition to allow the annexe to
be used as separate and distinct holiday accommodation is unacceptable in highways
terms.
Allowing the condition to be changed to allow the proposed use is considered likely to
have an adverse impact on highway safety and parking provision in this location,
contrary to development plan policies. It is therefore recommended for refusal for these
reasons, on inadequate access, inadequate access visibility, and inadequate parking
facilities grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse Permission, to vary the condition, for the following reasons:
(1) Inadequate access:
The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of its
inadequate width and the proposal would therefore lead to the stopping, waiting or
reversing of vehicles on the highway to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to
Core Strategy Policy CT 5.
(2) Inadequate access visibility:
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining
public highway, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT 5.
(3) Inadequate parking facilities:
The proposal, if permitted, would result in the loss of existing parking facilities which
would lead to an undesirable increase in on-street parking, to the detriment of highway
safety, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT 6.
(4) Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the above
Development Plan Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
(3)
BLAKENEY - PF/16/0091 - Erection of 3 dormer extensions to front, 1 dormer
extension and 1 roof light to rear, and 1 first floor window to each side elevation;
30 The Pastures for Dr & Mrs Cameron
- Target Date: 21 March 2016
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/15/0272 HOU
Erection of first floor front extension with balcony above porch, insertion of 3 dormer
windows to rear roof slope and 1 dormer window to front roof slope and first floor
windows to south/east and north/west elevations
Withdrawn by Applicant 28/04/2015
Development Committee
20
4 May 2016
PF/15/1136 HOU
Insertion of dormer windows and gable end windows to facilitate loft conversion and
erection of first floor extension with balcony above porch (re-submission)
Refused 07/10/2015
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to insert 3 dormer windows to the front elevation roofslope, 1
dormer and 1 velux windows to the rear elevation roofslope and 1 first floor window to
each side elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Andrew Wells on the grounds that the proposal would create a
significant risk of overlooking and loss of privacy.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Blakeney Parish Council: No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired 11 March 2016. To date four representations have been
received. All of the representations object to the proposal and all are occupants of
properties immediately adjacent to the application site (Nos 28, 29, 31 & 32 The
Pastures). The following is a summary of the concerns raised:
1. No other properties in The Pastures development have been altered. The special
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
qualities of the development will be lost.
Loss of privacy to the living accommodation and master bedrooms
Inappropriate development
The application as a whole represents irresponsible and inappropriate development
The property opposite is a conventional two-storey property and it is no coincidence
that the property in between the two house (No 30) is a bungalow
Any alteration will adversely impact privacy and the dormer windows will directly
overlook gardens.
The rear elevation dormer window and rooflight will look directly into my house and
garden invading my privacy.
The proposed change is completely out of character with adjacent properties.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): Having
reviewed the submitted plans and details the Conservation and Design team indicated
they did not wish to respond to the application. The lack of a response indicates that the
officers do not consider the proposal detrimental to a designated Conservation Area.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
21
4 May 2016
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Overlooking
APPRAISAL
The Pastures is a cluster of dwellings lying on either side of a private access road; close
to the rear of the Blakeney Hotel. The development was built in the 1980s and consists
of a mix of single, one-and-a-half-storey and two-storey properties. The development
appears to have been designed to reflect the random street pattern and courtyards /
lokes of Blakeney's historic town centre, hence the properties within The Pastures are in
close proximity to one another.
30 The Pastures is a single-storey detached dwelling lying to the east of the site's
access road. Immediately to the north, and south lie two-storey dwellings, to the east
and north-east lie two one-and-a-half-storey dwellings. The site slopes toward the
quayside thereby meaning the property to the south is slightly higher than No.30.
The applicant seeks to utilise the property's roofspace to accommodate two bedrooms
and two bathrooms. However, in order to make maximum use of the space the plans
indicated four dormer windows would be inserted to provide the necessary headroom;
three of the dormers would be to the front roofslope and one to the rear roofslope. The
property currently has two rooflights to the rear elevation. The plans indicate one
rooflight would be removed and the other retained but in a more central location within
the rear roofslope. The plans also indicate there would be a first floor windows to each
gable.
With regard to the dormer window and rooflight to the rear elevation, these windows
would face properties 29 and 32 (north and northeast of the site). The dormer window
would serve a bathroom. In order to provide some ventilation to the bathroom whilst
minimising overlooking it is recommended that this dormer window is conditioned to be
obscure glazed and to have restricted opening. Given the rooflight is positioned
relatively low in the roof space it is proposed to condition this window to be obscure
glazed and non-opening. It is considered these measures would mitigate overlooking of
the properties to the rear of the development site.
With regard to the proposed gable windows, the north elevation window would serve a
bathroom. The south elevation gable window would serve a bedroom. To prevent
direct overlooking of the first floor bedroom of No 31 (north elevation) and the garden of
No 28 (south elevation) it is recommended that these windows be conditioned to be
non-opening and obscure glazed.
With regard to the front elevation dormer windows, given the positioning / orientation of
Development Committee
22
4 May 2016
Nos 28, 30 and 31 and that No 28 is slightly higher than the other two properties there
would be significant overlooking of each property's front gardens. Whilst the property at
No 28 directly overlooks No 31, No 28 lies at a slightly oblique angle to No 30. Therefore,
given the distance between 28 and 31 and the angle between 28 and 30 there is
considered to be limited overlooking of private internal living space between the
properties: the orientation of the three properties suggests that the level of overlooking
of residential space would not be significantly compromised. Additionally, the windows
serve bedrooms and bathrooms and given the depth of the dormers it is considered that
the windows would be a source of light and ventilation rather than a platform for viewing.
CONCLUSION
Overall, it is considered that due to the orientation of the properties the proposed
windows would not significantly add to the existing overlooking which exists throughout
The Pastures development. Additionally, conditions would, where necessary, limit
opening and restrict the type of glazing in some of the windows thereby further
protecting the residential and garden amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL subject to the conditions as listed below and any other conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning:


Joinery details
Glazing and window opening restrictions
(4) BRINTON - PF/15/1786 - Creation of vehicular access with associated walls and
gates and erection of detached carports/store, with further storage in roofspace;
Grange Cottage, Old Hall Lane for Ocean Rock Properties
- Target Date: 15 March 2016
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19811299 PF
New two storey extension minor internal alterations central heating
Withdrawn 15/02/1990
PF/14/0475 HOU Erection of two-storey side and single-storey front extensions
Withdrawn by Applicant 21/07/2014
PF/15/0020 HOU
Erection of two-storey rear and single-storey side extensions and creation of new vehicle
access
Withdrawn by Applicant 20/03/2015
PF/15/0908 HOU
Erection of single and two-storey extensions to dwelling
Approved 18/09/2015
Development Committee
23
4 May 2016
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to create a vehicular access and associated walls and gate and the
erection of a detached carport /store with further storage in the roofspace.
The walling and gates would be of brick and flint construction and each wall would be
approximately 1.5m in height and 4m in length. The gate would be of timber construction
and approximately 1.5m high and would be set approximately 6m back from the edge of
the adjoining highway.
The carport / store with provision for additional storage in the roofspace would be
approximately 11m wide, 7m deep and 6.5m high. Externally, the building would have
painted timber-boarding walls, clay pantile roof and be set on a red brick plinth. The
building would have rooflights to the front and rear roofslope and a window to each
gable.
Amended plans were received in respect of the revised location of the carport /store.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Andrew Wells on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Brinton Parish Council: Object to both the original and the amended proposal on the
basis that,
The proposed building is too large in scale, particularly as to its height which would
have a negative effect on the neighbourhood. The building is tantamount to a
new dwelling. Approval has already been given for substantial additions to the
modest, traditional country cottage and this additional large two-storey building
would materially increase the negative impact of the whole site on the appearance
of the neighbourhood and the surrounding countryside. Removal of a substantial
part of the roadside hedge, the building of new walls, together with prominent
gates would be detrimental to the street scene and the rural character of this
country lane and the Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
The original site notice expired 15 February 2016 and the amended plan site notice
expired 1 April 2016. The Local Planning Authority received two representations from
residents of neighbouring properties, both representations objected to the proposal. The
following is a summary of their concerns:
1. The height of the walls (unspecified) on the lane and the removal of the hedging is
not in keeping with the other properties.
2. The materials should be brick and flint.
3. Hedging should replace the walling and the gate should be timber not metal.
4. The carport is the size of the next door bungalow and could be converted into a
dwelling in the future.
5. The carport would result in overdevelopment of the site.
6. The plans, if passed, make a mockery of conservation regulations in respect of
doubling the size of Grange Cottage (PF/15/0908).
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - Both the existing and proposed access points have
restricted visibility. However, on-site turning arrangements are improved under this
application. This raises no highway objects subject to the imposition of conditions.
Development Committee
24
4 May 2016
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection to the proposal. The amended plans relocate the carport /store thereby
reducing its impact on the street scene.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The walls would result in
urbanisation of the countryside and recommended a hedge be planted instead.
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 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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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
Overdevelopment of the site
Failure to preserve and or protect a designated Conservation Area
Urbanisation of the Countryside
APPRAISAL
Grange Cottage is located to the south of Old Hall Lane, Brinton. The cottage lies to the
south-eastern corner of the site and is in relatively close proximity to Old Hall Lane.
Overall, the site is extensive with gardens extending over 35m to the rear and 20m to the
west of the property. The north, east and west elevations of the property and gardens are
screened via mature hedging and trees.
The proposed carport and the entrance walling and gates would lie to the west of the
host dwelling. Mature boundary hedging would screen the carport from the neighbouring
property to the west and partially screen the carport from Old Hall Lane. The proposed
timber clad carport / store with pantile roof set on a brick plinth is of a design widely seen
throughout the district. Whilst the building is of a substantial size, approximately 11m
wide, 7m deep and 6.5m height, it is not considered to be disproportionate in terms of
height and scale relative to the size of the site.
Development Committee
25
4 May 2016
The proposed 1.5m brick and flint entrance walling with timber gate would ensure the
property's security and the wall's height and design would be in keeping with the walling
previously approved at the site via planning application PF/15/0908.
In order to address the main issues for consideration it is necessary to briefly review
planning application PF/15/0908 to which the Parish Council and local residents also
raised a number of objections. At the time it was stated the proposal would result in
overdevelopment of the site and be detrimental to the character of the conservation area
and the wider countryside.
The previous planning application PF/15/15/0908 permitted the erection of a substantial
extension to the rear and side (east elevation) of host property and the erection of a 1.5m
high x 15m wide brick and flint wall to run adjacent to Old Hall Lane. The wall replaced
several Leylandii trees and closed off the cottages existing vehicular access. The
existing access would no longer be required and the plans indicated a new vehicular
access would be established to the west of property. Whilst the new vehicular access
and the removal of 6m of hedgerow were not part of the application's description they
were illustrated on the plans.
Furthermore, given Old Hall Lane is an unclassified road and that the new vehicular
access would be created in association with other works at the site permission for the
new access would not be required, nor would permission be required for the removal of
approximately 6m of roadside hedging in order to facilitate the new access.
With regard to the current application, given the site lies within a designated
conservation area the District Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape teams
were consulted. The Conservation and Design team raised no overall objection to the
proposal other than to suggest the carport / store be 'pushed back' from the road thereby
reducing the buildings impact on the street scene. Amended plans indicate the building
would be located an additional 3m from the road. The building is proposed to be located
approximately 7m north of the boundary hedge and some 9m from the roadside. The
District Council's Landscape team, whilst welcoming the modification to the location of
the carport /store expressed concern regarding the walling at the site of the proposed
vehicular access, commenting that it would be further urbanisation of the countryside.
The Landscape officers suggested the vehicular access walling should be replaced with
hedging.
Conclusion
Planning application PF/15/0908 has already permitted the erection of a 15m roadside
wall at a height of 1.5m. It is therefore considered that the walling framing the new
vehicular entrance is actually a reduction in that already approved. Further, it is
considered that the proposed walling would not result in significant additional
urbanisation of the countryside or be detrimental to the wider conservation area. The
carport / store is not considered to be disproportionate in size and mass to the site,
relative to its overall size. It is therefore considered the proposed development would not
result in overdevelopment. Additionally, the design and choice of materials for the
proposed carport / store are compatible with a rural environment and these structures
are widely seen across the district.
On balance it is considered that the development as a whole, and in light of what has
already been approved, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the
conservation area or negatively materially impact upon the wider countryside and is
considered to be in accordance with Core Strategy Policies SS2, EN2, EN4, EN8 and
CT5.
Development Committee
26
4 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL subject to the conditions as listed below and any other conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning:
Construction / facing materials
Tree protection measures
Highway safety measures including access position and reinstatement of verge
Restrict the use of the carport / store to uses incidental to the dwellinghouse
Remove permitted development rights in terms of alterations, extensions and the
insertion of additional windows





(5)
BRISTON - PF/15/1746 - Erection of 12 shared ownership dwellings and garages;
Holly House, The Lane for Option for Homes Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 15 March 2016
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Countryside
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
14/0992 PF - Erection of twelve shared ownership dwellings and garages
Withdrawn by Applicant 03/11/2014
DE21/15/0011
Garages
11/03/2015
ENQ
- Erection of Twelve shared Ownership Dwellings and
15/0352 PF - Erection of twelve shared ownership dwellings with garages
Refused 09/07/2015
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for the erection of 12 dwellings with garages on 0.42 hectares of
land adjoining the northern edge of the settlement boundary of Briston towards the west
end of the village. The site forms part of site allocation BRI24, land rear of Holly House,
and consists of a long narrow plot of overgrown grassland measuring some 150 metres
in length by 30 metres in width. A substantial hedge along the southern boundary
separates the site from Orchard Close. The site would be served by a private road from
a new single point of vehicular access off Bure Road immediately to the south at the
junction with Orchard Close.
The dwellings would be provided as co-ownership properties through a Joint Equity
Scheme which is a form of Intermediate affordable housing and would consist of:




4 x three-bed, 4 person semi-detached houses,
2 x two-bed, 4 person semi-detached houses,
2 x three-bed, 5 Person detached houses, and
4 x two-bed, 4 Person semi-detached chalet bungalows.
Development Committee
27
4 May 2016
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Design and Access Statement
 Energy Statement
Further details have been received in respect of the Joint Equity Scheme and flood risk.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Local Member Councillor English in light of the concerns raised by
Briston Parish Council and local residents.
PARISH COUNCIL - Object.
 The access road through Orchard Close is unsuitable to take any additional traffic,
possibly up to 24 vehicles.
 More dwellings have been applied for than allocated in the LDF Policy BR124.
 The infrastructure and services in the village will be unable to cope with more
dwellings.
 There appear to be no safeguards to ensure that the existing hedge is maintained
at a sensible height in the future and not replaced with a fence.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The proposed number of dwellings is too many for the area of land.
2. The site allocation document states that the total area of land, which amounts to 0.5
hectares, is suitable for approximately 10 dwellings, yet the application is for 12
dwellings on an area of 0.42 hectares.
3. Major increase in noise and traffic through the small estate.
4. Proximity of new access road to existing bungalow would result in loss of privacy
and noise and disturbance.
5. The proposed houses will overlook the existing bungalows within the current
estate.
6. The extension in the length of Bure Close will increase traffic speeds.
7. Parked cars on The Lanes impede visibility when exiting the Bure Road junction.
8. Why is the access coming through Bure Road when Holly House has sufficient land
for the road to pass directly onto The Lanes.
9. The latest proposals do not provide sufficient parking spaces and there is likely to
be an overflow onto Bure Road causing traffic flow problems and lack of privacy.
10. There are ongoing problems surrounding sewage and flooding in Briston.
11. There is no provision for open space within the development and as these are
family dwellings where will children play.
12. The loss of part of the hedge to the southern boundary will affect both privacy and
result in loss of habitat for wildlife.
13. Safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that the hedgerow to the southern
boundary which is now shown to be retained is maintained at a minimum height of 3
metres.
14. The Design and Access Statement states that 60 metres of the hedge to the
southern boundary will be removed.
15. The plans show heat recovery ventilation units however the air source heat pumps,
which can be noisy, are not shown.
16. There is no capacity at the Melton Constable Medical Practice with long wait for
appointments.
Development Committee
28
4 May 2016
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Seeks further amendments to site layout to include an
increase in the width of estate road to the same as Bure Road and for slight
modifications in the dimensions the Type 3 turning head with the site. Also slight
modifications to the dimensions of the turning heads at the extreme eastern and
western ends of the site served off the private driveways in order to accommodate fire
tenders.
Natural England - No comment.
County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority) - No response.
Housing Strategy – No objection - Whilst the planning application refers to the
dwellings as shared ownership dwellings, all the dwellings including the affordable
housing are proposed to be provided as co-ownership dwellings using a model
developed by a company called Joint Equity.
The Joint Equity model operates in the following way:
A purchaser buys a share of a property which they will occupy as their home, they are
called the Resident Partner (RP). As the RP cannot afford to buy all of the property, they
buy it jointly with an investor (in this case the applicant Options for Homes Ltd) who is
called the Non Resident Partner (NRP). The NRP owns the remaining share of the
value of the property, the NRP has no right to live in the property. The RP then pays
the NRP a return on the NRP’s share of the property, this payment is called the Partner
Payment and can be considered to be broadly equivalent to the rent that is paid to a
Registered Provider for a shared ownership property. It should be noted however, that
as the NRP is an investor, the cost of the Partner Payment is higher than the equivalent
amount of rent which would be charged if the property was shared ownership. The
ethos of the Joint Equity model is to help households who cannot afford to buy outright
to buy a home, however, it is an investment model in that the NRP benefits from any
growth in the value of their share (which they can sell to another NRP or to the RP) and
from the monthly Partner Payment which will increase by a set amount (percentage)
every 3 years.
Joint Equity is a legal company which operates the co-ownership scheme, for which it
receives a fee from the NRP. Joint Equity can act as an arbitrator where there are
disputes between the RP and NRP although there is also a separate independent
dispute process when Joint Equity is unable to resolve the dispute. Whilst the RP and
NRP own the property jointly, they also sign a Partner Contract which regulates the
relationship between the RP and NRP and provides Joint Equity with the ability to
resolve disputes. This provides some safeguards in the event that either the RP or
NRP default on any mortgage or loan secured on the property. There is a common
director and owner of the Joint Equity and Option for Homes companies, and the
Council is exploring with the applicant how conflicts of interest in the Partner Contract
can be managed to protect the RP.
As the applicant is proposing that the affordable housing provision on this site will be
provided as co-ownership using the Joint Equity model, the affordable housing
provision will be considered to be intermediate housing and there will therefore be no
rented affordable housing provided on this site. The details of the model have been
discussed with the applicant to ensure that the model can be accepted as a form of
intermediate affordable housing and it has been agreed that subject to the Section 106
Agreement for the site including the Council’s required provisions to ensure the
dwellings are affordable and protected as affordable in perpetuity that the co-ownership
dwellings can be accepted as the affordable housing provision on this site.
Development Committee
29
4 May 2016
There is a need for affordable housing in Briston with 57 households on the Housing
Register and in addition there are a further 49 households on the Transfer Register and
416 households on the Housing Options Register who have stated that they require
housing in Briston.
The applicant has made a Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application, which if
approved and the required construction schedule is met will reduce the affordable
housing requirement on the site from 50% of the total number of dwellings to 20%. The
applicant has not submitted a viability appraisal to demonstrate that the fallback
requirement of 50% affordable housing is not viable. The proposed affordable housing
with therefore be:
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme mix (20%)
2 x 2 Bed 4 Person Houses
Policy Requirement Mix (50%)
2 x 2 Bed 4 Person Houses
4 x 2 Bed 4 Person Chalet Houses
The RP will purchase 50% of the value of the affordable dwellings. On this basis, the
size and type of the affordable housing is agreed.
The arrangements for the initial marketing of the affordable dwellings on the site have
been agreed with the applicant, which will provide for households with a local
connection to Briston to be given initial priority for the dwellings.
The applicant has at the Council’s suggestion designed the 2 bed 4 person houses so
that if required, the second bedroom can be easily subdivided to create a 3 bedroom 4
person house. This change was seen by the applicant as a positive reflection of the
Joint Equity model. It also ensures that the occupiers of the affordable dwellings will be
able to easily change their house to meet their changing needs, which could delay or
prevent a move to another property. The flexibility of this design is welcomed. The
affordable housing provision is well integrated into the scheme.
If this application is approved, a Section 106 Agreement will be required which will
secure the provision of the affordable housing on the site in terms of the specific plots
which will be affordable and the phasing of the completion of these dwellings in relation
to the other dwellings on the site. The S106 Agreement will also ensure that the
affordable dwellings are affordable in terms of local incomes and local house prices
which will include provisions around the maximum income which can be paid on the
total housing costs (mortgage and Partner Payment) of the RP. The S106 Agreement
will also include provisions for another affordable dwelling to be provided if the RP of an
affordable dwelling buys out the NRP so they own 100% of the property.
The Housing Strategy team therefore support the approval of this application subject to
the outstanding issues being satisfactorily resolved and completion of a Section 106
Agreement which includes such provisions which are required in addition to the
Council’s standard affordable housing terms to ensure the affordable dwellings are
affordable based on local incomes and prices, that the total cost of the product is
affordable and to include suitable provisions in relation to perpetuity or recycling where
an affordable dwelling becomes a market dwelling.
Conservation and Design Team Leader - No objection subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions relating to the bricks and tiles to be used in the construction of
the dwellings and enclosure walls.
Landscape Officer – No objection - The indicative landscaping scheme submitted with
Development Committee
30
4 May 2016
the application illustrates the retention of the existing hedgerows to the north, east and
southern boundaries although a section will have to be removed on Orchard Close to
allow the access road to be completed. The retention of the hedgerows is desirable as
they will provide important nesting, foraging and commuting habitat for a variety of
wildlife including priority habitats and species. In addition the hedgerows will help
screen the new development and integrate it into the wider semi-rural setting.
The hedgerows, and any species found within, will require protection during the
development and would also benefit from additional enhancement planting. This could
be achieved through the provision of a Construction Environment Management Plan
(CEMP), which should also include all of the habitats on site, and should be secured via
condition. In addition enhancement opportunities should be indicated in a Landscaping
Scheme, also secured via condition. It would also be advisable to put a condition on
any planning permission granted requiring the retention of the hedgerows. It is
possible that with a sensitive construction methodology and with a thorough
landscaping scheme that incorporates additional tree planting and ecological
enhancement features (such as bat and bird boxes, native planting, mammal access
points in fences) that the development would result in no net loss of biodiversity and
may achieve positive enhancements for biodiversity in accordance with the
requirements of the NPPF and policy EN9.
Environmental Health - No objection, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions relating to the submission of details relating to surface water disposal and
noise odour and dust control from various plant, including Air Source Heat Pumps.
Anglian Water - No objection - The sewage system and Water Recycling Centre has
available capacity for the flows proposed.
Environment Agency - No response
Countryside and Parks Manager - No objection - The methodology set out in the
Council's interim practice guide to open space provision has been applied to this
application in terms of the relationship between additional population generated and
public open space.
The corresponding requirement has been calculated as follows:
Off- site contribution: Parks £12,012, Play £4,800, Green space £4,488 and Allotments
£5,914 (based on population increase of 26 of which 12 are children)
The threshold for developer contributions or on-site provision is 10 dwellings. This
application provides for 12 dwellings. There is no scope for on-site provision of open
space. There is no scope for on-site provision because the site is too small. There is no
demand for allotment provision because the village is already well served. There is
scope to improve parks and play provision on the existing recreation ground. In this
locality it is not considered that a contribution for green space is necessary.
It is therefore proposed that a contribution of £18,812 be sought for improvements to
play and parks provision at the village recreation ground.
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
31
4 May 2016
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character
of the area).
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 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).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Development Committee
32
4 May 2016
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and design
 Impact on neighbouring properties
 Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
 Highways issues
 Drainage and flood risk issues
 Other issues
 S.106 requirements
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting to enable a site visit to be undertaken.
Background
The current application follows planning application reference PF/14/0992 which was
withdrawn by the applicant and PF/15/0352 which was refused on the grounds of
highway safety due to the lack of turning heads together with inadequate parking
provision. In addition insufficient information was provided to demonstrate how the
proposal would provide affordable dwellings or how surface water drainage from the
development would not lead to flooding of either the proposed properties or
neighbouring sites. Furthermore, there were concerns regarding the appearance and
proportions of some of the dwelling.
Principle of development
Policy BRI24 of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, published in 2011,
allocates land amounting to approximately 0.5 hectares for residential development of
approximately 10 dwellings, with the access derived from Orchard Close. In addition it
states that suitable provision of affordable housing would be expected (currently 50%),
together with any suitable contributions towards infrastructure, services and other
community needs. Whilst in terms of constraints the only identified constraint is that
there are no surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site.
The applicant has submitted a Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme (HDIS) application,
whereby if the application is approved the affordable housing requirement would be
reduced from 50% of the total number of dwellings to 20%.
The proposed affordable housing will therefore be 2 x 2 Bed 4 Person Houses which
have been designed to allow the second bedroom to be divided to create a 3 bedroom
house if necessary. The Council’s Housing Strategy team has confirmed that the size,
Development Committee
33
4 May 2016
type and tenure of the affordable housing is acceptable, however they would need to be
secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement so that in the event of the approved HDIS
not being met, the policy requirement that 50% of the total number of dwellings should
be affordable housing will apply.
It is proposed that all the dwellings including the affordable housing would be provided
as co-ownership dwellings using a model developed by a company called Joint Equity.
This model is explained in more detail in the response received from Housing Strategy
and Community Development Manager reproduced above. However in order to protect
the affordable housing in perpetuity a further requirement would be that in the event of a
Resident Partner Occupier) purchasing 100% of the property the Non Resident Partner,
(the applicant Options for Homes Ltd) to use the monies received to provide a
comparable affordable dwelling elsewhere in the district within a defined period.
The principle of development is therefore considered to be acceptable subject to the
applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement which includes such provisions which
are required in addition to the Council’s standard affordable housing terms to ensure the
affordable dwellings are provided in perpetuity and compliance with other Core Strategy
policies.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning
authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local
circumstances.
In this instance, Policy BRI24 suggests a density of approximately 10 dwellings on a
land area of 0.50 hectares, which equates to 20 dwellings per hectare. In contrast as
the proposed development only involves 0.42 hectares of the land allocation 12
dwellings represents a housing density of 28 dwellings per hectare. Whilst it is
accepted that this is in excess of the suggested site allocation on what is a slightly
smaller land area it is considered that given the context of the site and surrounding
densities and its edge of countryside location, the density proposed would be
acceptable and makes the best and most efficient use of land. Furthermore, the
garden area to each dwelling would meet the guidance contained in Section 3 3.3.10 of
the North Norfolk Design Guide which recommends that the area of the plot given over
to private amenity space should normally be no less than the footprint of the dwelling on
that site.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace not more
than 70sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing imbalance of
larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 50% (6 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and have floor space of
between 79 and 80sqm. Furthermore 33% (4 units) would have a ground floor
bedroom which is suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or
disabled. Therefore, although the scheme falls slightly short when considering the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy HO1 in terms of floorspace Officers consider that
Development Committee
34
4 May 2016
this non-compliance with Policy does not, in itself, warrant a refusal of the scheme.
The Committee will note the comments of the Housing Strategy and Community
Development Manager who concludes that the size and type of affordable dwellings
proposed under this scheme reflects the local housing need.
Layout and Design
In terms of the layout of the development it is considered that the latest proposals have
successfully responded to previous concerns raised in respect of the lack of turning
heads and parking provision. Retention of the majority of the established hedgerow to
the southern boundary of the site helps address previous concerns of neighbours
regarding privacy issues and access from the proposed dwellings to Plots 1- 4 directly
onto Orchard Close. Furthermore, the provision of south facing garden with the private
driveway adjacent to the northern boundary would successfully increase the separation
distance between the proposed dwellings and existing properties in Orchard Close and
Baldwin Close.
As far as the scale and massing of the proposed dwellings, whilst the gable width to the
majority of the units is slightly broader than ideal at 10 metres, overall the proportions
and elevational treatment of the dwellings is considered to be acceptable and
compatible with their surroundings. The introduction of porch canopies and square bay
windows to some of the units would contribute to the developments additive form, and
combined with the mix of detached, semi-detached and chalet type bungalows adds to
the overall visual interest of the development. The scheme has raised no objection
from the Council’s Conservation and Design Officer subject to a planning condition
being used to secure appropriate materials for construction.
Impact on neighbouring properties
As referred to above, unlike previous proposals for the site the current scheme seeks to
retain the majority of the established hedgerow to the southern boundary of the site,
thereby providing screening between the proposed dwellings and properties in Orchard
and Baldwin’s Close. Furthermore, the separation distance between the south (rear
elevations) of the proposed dwellings and the southern boundary of the site would be in
the region of 11 metres, with the front north facing windows of Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7
Orchard Close being a further 15 metres to the south, giving an total separation
distance of some 26 metres, which is well in excess of the amenity criteria contained in
the North Norfolk Design Guide. This is also true of dwellings to the corner of Orchard
Close and Bure Road which would have a separation distance of some 20 metres.
However it is acknowledged that this property together with No 6 Orchard Close, which
abuts the site to the east of the proposed new access and which has its front windows
within 4 metres of the roadway, could potentially experience additional noise and
disturbance from vehicles and pedestrians accessing the development.
As far as the impact on No’s 1, 3, 5 and 7 Baldwin’s Close to the east, whilst these
properties have their rear gardens facing the site, given the separation distances
involved and the fact that the proposed semi-detached chalet bungalows would only
have first floor bathroom window facing these dwellings again there would be no privacy
issues.
It is therefore consider that the relationship with neighbouring properties is acceptable
and would not result in any privacy or overshadowing issues. However it is accepted
that those properties close to the site access could experience addition noise and
disturbance. Notwithstanding this given that the site allocation document indicates the
access being derived from Orchard Close it is considered that refusal of the application
on this ground alone could not be justified.
Development Committee
35
4 May 2016
Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
Formerly a managed small holding with orchard, allotments and trees the site which lies
to the south of an agricultural field and north of Orchard Close consists predominantly of
improved grassland and scrub. Since the previous refusal 15/0352, the layout of the
scheme has been changed so that the dwellings are now orientated to the north with the
rear gardens backing onto Orchard Close and Baldwin's Close to the south. The
indicative landscaping scheme submitted as part of the application indicates the
retention of the existing hedgerows to the north, east and southern boundaries,
although a section of some 20 metres would have to be removed to allow the access
road off Bure Road. Overall the retention of the hedgerows is to be welcomed as they
will provide important nesting, foraging and commuting habitat for a variety of wildlife
including priority habitats and species. In addition they will screen the proposed
development from properties to the south and integrate it into the wider semi-rural
setting.
The Landscape Officer has indicated that the submitted Design and Access Statement
is somewhat dismissive of both the ecological importance of the existing natural
features on the site as well as the intrinsic value of the hedgerows and remaining trees
as features in their own right. However it is considered that with a sensitive construction
methodology and a detailed landscaping scheme that incorporates additional tree
planting and ecological enhancement features (such as bat and bird boxes, native
planting, mammal access points in fences) there would be no net loss of biodiversity
and could in fact achieve positive enhancements for biodiversity in accordance with the
requirements of the NPPF and policy EN9. The Landscape Officer therefore raises no
object to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the retention of
the hedgerows at an agreed height, the submission of a Construction Environment
Management Plan (CEMP), which includes all of the habitats on site, together with a
comprehensive landscaping scheme.
Highways Issues
It is proposed that the site would be served by a new single point of access off the
junction with Bure Road and Orchard Close which would terminate in a Type 3 turning
head adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. To the east and west of the turning
heads properties would be served by a private driveway finished in permeable block
paving. The layout of the scheme accommodates parking for the twelve dwellings
through on-plot parking on the basis of two spaces per dwelling, which includes the use
of garages as parking spaces. As proposed each garage would have internal
dimensions of 3 metres in width x 6 metres in length, which is one metre less than the
recommendations contained in the Council’s parking standards. As part of their
response to the previous planning application PF/15/0352 the Highway Authority
indicated that the provision of garages with the internal dimension proposed were
acceptable subject to the garages being set back at least 6 metres from the adjacent
shared private drive, which is now the case.
The Committee will note the concerns raised by Briston Parish Council and local
residents that the access road through Orchard Close is unsuitable to take any
additional traffic. Furthermore, the latest proposals do not provide sufficient parking
spaces and there is likely to be an overflow onto Bure Road causing traffic flow
problems and lack of privacy.
In response to the latest application the Highway Authority has indicated that further
minor amendments are required in respect of the width of the access road into the
estate together with the dimensions of the turning heads. Specifically they have
suggested that the turning head off the private driveway at the extreme eastern end of
Development Committee
36
4 May 2016
the site should be a Type 3 head as required by fire tenders, which could be difficult to
accommodate within the proposed layout. Having consulted this Council’s Building
Control Section they have confirmed that the Fire Service only requires a Type 5 head,
the dimensions of which are less and could satisfactory be accommodated within the
proposed layout.
Given the Site Allocations Document indicates the access being derived from Orchard
Close, and previously the Highway Authority raised no objection in principle, it is
considered that following receipt of an amended layout plan and subject to no new
grounds of objection from highways that refusal of the application on highway safety
grounds or level of on-site parking provision could not be justified.
Drainage and flood risk issues
The site is situated in Flood Risk Zone 1 as identified on the Environment Agency flood
risk maps which is the lowest category of risk, where flooding from rivers and sea is very
unlikely.
Policy EN10 and the NPPF requires the provision of appropriate surface water drainage
arrangements for dealing with surface water run-off from new developments in order to
prevent on and off site flooding. More specifically on all major developments the Local
Planning Authority expects sustainable drainage systems to be implemented in order
for surface water from the development to be disposed of on site, unless soil conditions
and or engineering feasibility dictates otherwise.
In this particular case a site investigation undertaken in January 2014 found that the
underground soils are 90% sand and the permeability is very high. Furthermore at a
depth of 3.7 metres the water table was not encountered and there were no signs of
ground water ingress at any depth. It is therefore proposed that soakaways/Sustainable
Urban Drainage System (SUDS) would be used throughout the site, including the use
permeable paving of private drives for the dwellings and highway soakaways for the
estate road. Although Norfolk County Council as Lead Flood Authority was consulted,
at the present time they are only providing advice in respect of developments involving
250 dwellings or more. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer, whilst not
objecting to the scheme has indicated that further details of the surface water drainage
system will be required and can be secured by way of an appropriately worded planning
condition.
It is proposed that foul water drainage will connect into existing public foul sewer and
Anglian Water have confirmed that there is existing capacity to allow the development to
take place.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer
applicable as government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing
the Code for Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer
require compliance with these standards. However Policy EN6 requires 10% of the
predicted total energy usage of the development to be provided by on-site renewable
energy technology.
The Energy Statement and Design and Access Statement submitted as part of the
application indicates that the dwellings will achieve CSH Level 3 and that in order to
comply with Policy EN6 on-site renewable technologies will include the use of air source
heat pumps and heat recovery systems, together with triple glazing and thermal
insulation.
Development Committee
37
4 May 2016
Having consulted the Council’s Environmental Protection Team they initially raised
concerns regarding the proposed use of air source heat pumps and the potential for
noise and disturbance to the occupiers neighbouring properties. However the
Environmental Protection Officer has subsequently indicated that precise details of the
air source heat pumps, including their location could be secured by planning condition,
to ensure a full assessment of noise impacts is taken into account before agreeing to
their installation.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing based on the Housing Delivery Incentive
Scheme (HDIS) and a fallback position in the event of the approved HDIS not
being met, that the policy requirement that 50% of the total number of dwellings
should be affordable housing will apply.
 As it is proposed the dwellings would be provided on a co-ownership basis
through the Joint Equity Scheme in order to protect the affordable housing in
perpetuity a further requirement would be that in the event of a Resident Partner
purchasing 100% of the property the Non Resident Partner use the monies
received to provide a comparable affordable dwelling elsewhere in the district
within a defined period.
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to the village
play and parks provision.
Summary
The site forms part of the site allocation BRI24, and whilst it is accepted that the
proposed density is in excess of the suggested allocation it is considered that given the
context of the site and surrounding densities and its edge of countryside location, this is
acceptable and makes the best and most efficient use of land. Furthermore, the
provision of two affordable dwellings which will be provided as co-ownership dwellings
using the Joint Equity model, would comply with the Council’s Housing Delivery
Incentive scheme. In addition the mix, design and layout of the development are also
considered to be acceptable. Whilst concerns have been raised by the Parish Council
and local residents, as this is an allocated site and statutory consultees have raised no
objection it is considered that the development would accord with Development Plan
policy, subject to the provisions of a Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of
appropriate conditions,
RECOMMENDATION: DELEGATED APPROVE subject to no new grounds of
objection from the Highways Authority following receipt of an amended plan
showing modifications to the access road and turning head, and
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the
terms set out in the report.
(ii)
Appropriate conditions relating to; hard and soft landscaping
(including retentions of existing hedgerows), surface water drainage
and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
Development Committee
38
4 May 2016
(6)
CROMER - PF/15/1553 - Erection of two and half-storey detached dwelling; Land
at Old Zoo Site, Howards Hill for Swallowtail Properties Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19850849 PO
Residential development
Approved 11/11/1985
PLA/19871923 PO
Four dwellings (residential development) off private access road
Approved 05/11/1987
PLA/19920858 PO
Four detached single storey dwellings with garages
Approved 01/09/1992
PLA/19941720 PM
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 99 dwellings with associated garages
and parking provision
Approved 16/11/1995
PLA/19951138 PM
Erection of three detached dwellings with associated garages
Approved 16/02/1996
PLA/19960541 PF
Erection of dwelling
Approved 02/10/1996
PLA/19961194 PF
Erection of two detached dwellings and wall/entrance gates
Approved 10/12/1996
PF/15/0803 PF
Erection of two and a half-storey detached dwelling
Withdrawn - Invalid 06/11/2015
THE APPLICATION
The application is to erect a four-bedroom dwelling with three bay open fronted garage.
The proposed dwelling is a contemporary flat roof design stepped into the hillside with
the flat roofs functioning as outdoor terraces around the building. It has a conventional
rectangular footprint with the open fronted triple bay garage extending at a 90 degree
angle northwards.
Development Committee
39
4 May 2016
As originally submitted it is essentially a single storey building with tiered floor levels as
the building is terraced into the hillside. The flat roof of each level providing an external
terrace to the next level up. The only element that is truly two storey from ground level
is the sun/sea room which has 360 degree glazing. A corner of this has been raised as
a lookout with 360 degree glazing. Each tier of the building is 3m tall. The split level
sun/sea room is between 5.4m and 6.5m from ground level with the height to the top of
the lookout about 6.8m.
An amended plan has been submitted that;
 reduces the glazing in the lookout to the north elevation
 confirms the sun/sea room will be glazed on all four sides
 alters the material specification introducing flint walls, dark grey window frames and
a lighter grey render on the remaining walls.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management because of the sensitive nature of
the site.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Cromer Town Council - objects
The area is split up into three plots. Plot 1 is complete with permission being given in the
early 90's, Plot 2 is near completion. Both are single storey dwellings built into the hill in
such a way they are not visible to most of the properties in the surrounding area. When
permission was given for Plot 1 and Plot 2 a condition was imposed (Condition 2) on the
site that no building shall be more than a single storey due to the visibility concerns. The
application on Plot 3 will be visible from a significant distance and nearly all
neighbouring properties and permission would lift the existing condition. Permission
would not be compliant with the existing condition.
Tree Preservation Orders:- Mature trees will be removed in this application. The trees
are an important part of the landscape. Little detail is given in the application to what if
anything will replace them.
REPRESENTATIONS
Representations to original application.
37 representations have been received objecting on grounds of
1. Will overlook many private residences and is an invasion of privacy, many
elevations are mainly glazed and the lookout tower is obtrusive to privacy.
2. A 2.5 storey building that will dominate the skyline spoiling the whole area the
development is out of character with the area and local landscape.
3. The design is obtrusive, ugly and is reminiscent of a second World War airfield
building complete with air traffic control/conning tower/prison compound.
4. No planning permission should be granted for anything higher than single storey as
per the original conditions.
5. Light pollution and nocturnal character, contrary to Policy EN 2.
6. The site is neither large enough or rural enough to accommodate this structure.
7. It will be seen from miles around and is visible from Howards Hill.
8. There will be a loss of landscaping and trees protected by TPO will be removed.
9. Due regard should be had to the precise siting and massing of the units so as to
minimise any obtrusive effect upon the site's skyline contrary to EN4.
Development Committee
40
4 May 2016
10. Concerned about the loss of mature trees and environmental impact and slippage
11. The whole proposal shows a sprawling construction with the central portion at an
overall height of at least two storeys above the top of the hill.
12. Proposed Garage will block views to the east from Keepers Castle (formerly Plot
1).
13. The proposed dwelling would be effectively 3 storey.
14. Lookout will have uninterrupted views over Zoo Lodge (formerly Plot 2)
15. Proximity of garage and house so close to the access road could seriously impair
and affect safety of those residential should extra parking/turning be required.
16. Concerns over land stability
7 representations have been received supporting on grounds of;





The site warrants an iconic and innovative building.
A modern building mixed with greenery that uses the natural contours of the land
seems an ideal solution.
The proposed building will enhance the site and surrounding areas and has been
considerately designed to cut into the hill
Carefully thought through design that will enhance the area.
Effectively and sensitively deals with the issues of overlooking neighbouring
properties.
Representations to the amended plans.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - No objection though the Highways Authority would
request conditions be imposed regarding the gradient of the vehicle access and the
parking provision.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Several trees on the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Although
the trees on site are not individually important their value is as a group.
The site is on a prominent hill in Cromer and any building will have an impact on the
landscape. The site is not in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or the
Conservation Area but can be clearly viewed from both as a “wooded hilltop”.
The Landscape Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application concludes:
The sensitivity of this landscape to change is considered to be Medium and the impact
of development as proposed upon it will be Low initially, reducing to Negligible after
about 10 years.
The trees currently on the site and the new planting are therefore very important with
regards to the impact of the proposed dwelling on the landscape.
The Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA) (Arbor Research Assoc October 15)
submitted with the application demonstrates that a dwelling can be accommodated on
the site with the removal of five trees. Three of the five trees are protected by the TPO.
CD&L has no objection to the application subject to conditions on tree protection
measures and retention.
Development Committee
41
4 May 2016
Environmental Health - no objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
The main issue revolves around the impact within the wider landscape/townscape. With
the LVIA now suggesting that these impacts will be low/negligible, it would appear on
the face of it that there are insufficient grounds to sustain an environmental objection.
As regards the elevations, the introduction of flint is to be welcomed on the basis that it
should better anchor the building within its setting. Overall, however, the basic additive
form is largely unchanged from the original submission. Whilst it would clearly provide
for a more substantial building than the bungalow previously approved, the tiered form
should respond better to the contours of the site. Certainly it would not appear as a
monolithic mass on its hilltop position. For this reason, and because; a) it would provide
greater visual interest than its approved predecessor, and b) the development would not
impact upon any heritage assets, Conservation & Design can have no objections to the
application.
In the event of an approval being issued, it will be important to agree the materials and
detailing
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 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 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).
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 60 Planning policies should not impose architectural styles or stifle
innovation.
Paragraph 63 great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Background and Principle of Development
Development Committee
42
4 May 2016
Design
Residential amenity
Visual impact
Protected Trees
APPRAISAL
Background and Principle of Development
The application site forms part of what was a much larger development of the old
Cromer Zoo on the hillside between the railway line and Howards Hill. The original
scheme was for 99 dwellings which included an area of open space around the north,
west and east of the original Cromer Zoo site. The majority of housing was built on the
lower land forming what is now Fulcher Avenue. An area between the top of the
hillside and Fulcher Avenue was granted full planning permission for three dwellings in
1995, Plots 1 (Keepers Cottage) and 2 (Zoo Lodge) were subsequently granted
planning permission under 1996/0651 and 1996/1194 of which Zoo Lodge has been
built and Keepers Cottage is under construction. This is the final plot (3) is on the
eastern side of the original site of three dwellings.
The site is within the development boundary for Cromer with an extant planning
permission for a dwelling and so the principle of a new dwelling on this site is
established.
Design
This is undoubtedly a complex site to assess, however, Members will have had the
opportunity to visit the site prior to this meeting.
It is an innovative design that does not conform to the more conventionally designed
characteristics of this part of Cromer. However, there is support for innovation in the
Core Strategy and National Planning Policy. Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy positively
encourages high quality, innovative and energy efficient design. In addition paragraph
60 of the NPPF states that "Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to
impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation,
originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain
development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local
distinctiveness".
Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that " In determining applications, great weight should
be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design
more generally in the area".
The site is a substantial plot with an average difference in the ground level of 8m
between the bottom (south) boundary to the top (north) boundary. It is proposed to site
the dwelling in the upper portion of the site, the lower portion of the site is much steeper.
The dwelling is of a conventional rectangular footprint, with an north-east/south-west
axis (similar to the adjacent Zoo Lodge), and a principle elevation facing south towards
Fulcher Avenue. While there is more depth to this dwelling, in terms of overall width it
is only 1m wider overall than the adjacent Zoo Lodge. The scale, massing and plot
coverage is not dissimilar to the other two dwellings on the hillside.
The dwelling is proposed to be built into the hillside resulting in a terraced dwelling with
multi floor levels perhaps giving the perspective of a two storey house whereas in
reality, apart from the sun room and lookout, each floor is essentially single storey
above its respective ground level. Each level would have its own external terrace
formed from the flat roof of the level below. The only true two storey element is the
sun/sea room and the area designated as the lookout on the plans. As originally
Development Committee
43
4 May 2016
submitted it was proposed that the lookout had 360 degree glazing, however, the
amended plan confines the glazing in the lookout to a single direction to the north to
take advantage of sea views.
It was originally proposed that the walls would be rendered is various shades of grey
with significant planting around the terraces to blend the dwelling into the hillside.
While the intention is to keep the terrace planting, the agent has amended the materials,
opting instead for a mixture of flint and render to ground the building into the hillside and
a lighter render for the upper areas to reflect against the sky.
Visual Impact
The agent has submitted a Landscape Impact Assessment in support of the application
which establishes that public vantage points are limited, and in the longer views, the
development would merge with the suburban character of its surroundings. Although,
from the more intimate views the development would be visible it is considered that it
would not have an overbearing impact on those outlooks of the surrounding houses.
Concerns have been raised regarding development breaking the ridge line because the
original planning permission for three dwellings conditioned the buildings to be single
storey only. The agent has submitted a cross section through the site on an east-west
axis to enable a comparison with the dwellings already built or under construction.
This cross section demonstrates that although the small lookout would be almost on a
par with the ridge of Keepers Cottage the height of the top of the sun/sea room would be
over 2m lower and while the main part of the dwelling would be no higher than Zoo
Lodge. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed dwelling will be no more
intrusive in the landscape than the other two dwellings the wider hillside.
When the original application for three houses on this land was approved the land was
more open in character as the majority of the housing along Fulcher Avenue had not
been completed. The completion of Fulcher Avenue and the development of the other
two plots has fundamentally altered the visual character with it becoming residential in
nature. Therefore any development in the context of the current surroundings is less
intrusive than it would have been, the trees are more mature and the planting already
undertaken will further assimilate the dwelling into its surroundings.
While the design is different to those previously built on the old Zoo site the real test of
acceptability of this proposal is whether in the long term this purposefully designed
dwelling with careful landscaping could successfully mature into its surroundings and
become part of the townscape. It is considered that the application has demonstrated
that this dwelling can meet that test.
Residential amenity
The application has raised a considerable number of objections locally and from the
occupiers of surrounding dwellings about overlooking and invasion of privacy.
The majority of the windows are on the southern principle elevation facing towards the
dwellings on Fulcher Avenue, though there are two windows and the sun room which
face Zoo Lodge. As a result of the difference in land levels the perception of
overlooking is considered to be greater than the actual degree of overlooking which
would result, because of features of the site such as the steep angle of the lower slope,
new planting, the existing trees and hedges and most notably of all the distance to the
closest neighbouring dwellings will mitigate against any overlooking. The window to
window distances considerably exceed those set out in the basic residential amenity
guidelines as set out in the Design Guide the greatest of which is 21m between primary
windows. Whereas the distance from the dwelling footprint to the closest houses on
Development Committee
44
4 May 2016
Fulcher Avenue is between 32 and 34m, and to the west towards Zoo Lodge the
distance is 27m. These measurements are taken from the footprint of the dwellings,
the distances between the windows will be greater. Another cross section submitted
by the agent that slices through the site on the north-south access further illustrates the
relationship with surrounding properties.
Taking these factors into account the recommendation is that the relationship between
the proposed and existing properties is acceptable.
Protected trees
There are five trees on the site that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, not for
their individual amenity, but for their group amenity value. The Landscape Officer is
satisfied that the new tree planting that has already taken place will adequately
compensate for their loss.
Highways Issues
The Highways Authority has raised no concerns with the access to the site or the
amount of parking provided.
Other matters
Concerns have been raised about the land becoming unstable through the
development. Whereas unstable land may be a material consideration with regards to
matters such as coastal erosion or mine workings. When land has the potential to
become unstable during and post construction then it becomes the responsibility of the
developer to take appropriate measures to prevent this from happening. Consequently,
this issue should not be regarded as material to the determination of the application.
Some concern has also been raised regarding light pollution, however, it is considered
that any light emanating from the building would not be any more significant than the
other two dwellings on the hillside.
Conclusion
This is an unusual site in terms of its location and characteristics that deserves a
well-designed dwelling. Whilst the design differs from those built on and around the
hillside, it is considered that the contemporary design, as amended, would satisfactorily
blend into its setting as the landscaping matures without significant detriment to the
amenities of neighbouring properties. On this basis the application is considered to
comply with Policies EN 2 and EN 4 of the Core Strategy and is therefore recommended
for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the following conditions and others
as deemed necessary by the Head of Planning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Standard time limit
Amended plans
Removing permitted development rights.
Details of the flint work and render colour.
Details of the colour finish for the doors and windows.
Development is carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact
Assessment.
7. Protect the tree, shrub and hedgerows to be retained from felling etc.
8. Replacement of tree and shrubs from 10 years.
9. Gradient of the access
10. Provision of three parking spaces.
Development Committee
45
4 May 2016
(7)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/15/1878 - Retention of timber workshop/shed; Brialey,
Raynham Road for Mr C Armstrong
- Target Date: 16 February 2016
Extension to 11 May 2016
Case Officer: Mr B Smith
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS:
LDF - Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
PLA/19911354 PF
Single storey front extension
Approved 11/10/1991
PLA/19950423 PF
Removal of agricultural restriction
Approved 02/06/1995
HN/15/0682 HN
Notification of intention to erect a single-storey rear extension which would project from
the original wall by 5 metres, which would have a maximum height of 2.5 metres and an
eaves height of 2.4 metres
Approved 24/06/2015
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the retention of a detached timber workshop/shed with a double
pitched roof. The shed is located on the north side of the dwelling on part of the
driveway between the host dwelling (Briarley) and the neighbouring property (Tai
Winds) and set back behind the front building line. The shed/workshop was been
moved to this position from its original position in the rear garden. It is used as a
non-habitable workshop/shed for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling.
The outbuilding is constructed of green stained timber walls with a green felt roof. There
are two windows on the east elevation looking into the rear garden of the host dwelling,
two windows on the south elevation looking directly at the host dwelling (Briarley), and
one window on the north elevation looking towards the neighbouring property, Tai
Winds. It should be noted that the window in the north elevation looking towards the
neighbouring property is set behind a 1.8 meter high fence. There are double doors on
the front, west facing, elevation. Also on the front west elevation are 2 small security
lights erected above the workshops front doors. These are activated by movement.
Concerns have been expressed that the existing drawings (showing the original position
of the shed/workshop in the rear garden) do not show the correct dimensions and
position of the timber shed/workshop. Following a site visit amended drawings were
received accurately showing the dimensions of the shed/workshop, in its relocated
proposed position. Concerns from neighbouring residents around the accuracy of the
existing plans, in particular the height of the building in its original location compared to
its proposed (as is), remain. It should be noted that this is a retrospective application
and the exact height and position of the original location of the shed/workshop cannot
be measured. In any case, the proposed (as is) position places the shed/workshop at a
higher level.
Development Committee
46
4 May 2016
Amended Plans 1:
The amended drawings show the shed/workshop to measure 3.6m wide by 6.5m long,
to a roof ridge height of 2.85m, and side wall height of 1.9m. This gives a gross floor
area, based on external wall measurements, of 23.4 square metres. It is located 0.34m
(340mm) away at the front, and 0.44m (440mm) away at the rear, from the 1.8m high
timber fence along the side boundary to the north which lies between Briarley and the
neighbouring dwelling Tai Winds. The shed/workshop is located 2m back from Briarley's
front elevation building line, and 0.95m away from the north side elevation wall of the
host dwelling, Briarley. It is positioned on a new concrete base which is surrounded by a
pea gravel surface.
Amended Plans 2
In response to consultation comments, further amended drawings have been submitted
(13/04/16) to show the windows in the elevations of the shed/workshop.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is brought to Committee at the request of Ward Councillor Becky
Palmer:
on the grounds of invasion of privacy, especially with respect to security lighting.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL:
(1) Helhoughton Parish Council – Objected to original application:
 Concerned that this is a retrospective application and that the workshop/shed is
already in place;
 There are discrepancies regarding siting and dimensions
 Siting has caused problems to neighbour to north side
 No guttering on shed, and close proximity, causing rainwater to run into this
neighbours garden
(2) Helhoughton Parish Council – Object to the amended plans (corrected dimensions).
Comments include (04/04/16) that:
 Amendments are minimal and still do not comply with NNDC planning regulations
 Drawings still incomplete, no windows shown
 Amended plans don't show guttering or facilities to collect rainwater, which would
resolve neighbour’s rainwater problem
REPRESENTATIONS
On Original Plans:
8 objections have been received, of which the main issues and grounds raised are
summarised below:
 Use/doors – It should be described as a garage and, if not, the double front doors
should be changed to one door
 Plans Incorrect – dimensions and positioning wrong. Correct plans should be
submitted.
 Materials – not specified
 Business Use – shed could be used for business workshop activities
 Overlooking – possible from north side window to Tai Winds kitchen window
 Drainage – shed and concrete base diverting rainwater, and causing flooding to
neighbouring Tai Winds dwelling front garden; shed needs guttering, drainage and
soakaway; no water collection system shown or undertaken; fails building
regulations.
Development Committee
47
4 May 2016



Fire hazard/risk– proximity of timber building to timber fence, and internal workshop
activities, are a fire risk.
Lights on front - security lights (triggered by slight movement) cause unnecessary
light pollution to neighbours
Maintenance not possible – proximity to fence means maintenance not easily
possible
On Amended Plans:
3 letters of objection have been received, of which the main issues and grounds raised
are summarised below (as at end of 18/04/16):
 Drainage – shed causes rainwater flooding to neighbour, drainage facilities should
be installed
 Existing Windows – not shown
 Revised plans – more accurate, but existing plans (old position) still inaccurate
 Roof plans – as garage/workshop roof left off plans, plans not accurate
 Maintenance not possible
 Structure should be moved - away from fence
 Still a Fire hazard/risk
No re-consultation was carried out on the 2nd amended plans, adding the windows to
the elevations.
Any additional comments to those noted above will be reported verbally at Committee.
CONSULTATIONS
NNDC Building Control Building Regulations (BR) Approval is required, because of the size and position of the
building. It is a controllable building under the Building Regulations. Whether the
outbuilding is described as a workshop, shed or garage does not matter. As a
non-occupied but controllable building, it is considered in the same way, based on its
size, position, internal floorspace, roof area. Due to the proximity of the timber side
boundary fence, Building Control would look for the side of the outbuilding
near/adjacent to the boundary (the north side) to be upgraded to give it fire resistance,
both internally and externally, to gain Building Regulations compliance. Building Control
advised that there are fire resistant surfacing or cladding materials available that could
be applied retrospectively in order to gain compliance under the Building Regulations.
As a controllable building (not occupied) the applicants will be asked to provide surface
water drainage for the building, to be provided by external roof guttering and down pipe
to a soakaway in the grounds/garden of the house. The dug soakaway must be more
than 5m from the outbuilding.
NNDC Environmental Health There are no surface water issues in this location. The gathered water or flooding
appears to be a local issue. Providing appropriate rainwater goods and soakaway, or
alternative, are in place on/for the shed to meet Building Regulations requirements, this
would address the potential ground water saturation issue in the area. Probable cause
of flooding here is that the ground is soaked and saturated beneath both adjoining
properties from rainfall, possibly causing gathering of groundwater in places.
Appropriate rainwater goods and a soakaway on the timber shed side would help
address the issue.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Development Committee
48
4 May 2016
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside)
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of Development
 Impact on the Countryside
 Design and Visual Impact
 Design and Amenities Relationship with Neighbouring Properties
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development - Policy SS 2
The application site lies near the end of a group of detached dwellings on the east side
of Raynham Road within the small settlement of Helhoughton, which lies west of
Fakenham and north of West Raynham.
The dwelling is located within an area of designated Countryside (Policy SS2), where
the policy states that proposals for extensions to existing dwellings, and adaptations of
buildings for appropriate purposes, are considered to be acceptable in principle,
providing compliant with other relevant Core Strategy policies. Whilst detached, the
proposed timber workshop/shed is considered to be a domestic out building (not for
permanent occupation) that will be for ancillary use to the primary residential use, and is
considered in the same way as an attached residential extension would be. The
principle of this proposed development is therefore considered to be compliant with
Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Impact on the Countryside - Policy HO 8
Under Policy H08, proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the area
designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal would not result
in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling, and
would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
The proposal is considered to be a modest development which does not significantly
increase the scale of built development on the site. The proposal is not considered to
result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling,
nor is the proposed detached shed/workshop considered to materially increase the
impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The proposal
is therefore considered to be compliant with Policy HO8 of the Adopted Core Strategy.
Development Committee
49
4 May 2016
Design and Visual Impact - Policy EN 4
Policy EN 4 states that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, and that innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or
enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The Design Guide
(2008) assists with this.
In design terms, the proposed detached timber workshop/shed is considered to be a
modest addition to the host dwelling. It is set back behind the front elevation building line
of the main dwelling and does not dominate the main dwelling in visual appearance
terms. The use of timber walls and felt roof is typical of domestic outbuildings and the
design is considered to be acceptable in this locality. Overall, the design, scale and form
of the proposal follows, but does not dominate, the form, proportions and design details
of the existing main building. The proposal has had regard to local building context,
does not detract from the appearance of the building and locality, and preserves the
character and quality of the area. It is therefore considered compliant with Policy EN4 of
the Adopted Core Strategy.
Design and Amenity Relationship with Neighbouring Properties - Policy EN4
Policy EN4 also states that development proposals, extensions and alterations should
not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby
occupiers. Again, the Design Guide assists with this.
In residential amenity terms, there are a number of issues to be considered:
 whether the proposed building is overbearing and would result in overshadowing,
and
 whether there is the potential for loss of privacy
Regarding consideration of the overbearing nature of the proposed development, the
proposed detached workshop/shed, although near to the north side boundary, is not
considered to have any detrimental overbearing or overshadowing impacts on the
nearest neighbouring property to the north. The north side wall and the eaves of the
timber workshop building extend approximately 150mm above the side boundary timber
fencing. The workshop roof then slopes away from the boundary. The nearest south
side wall of the adjacent property (Tai Winds) containing habitable room windows
(including the kitchen) lies approximately 6m away. The nearest walls of Tai Winds,
which sit at a 45 degree angle facing west (i.e. not direct), are the front facing garage
door and recessed front entrance door. Given the design of the roof of the
shed/workshop and it's orientation, this is not considered to result in an overbearing
form of development which would result in any overshadowing.
With regard to potential overlooking and loss of privacy, there is a small glass window in
the north side of the timber workshop building, that lies approximately 6m away from Tai
Winds kitchen window but facing it directly. The workshop is not a habitable building, but
the window could be viewed as failing the Design Guide recommended separation
distance (between secondary and tertiary windows) of 9.0m. However, the intervening
boundary timber fencing is considered to provide adequate screening between these
windows and prevents any casual overlooking and loss of privacy from someone using
the shed. The retention of this workshop window in regular glass (and not requiring
obscure glazing) is therefore not considered to result in any significantly detrimental
loss of privacy, through overlooking, to the neighbouring property to the north.
Notwithstanding this, the second submitted amended drawings show this window
opening with the following annotation: “existing window to be filled in with timber
cladding or similar”. This is considered to remove any potential for overlooking of the
Development Committee
50
4 May 2016
adjacent property. If approved a condition is recommended to require any such infilling
to be completed within 3 months of the date of the decision.
Overall the proposal is considered to result in a design that does not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenities of adjacent occupiers. The proposal
therefore complies with Policy EN4.
Other Matters
The provision of fire resistant materials on the interior and exterior of the north side
nearest the timber boundary fence, and the requirement to provide surface water
drainage through provision of guttering and downpipe to a soakaway, are Building
Regulations requirements. The applicants will be requested to retrospectively provide
these elements for this outbuilding by the Council’s Building Control section.
The inclusion and retention of the external security light fitting is a small attachment
externally on the shed above its front doors that is considered to be a minor domestic
external addition that would not require planning permission separately. However, given
concerns have been raised by neighbours as to the light levels and direction of light, this
has been referred to Environmental Health for investigation as a potential statutory
nuisance.
Concerns have been expressed regarding maintenance of the shed/workshop structure
and the boundary fence. Maintenance and potential for damage to property are not
material planning considerations and cannot be taken into account in the determination
of a planning application.
Concerns have been raised that the proposed plans do not show the roof plan of the
shed/workshop and that the overhang of the roof is not therefore shown. The overhang
of the roof is approximately 15cm on either side. This is not considered to raise any
significant concerns. Whilst a plan of the roof has not been submitted, this is not
considered to be essential given the minor nature of the development proposed.
Conclusions
The proposal, by virtue of its design, scale, proportions and materials is considered to
be an acceptable addition to the existing residential dwelling within a Countryside
settlement. There are not considered to be any significant detrimental impacts on
neighbouring amenity which would warrant refusal of the application. The development
is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Policies SS2, HO8 and EN4
of the adopted Core Strategy.
The provision of suitable fire proofing and surface water drainage requirements are
Building Regulations matters, and will be dealt with under separate assessment by
Building Control, if permission is granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended to APPROVE the application subject to the imposition of the
following conditions and any others considered necessary by the Head of Planning:


In accordance with the amended plans
Within 3 months of the date of the decision to infill the window opening on the
north elevation
Informative notes:
Development Committee
51
4 May 2016

(8)
Requirement to comply with Building regulations requirements regarding drainage
and adequate fire proofing.
HICKLING - PF/16/0153 - Change of use of land to create campsite with
associated shower and toilet buildings; Land at Heath Road for Mr T Wright
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 April 2016
Case Officer: Mrs L Starling
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Flood Zone 3 + Climate Change
C Road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
No relevant planning history.
THE APPLICATION
This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of a parcel of
agricultural arable land (1.25 hectares) to a 50 pitch tent-only campsite at Heath Road in
Hickling. The scheme also includes the construction two single-storey timber amenity
buildings (to include a toilet and shower block) to the north west of the site. The site
would be accessed via an improved access off Heath Road.
The site lies in a relatively rural location, with residential properties directly to the
north-east and south-west of the site, with fields to the east and west.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To ensure that the decision is made within the agreed determination period, given it is
likely that the application may be called in to committee due to objections.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Hickling Parish Council - Objection on the following grounds;
 Detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupants of nearby
properties, particularly resulting from increased noise and disturbance, loss of
privacy, anti-social behaviour etc. from the use of the land as a campsite.
 Lack of information provided in respect of matters such as access, lighting, site
management, layout, landscaping, pitch numbers etc.
 Potential impact on the rural character and appearance of the area.
 Parish Council recognise that the scheme may provide additional revenue to the
village and therefore suggest the granting of a temporary permission to ascertain
impacts.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following
grounds;
 Highway safety concerns due to increase in traffic resulting from the proposed use.
 Impact on residential amenity of nearby properties, particularly in respect of noise
disturbance.
 Potential to result in trespass onto adjacent agricultural land and adjacent certified
Development Committee
52
4 May 2016


caravan club site.
Adequate levels of tourist accommodation available in the locality.
Impact upon existing drainage problems in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - No objections subject to the imposition of conditions in
respect of access, visibility splays and control of installation of gates.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objections or
conditions requested.
Whilst concerns were initially raised to the density of the number of tents being
proposed within the campsite, the density as proposed (50 tents) would allow for a pitch
that is double the size of a standard sized pitch. Therefore the campsite would not be
as densely populated as previously envisaged by the Landscape team resulting in less
visual impact. The applicant has advised that the 'new' hedging as proposed on the
landscape plan has already been planted, and consists of a three species mixed native
hedge planted in a double staggered row at 5 plants per metre. In addition, a further
stretch of hedgerow has been planted across the 'dog leg' of the field to further aid
screening from the road, with this planting considered acceptable. Whilst additional
planting may enhance the site from a user perspective, it would not necessarily increase
the screening dramatically. Additional planting is not therefore considered necessary
or proportionate.
Environmental Health - No objections subject to the imposition of conditions in respect
of drainage, lighting and waste disposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential approach
for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
Policy EC 10: Static and touring caravans and camping sites (specifies criteria for new
sites and extensions or intensification of existing sites).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
Development Committee
53
4 May 2016
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).
National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012)
NPPF3: Supporting a prosperous rural economy
NPPF7: Requiring a good design
NPPF11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Design, scale and landscape impact
Residential amenity
Highway safety
Drainage/flood risk
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within the designated 'countryside' policy area where Policies EC3, EC7,
EC10, EN2 and EN4 of the Adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy allows for the provision
of new tent-only camp sites in principle, subject to schemes satisfying a range of other
policy criteria.
Design, scale and landscape impact
Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and members of the public that a
campsite in this location would be detrimental to the rural character of the area.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the Council's Landscape Officer has assessed the
proposal, and is satisfied that the density of the campsite being proposed, along with the
recent and established boundary planting along the site boundaries, would help to
minimise the impact of the proposal within the surrounding landscape. The amenity
buildings being proposed would also be of single-storey design, of a modest scale and
set towards the rear of the site, helping to minimise their visual impact.
Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that the use of the land as a campsite would
change the appearance of the site to some degree, subject to conditions restricting the
site to seasonal use, the maximum number of pitches permitted and controlling the
installation of external lighting in the future, the scheme is considered broadly
acceptable.
On this basis, it is considered that the scheme would accord with the requirements of
Policies SS2, SS4, EN2, EN4 and EN9 of the Core Strategy.
Residential amenity
Concerns have also been raised by the public and Parish Council that the use as a
campsite would cause detriment to the residential amenities of nearby properties,
particularly in terms of noise and disturbance. Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy states
that to be deemed acceptable, schemes must demonstrate that they would not
significantly impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
Given that residential properties are situated on the north and south site boundaries, it is
Development Committee
54
4 May 2016
likely that the use would result in some degree of noise and disturbance.
Notwithstanding this, the site would only be in operation on a seasonal basis (May to
September), with the number of camping pitches restricted to 50, and additional
planting already undertaken, helping to provide additional screening along its
boundaries. The Council's Environmental Health Officer have raised no objections to
the scheme in principle, subject to conditions restricting external lighting and guidance
in respect of the installation of the sewerage treatment plant and waste.
On balance, it is considered that it would be difficult to justify the refusal of the
application on the grounds that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental
impact on the occupants of the neighbouring properties.
Highway safety
Concerns have been raised that the change of use of the land to a campsite may cause
detriment to highway safety. However, based on the amended plan submitted by the
applicant showing access details, the Highway Authority have raised no objection to the
scheme subject to conditions. It is therefore considered that the scheme would
safeguard highway safety, and accord with the requirements of Policies CT5 and CT6 of
the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Drainage/flood risk
Given that the site does not lie within Flood Zones 2 or 3 as identified on the
Environment Agency maps, the principle of a camping site in this location would comply
with the requirements of Policy EC10 and would not raise any issues in respect of flood
risk.
Furthermore, whilst concerns have been raised in respect of drainage problems in the
vicinity of the site, no objection has been raised by the Council's Environmental Health
Officer in this regard.
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant Development plan policies
subject to appropriate conditions and is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the conditions in respect seasonal
opening, maximum number of pitches, highway safety (including access,
visibility and the use of gates), lighting and all other conditions considered to be
appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(9) MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/16/0099 - Erection of a pair of semi-detached
two-storey dwellings; Land adjacent to12 Astley Terrace for Melbobby Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 April 2016
Case Officer: Mrs L Starling
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Conservation Area
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Contaminated Land
Development Committee
55
4 May 2016
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/0159 PF - Erection of four semi-detached two-storey dwellings - Refused on
19th March 2014 Dismissed at Appeal on 2nd December 2014.
PF/14/1051 PF - Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings - Refused on 7th
October 2014.
THE APPLICATION
This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a pair of
semi-detached dwellings on land to the south of 12 Astley Terrace in Melton Constable.
The land is currently used in part as garden land to serve No.12, with the remaining land
being a grassed area separating the end of the cul-de-sac from the industrial estate.
The proposed dwellings would be constructed in red brick and pantiles, with white
timber painted joinery, and would each comprise of two bedrooms, lounge,
kitchen/diner, bathroom and wc.
Each dwelling would be served by its own access and on-site parking provision for two
vehicles, with areas for private gardens and bin storage to the side and rear of the
properties.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Councillor Shaw on the grounds of inconsistency given that
Planning Permission was recently granted for 38 houses considerably closer to the
industrial estate (ref: PM/15/0170), and that suitable measures to deal with the noise
have been proposed by the applicant.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Melton Constable Parish Council - Objection on the following grounds;
 Cramped nature of proposed dwellings.
 Site bordering the Industrial Estate likely to result in nuisance complaints from future
occupants and amenity issues (noise, odour etc).
 Dwellings would block sunlight to the adjacent property (No.12 Astley Terrace).
 Members unaware of survey undertaken in respect of noise and odour which
accompanies application.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection has been received from local residents on the following
grounds;
 Proximity of site to industrial estate and potential impact on the residential amenities
of future occupants. Existing housing in the vicinity already suffers from noise
pollution, odours etc.
 Height and positioning of proposed dwellings, combined with difference in land
levels, would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to existing properties on
Melton Street.
 Cramped form of development which would be out of keeping with character of
surrounding area.
 Unsubstantiated assertions and concerns regarding validity and accuracy of
accompanying noise/odour report.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - No objections on the grounds of highway safety subject to
the imposition of conditions in respect of access, parking and footpath provision.
Development Committee
56
4 May 2016
Environmental Health - Objection on the grounds of the proximity to the adjacent
Industrial Estate on the residential amenities of future occupants. The Environmental
Health Team are already dealing with active complaints from nearby properties relating
to noise and odour issues. Furthermore, a recent application to develop this site for
housing was refused (PF/14/0159) and dismissed at Appeal, with the Inspector
upholding the Council's objection in respect of residential amenity.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objections subject to the imposition of conditions in respect of materials.
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 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 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
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 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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Design, scale and impact upon the Conservation Area
Residential amenity
Development Committee
57
4 May 2016
Highway safety
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within the Development Boundary for Melton Constable in an area
designated as 'residential' where the principle of new dwellings is acceptable under
Policies SS1, subject to schemes satisfying a range of other policy criteria. The site also
lies within the Melton Constable Conservation Area where new development is
permitted where it would protect or enhance the appearance and character of the area.
Members will note that there have been two recent applications refused to redevelop
this land for residential purposes, one for four dwellings refused in 2014 (ref:
PF/14/0159) which was dismissed on Appeal. A second similar application to that
submitted for a pair of semi-detached dwellings (ref: PF/14/1051) was also refused in
2014.
Design, scale and impact upon the Conservation Area
The site lies within the Melton Constable Conservation Area where Policies EN4, EN8
and sections 7 and 12 of the NPPF require that to be deemed acceptable, development
proposals must preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area through high quality sensitive design.
In this case, this amended scheme has sought to address the concerns raised by the
Council's Conservation and Design Officers to previously refused application for two
dwellings to be constructed on the site (ref: PF/14/1051). This application was refused
on the grounds that the scheme constituted a cramped form of development, where the
design and detailing of the dwellings would fail to preserve the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area.
Notwithstanding that concerns have been raised on similar grounds to those mentioned
above by both the Parish Council and the public, the Council's Conservation Officer has
confirmed that the amended scheme adequately addresses the previous concerns.
The design of the proposed dwellings has been improved in terms of siting, proportions
and detailing, and as such would protect the appearance and character of the wider
Conservation Area. Furthermore, whilst the garden areas being provided for each
dwelling, as well as that retained for No.12 are smaller than those serving surrounding
properties, they are considered adequate for the size of the dwellings proposed, with
the scheme no longer considered to constitute overdevelopment.
Residential amenity
The contentious element of the scheme relates to its potential impact upon the
residential amenities of both the occupants of neighbouring properties (including
No.12), as well as any future occupants of the dwellings proposed. These concerns
have been raised by both the Parish Council, the public and the Environmental team.
Members will note that both of the recent applications to redevelop this land for
residential purposes (ref: PF/14/0159 and PF/14/1051) were refused on the grounds
that the close proximity of the site to the Industrial Estate. The residential amenities of
any future occupants of these dwellings was considered to be adversely affected by
noise, odour and vibrations. An objection was raised by the Council's Environmental
Health Officer on these grounds. Furthermore, an Appeal was also submitted in
respect of the initial application to construct four dwellings on the land which was
dismissed on Appeal. The Inspector concluded that "allowing the Appeal would
increase the likelihood of a statutory nuisance scenario that would be detrimental to the
viability of businesses based on an established industrial zone".
Development Committee
58
4 May 2016
Whilst it is acknowledged that this amended scheme has attempted to address the
issues raised previously through mitigation measures and is accompanied by a
noise/odour survey carried out by the agent, the Council's Environmental Health Team
have maintained their objection. Concerns have been raised over the effectiveness of
the mitigation measures proposed, and their inability to protect residents when using the
external living areas (ie; gardens). Furthermore, the survey is very limited in scope
and does not provide information such as recorded noise and odour levels.
In addition, whilst the pair of dwellings have been moved further back into the plot in an
attempt to improve the relationship and impact upon No.12 Astley Terrace. As No.12
has south facing secondary windows at ground and firstly floor level, it is considered
that the amended scheme would still result in an unacceptable degree of
overshadowing to this property and its garden area and would be overbearing.
Furthermore, the revised siting has also moved the dwellings closer to the rear
boundary of the properties along Melton Street, which whilst some distance way lie on
lower ground than the application site. It is therefore considered that, particularly
during winter months, there would be a degree of overlooking to the rear of these
properties.
Therefore, it is considered that the scheme would fail to adequately protect residential
amenity, contrary to the requirements of Policies EN4 and EN13 of the North Norfolk
Core Strategy and Section 3.3.10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Highway safety
The scheme proposes that each dwelling would be served by its own access off Astley
Terrace, with on-site parking for two vehicles per dwelling. The application has been
assessed by the Highways Authority who have raised no objections to the scheme,
subject to conditions in respect of in respect of access, parking and footpath provision.
The scheme would therefore safeguard highway safety, and accord with the
requirements of Policies CT5 and CT6 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Conclusion
It is considered that the scheme would fail to protect the residential amenities of the
occupants of existing properties, and future occupants of the proposed dwellings. The
scheme would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policies EN4 and EN13 of
the North Norfolk Core Strategy, and is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds;
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:
EN4: Design
EN13: Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation
North Norfolk Design Guide
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, it is considered that the
development would have a significantly overbearing impact and poor
relationship with No.12 Astley Terrace, resulting in overshadowing and loss of
light to that dwelling. It is also considered that the positioning of the proposed
Development Committee
59
4 May 2016
dwellings on the plot and the first floor windows on the eastern (rear) elevations
would result in overlooking to the private amenity areas, to the detriment of the
occupants of the properties to the east on Melton Street.
Furthermore, given the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the Melton
Constable Industrial Estate to the south, it is considered that the future
occupants of these dwellings would be adversely affected by noise, odour and
vibrations, to the detriment of residential amenity.
Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the
above Development Plan policy and Section 3.3.10 of the North Norfolk Design
Guide.
(10) MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1534 - Erection of 44 dwellings, public open space and
associated infrastructure; Land off High Street and Water Lane for Dewing
Properties Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 27 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Proposed Residential Use Allocation
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Open Land Area
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 3b
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 3b CC
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 3a
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 3a CC
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2 CC
Environment Agency Flood Zone 3 1:200 probability sea/1:100 probability river
Environment Agency Flood Zone 2 - 1:1000 probability
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
B Road – High Street
C Road - Water Lane
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None relevant.
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 44 dwellings and public open space on approximately 3.8
hectares of land between High Street and Water Lane, on the southern edge of the
village of Mundesley. The existing access from High Street will serve as the single
point of vehicular access for the whole of the development. A large area of publicly
accessible open space is proposed adjacent to Mundesley Beck to the south east of the
site.
50% of the units (22 dwellings) are proposed to be affordable consisting of the mix set
out below:
Development Committee
60
4 May 2016
16 dwellings on an affordable rent basis consisting of;
 2 x one-bed bungalows,
 2 x one-bed houses,
 2 x two-bed bungalows,
 4 x two-bed houses,
 2 x three-bed bungalows,
 2 x three-bed houses,
 2 x four-bed houses.
6 dwellings are proposed on a shared ownership basis consisting of;
 2 x two-bed bungalows,
 4 x two-bed houses.
Accompanying the planning application is an application under the Council’s Housing
Delivery Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing provided to 20%
(8 units) together with a relaxation of renewable energy requirements, upon early
delivery of an agreed amount of development, as permitted under the scheme.
The 20% affordable housing mix (8 dwellings) includes;
6 dwellings on an affordable rent basis consisting of;
 2 x one-bed bungalows,
 2 x one-bed houses,
 2 x two-bed houses,
2 dwellings are proposed on a shared ownership basis consisting of;
 2 x two-bed houses.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Planning Statement (parts of which are now superseded as a result of amended
plans)
 Design and Access Statement (Amended)
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Flood Risk Assessment
 Transport Statement
 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and
Arboricultural Method Statement
 Management Plan for Open Space
 Ecological Survey
 Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Archaeological Evaluation Report
 Landscaping Scheme and details of maintenance
 Utilities Searches
The application is accompanied by Heads of Terms for a S.106 Planning Obligation
which provides for the following:
 Library contribution
 Affordable housing
 Public open space provision
The application has been revised significantly from the initial submission which
proposed 51 dwellings on this site.
Development Committee
61
4 May 2016
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Barry Smith due to this being a contentious application. Issues of
access and highway safety, the amount of development, light pollution and possible
contamination of the River Mun and access to the open space need to be considered.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Mundesley Parish Council – Object on grounds of flooding issues.
Awaiting further comment as a result of further information in relation to flooding being
presented at their meeting. Committee will be updated with any further response from
the Parish Council.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Council has received representations both objecting to and supporting the
proposed development.
A total of 19 objections were received objecting to the application in its original form, for
51 dwellings. A further 16 objections (11 of which had commented previously) were
received in response to the amended plans which reduced the amount of proposed
development to 44 dwellings. Objections were on the following grounds:
1. The development will damage, harm and destroy the character of Mundesley, its
environment, tourism and economy,
2. This has always been a retirement and holiday area and this is not in keeping
with the village,
3. The density of the 44 homes is inconsistent with the density of neighbouring
homes and presents a 10% increase on the number identified by the Council,
4. The site access road is inadequate, unsuitable and dangerous, too narrow and
on a steep slope, opposite a busy garage and close to the busy narrow section
at the end of Beckmeadow Way, presenting increased risk to traffic and
pedestrians in the area,
5. The site should be accessed from Water Lane as the access is too steep,
6. Pedestrians walking to school or in to the village will have to cross a busy road,
just beyond a sharp bend,
7. High Street is an already congested route to the village centre,
8. Comments in relation to construction management, timing of works and wheel
cleaning of construction vehicles,
9. A phased development with no timings could mean severe disruption to
residents and there is no affordable housing in phase 1 and the affordable
housing is not spread across the site,
10. There are numerous alternative sites within Mundesley that do not have the
level of flood risk associated with this site,
11. The number and density of homes proposed will impact on the likelihood of
flooding and increase flood risk to neighbouring homes,
12. The developers own flood risk assessment acknowledges the high level of flood
risk including zones 2 and 3,
13. In view of climate change it is irresponsible for the developer to propose building
on a flood plain,
14. The site MUN06 should not have been considered for development under
national and local planning authority policies,
15. The redesignation of the flood zone boundary will impact on the value of my
home and my quality of life,
16. The development would completely alter the village view from High Street over
the fields to Stow Mill as identified in the Mundesley Conservation Area
Character Appraisal and Management Proposals,
17. The developer should be required to put all services underground to ensure
views towards Stow Mill are preserved as far as possible,
Development Committee
62
4 May 2016
18. There is no clarity of what is meant by the term ‘affordable’, is it for young local
people or for people outside of the area to be rehoused?,
19. The development seeks to increase the amount of housing at the expense of the
open space, the layout clearly breaches the demarcation between residential
and open space in Policy MUN06,
20. Who will be responsible for the public area and the public liability associated with
an unfenced river and who will be responsible for maintaining the open area,
21. The impact on wildlife is irreparable as deer, bats and birds will lose vital habitat,
22. Parking spaces to the boundary of Beckmeadow Way could produce a build-up
of air pollution and an unacceptable nuisance,
23. This is not a well-designed scheme,
24. The affordable housing has not been given much thought, it is bunched up with
little space,
25. Existing properties will be overlooked,
26. Mundesley has no work potential for the young, there are already a lot of
unemployed in Mundesley,
27. The doctors do not cope with the population of Mundesley at the moment,
28. Mundesley does not require these new houses, there are already new
properties being built on Trunch Road,
A number of residents submitted/supported extensive comments made as ‘Mundesley
Residents and Stakeholders’ then ‘Mundesley Residents against Damaging
Development’ which raised the following issues,
1. The revised plan for 44 dwellings shows dwellings in Flood Zone 2 plus climate
change, prohibited under NNDC policy and statute,
2. The recalculated flood zones presented by the applicants consultants are not
correct and do not use the correct method of calculation,
3. The correct Flood Zone Mapping is within the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment,
this is the adopted document and recalculation, manipulating and adjusting of
the flood zones by the developer should not be allowed. A minimum of 18 of
the 44 dwellings are located within Flood Zone 2 plus climate change which is
prohibited by LDF policy and the NPPF,
4. Alternative land in Flood Zone 1 is available and there is no justification for
building dwellings in Flood Zone 2 plus climate change. The NPPF dictates
that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are alternative
sites with a lower level of flooding.
5. Government and the Environment Agency advise that extreme weather
conditions and flash flooding will be more prevalent due to climate change and
therefore, current development proposals for the site allocation MUN06 should
be rejected and the site allocation needs to be deregistered,
6. The vast majority of surface water will be entering Mundesley Beck with
increased risk to water quality and increased levels of pollution due to flash
flooding is a threat to Mundesley’s Blue Flag Status, its economy and tourism,
7. Will occupants be able to afford property insurance due to the flood risk,
8. The development will damage an area of outstanding natural beauty, and
adjacent conservation area and destroy listed important views and vistas from
High Street,
9. A major housing development would change the character of the area due to
light pollution,
10. The development does not comply with Core Strategy development control,
tourism or housing policies,
11. The development is contrary to NNDC’s corporate objectives, in relation to
protecting the character of the countryside, preserving character and built
heritage and empowering local communities to have a greater say in their own
future,
Development Committee
63
4 May 2016
12. The clear intention of the Core Strategy is to control development in service
villages such as Mundesley through restricting the size of permitted
developments to less than 10 dwellings,
13. The development does not require a coastal location and should be redirected
inland,
14. Planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated
areas such as an AONB (NPPF para 116),
15. NNDCs Conservation, Design and Landscape team have stated that ‘the
development will harm the area’ and this is not acceptable and such
development should be refused,
16. The development would probably have a detrimental effect on tourism and the
local economy,
17. The site allocations document is a list of sites possibly suitable for housing
development and has no power of policy or legislation,
18. Residents views were not taken into account during the site evaluation process
of the site allocations and residents reserve the right to challenge the validity of
site allocation MUN06 under the Aarhus convention and the Town and Country
Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2004,
19. The development does not comply with NNDC Policy, NPPF Legislation and
SEA Directive,
20. Mundesley Residents Against Damaging Development further object and
contest the application on the grounds of nonconformity to LDF Flood Risk and
Climate Change Policies and the adopted service village strategy within the
NNDC Local Development Framework documentation.
18 letters of support have been made for the following reasons;
1. The site has already been allocated,
2. Mundesley needs more housing both private and social for future generations,
3. This is an ideal site in walking distance of schools, doctors, the village centre,
beach, Gold Park and multi-use games area,
4. The site will enhance the village in many ways, keeping our shops, schools and
doctors open and providing homes for families, also some affordable homes,
5. The layout looks nice, is well spaced out and shows a village green and is in
keeping with the village,
6. The development will give more people a chance to live in a village community
without moving away from the place that they have grown up,
7. Local businesses would benefit from the increase in local trade,
8. The school would benefit from increased pupil numbers,
9. There is a good mix of housing on the site,
10. There is good access from High Street,
11. The site is in the best location and not out on a limb,
12. It’s nice to see consideration of providing footpaths around the site,
13. Views to Stow Mill will be preserved.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water – no application specific comments received. Anglian Water have
confirmed that the information within their Pre-Planning Assessment Report produced
for the site remain valid for 12 months.
County Council (Highways) - No objections, subject to conditions relating to;
roads, footways, foul and surface water drainage construction, provision and
maintenance of the required visibility splay, submission of a Construction Traffic
Management Plan (detailing construction worker parking, delivery access
arrangements, temporary wheel washing) and full details of off-site highway
improvements.
Development Committee
64
4 May 2016
County Council (Infrastructure Requirements) - Requires the following financial
contributions to be secured via a Section 106 obligation:
 Nil requirements towards education.
 £60 per dwelling for library provision (£2,640 total)
Norfolk Fire Service
hydrant.
-
Planning condition required for provision of one fire
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – No objection. An archaeological
evaluation report has been received and approved. No further archaeological work will
be required.
County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority) – No comments as the application falls
below the current threshold for detailed comment.
Civil Contingencies Manager – Flood resilient construction should be incorporated up
to the 1 in 1000 year annual probability flood level, including climate change. Where
dwellings are naturally above this level, flood resilient construction is not required. All
at risk properties should create an emergency flood plan and sign up to the Environment
Agency’s Flood Warning system.
Housing Strategy & Community Development - supports the application. The
affordable housing provision proposed (both the 50% and 20% mix) will assist in
meeting the identified general housing need.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader – It is identified that there would
be a level of heritage harm associated with developing the site. However, as this harm
would not be substantial under the terms of the NPPF, the public benefits accruing from
the scheme need to be assessed in determining the application.
The development would have an impact upon two designated heritage assets; the
Grade II Listed Stow Mill and Mundesley Conservation Area. The impact in both cases
amounts to ‘less than substantial harm’ for the purposes of the NPPF. (More details
are provided within the appraisal section of this report).
The identification of harm to a designated heritage asset affectively acts as a
presumption against development unless outweighed by other material considerations.
Paragraph 134 of the NPPF requires the ‘less than substantial’ harm to be weighed
against any public benefits accruing from the scheme. In this case, these involve the
short term benefits to the local economy during construction, the contribution the
scheme would make to housing supply within the District (an element of which would be
affordable), the future spend of its occupants and the public open space provided.
Cumulatively, these are significant benefits which weigh heavily against the limited
levels of localised harm to heritage assets.
Layout
The layout offers reasonably good legibility and a logical hierarchy of roads. It also
features a number of private drives and shared surfaces and would not be unduly
dominated by its highway infrastructure. The proposed buildings generally address
their respective roadways in a relatively regimented manner and there are sufficient
variations in orientation and spacing to prevent the groups of buildings appearing
unduly suburban. The buildings on the more important corner plots also respond to
their focal positions.
Development Committee
65
4 May 2016
The revised plans with reduced numbers involves the removal of the row of plots closest
to Mundesley Beck and further suggestions are made in relation to the design and
appearance of properties adjacent to the open space.
Scale
The scheme predominantly mixes single and 2 and 2½ storey forms of development
and is not considered to be incompatible with its surroundings as the single-storey
buildings would back onto existing development and would therefore minimise
neighbour impact. The contours of the site would facilitate a graduated staggering of
the roofscape up through the site.
Appearance
For the most part, the design approach adopted has been informed by the
vernacular forms of architecture within the District, having a locally distinctive feel. In
terms of the individual designs, the elevations are mostly well-proportioned and feature
an acceptable mix of traditional detailing.
As regards the boundary treatment, the bricks walls, metal railings and the rural post
and rails fences are likely to be acceptable (subject to prior agreement by condition).
However, the 1.8m close boarded fences are less likely to be acceptable given the
semi-rural location.
In the event of the application being approved, a series of materials conditions will be
required. These should ideally include the removal of permitted development rights for
solar panels in the interests of preserving the traditional appearance of the buildings.
Landscape Officer – The site is adjacent to Mundesley Conservation Area and the
Norfolk Coast AONB is located to the south of Water Lane.
Arboricultural Impact
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method considers that
the impact of the development on trees and hedging ranges from negligible to slight
adverse, meaning that the trees and hedging should recover naturally from the minor
impacts suffered, both physiologically and visually.
As the site is currently an arable field it would be an improvement to the site to
re-establish the native hedging around the perimeters so that a historical connection is
created and the layers of the landscape character can be interpreted once the
development has been built. If the existing hedges were gapped up and re-established
where lost this would create a more robust boundary and remove the need for so much
close boarded fencing. It is considered that a better landscape solution to the
boundaries of the site could be achieved.
Should the development be approved a condition will be required to ensure that
adequate tree protection measures are employed during the construction. The
Arboricultural report does include a preliminary Method Statement however this will
need to be updated once the final finished levels, service connections, landscape
proposals and design details are finalised. This can be secured via condition.
Ecological Report
The application was supported by an Ecological Survey report which identifies the main
ecological assets of the site as Mundesley Beck (a Priority Habitat under Section 41
under the NERC Act) and its associated flood meadow.
The Ecological Report suggests a number of mitigation measures and ecological
Development Committee
66
4 May 2016
enhancement opportunities which aim to safeguard protected species and priority
habitats during and after construction. These include avoiding carrying out work to the
hedgerows during the bird breeding season, installing fencing to protect areas of
habitat, avoiding light spill on the river and pollution control. Additional mitigation
measures will be required for water vole once the position of the pedestrian bridges are
known.
It is considered that if the mitigation measures and enhancement opportunities are
implemented then the application will not result in any significant impacts on protected
species and habitats and biodiversity. However, it is considered that further details on
the mitigation measures are required, but these can be submitted as a condition of
planning.
Landscape Proposals and Public Open Space
The proposed tree, lawn and shrub planting in the internal section of public open space
will retain views through to Stow Mill. To the south of the proposed dwellings, between
the housing and the public open space by Mundesley Beck, a row of Hop Hornbeam
trees are proposed, these are large trees which will add significant scale and structure
to the planting proposals. The trees will act as a natural screen for the residential
application alleviating some of the landscape and visual impact.
A Management Plan and Schedule of Works was submitted with the application the
principles of the management plan are to improve the area for biodiversity and to
increase the species diversity for invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and
mammals. This is to be secured by increasing and improving the diversity of the
grassland and meadow habitat by grazing and an appropriate mowing regime. In
addition, wildflower areas are to be created and some recommended improvements to
the beck. The plan stipulates that the area is to be accessed by the general public.
The principle of the management plan for the area of public open space is generally
acceptable, however there are a number of issues and concerns that have not been
thoroughly thought through requiring revision of the management plan which can be
secured by planning condition.
Natural England – No objection. The proposals are unlikely to affect any statutorily
protected sites. This advice applies equally to the amended scheme.
Historic England – No objection. The proposed layout maintains important views
identified within the Conservation Area Appraisal by placement of open space on the
axis of the entrance. Whilst developing this land could have an impact on the
conservation area the impact is minimised by good design. The principle of
development would amount to a small degree of harm in terms of paragraph 132 of the
NPPF and this should be weighed up against the public benefit from new housing as
stated in paragraph 134 and seek the ‘clear and convincing justification’ required of
paragraph 132. Good quality materials and detailing should be secured by way of a
condition, to better satisfy the good design required by the NPPF.
Norfolk Coast Partnership – Although not in the Norfolk Coast AONB part of the site
adjoins the AONB boundary. The proposed public open space to the south east is
welcomed and, together with good landscaping on the south western boundary of the
proposed housing, should avoid any significant impacts on the setting of the AONB. In
terms of water quality assurance should be sought from the Environment Agency and
Anglian Water that the local sewage treatment works can handle the increased load
effectively.
Development Committee
67
4 May 2016
Environmental Health – No objection or comment.
Environmental Health concerns in relation to this proposal.
There are no adverse
Environment Agency - No objection - We can confirm that we are satisfied that the
Flood Risk Standing Advice has been followed as the applicant has followed the
procedure and submitted the supporting information required by the Flood Risk
Standing Advice.
The site has been used sequentially and the proposed residential development lies
wholly within Flood Zone 1 with the exception of properties 7 and 51, which partially fall
within Flood Zone 2. The proposal is considered appropriate in line with the Planning
Practice Guidance. Furthermore the applicant has proposed a further rise in the
finished floor levels from 17.93m AOD to 18.40m AOD, which is above the 1 in 1000
chance in any year flood level of 18.17m AOD and now 593mm above the 1 in 100 CC.
No property will flood internally during the 1 in 100 and the 1 in 1000 annual probability
fluvial flood event.
The residential part of the development lies wholly outside the design 1 in 100 annual
probability plus climate change fluvial flood event. The 1 in 1000 year plus climate
change level provided by the applicant is not relevant as the residential part of the site is
outside of Flood Zone 3 and that part in Flood Zone 2 has met the requirement of Flood
Risk Standing Advice. This level of additional risk assessment is not required by the
Flood Risk Standing Advice.
Regarding the updating of the climate change allowances for fluvial flooding; they will
not be applied retrospectively to Flood Risk Assessments supporting applications that
were accepted as valid prior to 19 February 2016.
Countryside and Parks Manager - No objection - The proposals would deliver more
than 1.8 hectares of new public open space, well in excess of the standard of around 0.5
hectares. Much of the land designated as open space is situated next to the river and
could be subject to flooding, but could be enhanced and managed as wetland habitat.
This open space would therefore have benefits for the wider community rather than
simply being relevant to the immediate residents and therefore suggest NNDC could
adopt the land upon payment of a commuted sum of £107.073 (based on revision of
number of dwellings to 44).
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
Land allocated for residential development in the Site Specific Allocations Development
Plan document adopted by the Council in February 2011. Policy MUN06 - Land
allocated for residential development of approximately 40 dwellings and 1.8 hectares of
public open space.
Development Committee
68
4 May 2016
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 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be
permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy 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).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012
The following policy headings are relevant to the application:
 Achieving sustainable development
 Building strong, competitive economy
 Promoting sustainable transport
 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
 Requiring good quality design
 Promoting healthy communities
 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Important paragraphs include;
Development Committee
69
4 May 2016
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, recognising the
intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural
communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, conserving
heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 100 – inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be
avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s
conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal.
Paragraph 137 - Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and within the setting of heritage assets to
enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of
the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the
asset should be treated favourably.
Paragraph 196 - Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must
be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. The Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
Other material considerations
Section 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.
Planning Practice Guidance – web based guidance, includes guidance on Flood Risk
and Coastal Change
Mundesley Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan 2009
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Flood Risk and Drainage
Development Committee
70
4 May 2016








Housing Mix, Type and Density
Layout and Design
Residential Amenity Considerations
Impact on designated heritage assets
Landscape, biodiversity and open space (including impact on Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty)
Highways issues
Other issues
S.106 Planning Obligations
APPRAISAL
The application site is situated towards the southern edge of the village to the east of
High Street, to the west of Water Lane and to the south of Beckmeadow Way. The site
consists of an area of agricultural land with an existing point of vehicular access to High
Street. Mundesley Beck crosses the site and flows in a north easterly direction. Land
falls across the site generally to the east, towards Mundesley Beck and Water Lane
beyond. Levels at the site entrance are around 25.0m AOD falling to 16.2m at Water
Lane. Existing residential development is located adjacent to the north, south and
west of the site. To the north of the site are existing single and two storey properties
and their rear gardens to Beckmeadow Way and to the south are a small number of
properties accessed from High Street which have more natural boundary treatment
consisting of discontinuous hedgerow and trees. The eastern boundary of the site
consists of a short section of agricultural hedgerow while the remainder of the boundary
is open to Water Lane. The northern and north western boundaries with the rear
gardens of properties to Beckmeadow Way and High Street consist of a variety of
domestic boundary treatments including fencing and hedging.
The Committee visited the site on 03 March 2016.
Principle of the development
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Councils Development Plan
consists of a number of documents including the North Norfolk Core Strategy 2008 and
the North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) 2011.
Core Strategy Policy SS1 sets the spatial strategy for North Norfolk and under this
policy Mundesley is designated as a ‘coastal service village’. The strategic housing
policy within the Core Strategy, Policy SS3 states that allocations on one or more sites
for up to 50 dwellings will be considered in Mundesley. Following on from this the Site
Allocations DPD goes on to allocate two sites in Mundesley, MUN06 for approximately
40 dwellings and MUN07 for approximately 10 dwellings.
Policy MUN06 of the Site Allocations DPD, published in 2011 allocates the land, which
is the subject of this planning application and which amounts to 3.8 hectares, for
residential development of approximately 40 dwellings and 1.8 hectares of public open
space. In addition Policy MUN06 states that on-site provision of the required
proportion of affordable housing (currently 50%) and contributions towards
infrastructure, services and other community needs will be required. The policy then
goes on to highlight the key requirements to the development being;
 The need for a well-designed scheme that pays careful attention to the site
location, the setting of the Conservation Area and retains key views across the
site to Stow Mill,
 Provision of safe vehicle and pedestrian access to High Street,
 Provision of 1.8 hectares of publicly accessible open space (as shown on a map
Development Committee
71
4 May 2016


accompanying the policy),
No development shall be located in areas of flood risk, as demonstrated by a
site-specific Flood Risk Assessment,
Archaeological investigation if required.
Inclusion of the site within the adopted Site Allocations DPD, a document which has
been subject to public scrutiny and examined for soundness by a Government
appointed Planning Inspector accepts the principle of development on this site.
This application proposes the construction of 44 dwellings (reduced from an initial
amount of 51 dwellings) which is considered to broadly comply with the stated quantum
of development within Site Allocations Policy MUN06 of ‘approximately’ 40 dwellings.
The applicant has concurrently submitted a Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme (HDIS)
application, whereby if the application is approved the affordable housing requirement
would be reduced from 50% to 20% upon delivery of 13 dwellings for occupation within
24 months of permission being granted. A Section 106 agreement will secure the
necessary triggers to ensure the required amount of housing is delivered within agreed
timescales.
The mix of housing proposed is such that either 20% or 50% affordable housing can be
delivered without layout or house type changes.
Flood Risk and Drainage
In addition to policies within the Development Plan, planning guidance on flood risk is
provided in the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance, web based guidance
provided by the Government.
It is confirmed that whole of the application site has Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 within it.
‘Areas at risk of flooding’ for the purposes of the NPPF is principally land within Flood
Zones 2 and 3.
 Flood Zone 1 being at low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual
probability of river or sea flooding in any year <0.1%)
 Flood Zone 2 being at medium probability of flooding (between 1 in 100 and 1 in
1000 annual probability of river flooding in any year 1.0% to 0.1%)
 Flood Zone 3a being at high probability of flooding (1 in 100 or greater annual
probability of river flooding in any year >1.0%)
 Flood Zone 3b, the functional flood plain, land where water has to flow or be
stored at times of flood.
The Flood Zones shown on the Environment Agency’s ‘Flood Map for Planning’ do not
take account of possible impacts of climate change. The NPPF however requires flood
risk to be considered for the lifetime of the development, taking into account the impacts
of climate change.
Table 5 of the Planning Practice Guidance included a
recommended precautionary allowance for peak river flows of +20% to 2115.
On 19 February 2016 the Government advised by the Environment Agency (the
Governments expert on flood risk) updated the guidance on climate change allowances
to be used in flood risk assessments, but put in place temporary exceptions for
transitional arrangements. In the case of a valid planning application already
submitted to the local planning authority, a flood risk assessment using the previous
allowances (published 2013) is accepted. This application should be determined in
accordance with the transitional arrangements.
Development Committee
72
4 May 2016
A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment covering the North Norfolk Area was commissioned
on behalf of North Norfolk District Council in collaboration with other Norfolk local
planning authorities. This document forms part of the evidence base for the
preparation of policies and proposals of the current LDF and was used together with
supporting information provided at the time to inform the site allocations process. This
document has not been formally adopted by the Council but is a material consideration
when determining planning applications. The strategic level of detail within such a
document is recognised and, considering the rapidly changing nature of flood risk
evidence and climate change considerations and any revised modelling that may take
place, it is reflected in the requirement set out in the Site Specific Policy for MUN06 for
development proposals to be informed by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment.
Core Strategy Policy EN10 states that the sequential test will be applied rigorously
across the district and most new development should be located in Flood Risk Zone 1.
A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment which takes account of future climate change
must be submitted for appropriate planning applications. As the development site as a
whole has all three levels of flood risk associated with it and in the absence of available
data incorporating climate change in to Flood Zone 2 levels (up to a 1 in 1000 probability
flood event), a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment is required to determine the most up
to date location of the flood zones to ensure that most new development is located in
Flood Zone 1 as the policy requires.
Site Specific Policy MUN06 divides the site in to two areas, one consisting of residential
development and one of public open space, the allocation then goes on the clarify that
“no development shall be located in areas of flood risk, as demonstrated by a
site-specific Flood Risk Assessment”. The Council adopted a sequential, risk-based
approach to allocating development sites within the Site Allocations Development Plan
Document as paragraph 18 of the Planning Practice Guidance promotes. Considering
site MUN06 specifically, residential development was not allocated on parts of the site
in areas of flood risk, that being areas of medium and high flood risk or Flood Zone 2 and
3 including climate change allowance.
A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment produced by a flood risk specialist consultant has
been submitted with the planning application as Core Strategy Policy EN10 and Site
Allocations Policy MUN06 requires. A Flood Risk Addendum and topographical plan
were submitted later in the application process when the application was amended to
include a reduced number of dwellings.
The flood levels for Mundesley Beck (including the +20% climate change allowance) are
reported in the Flood Risk Assessment as;
 Flood Zone 3 – 1 in 100 year + climate change – 17.63m AOD
 Flood Zone 2 – 1 in 1000 year + climate change – not modelled by the
Environment Agency, therefore no data is readily available.
The applicant’s flood risk specialist consultant has sought to establish a flood level for
Flood Zone 2 including a climate change allowance of 20%, by interpolating data from a
modelled level cross section directly up stream and down stream of the site provided by
the Environment Agency. A GPS verified topographical survey has been produced
with the flood zones including a climate change allowance highlighted.
The layout of the development has been redesigned removing any dwellings from the
part of the site that would be covered by a 1 in 1000 year river flooding event (Flood
Zone 2) including a factor to take into account climate change. The dwellings on Plots
7 and 51 present minor exceptions to this as both dwellings sit astride Flood Zone 2
Development Committee
73
4 May 2016
including climate change and in these cases the ground levels will be marginally raised
around the plots to ensure that they are located at Flood Zone 1 ground level,
something that may have been required when determining a level from which to build
the dwellings on this sloping site. The detached garage to plot 15 is also located within
Flood Zone 2 including climate change but is not of concern as this is not habitable
accommodation and the dwelling on this plot is located within Flood Zone 1. The
minimum ground floor level of the development will be 18.40m AOD. It is clear from the
submitted plan that all land in Flood Zone 3 is reserved for use as public open space.
The Environment Agency has commented that the site has been used sequentially and
the proposed residential development lies wholly within Flood Zone 1 with the exception
of properties 7 and 51 which partially fall within Flood Zone 2. They have confirmed
that procedures within their flood risk standing advice have been followed and have not
raised an objection to the proposals subject to a planning condition to secure the design
of the new bridges over Mundesley Beck to ensure that they do not cause blockages
and increase flood risk.
The applicant’s Surface Water Drainage Strategy states that due to variable ground
conditions natural infiltration using soakaways will be used where possible, namely in
the area to the south of the access road. Elsewhere areas will drain through a series of
underground pipes to Mundesley Beck at green field run-off rate, with on-site storage
and flow control provided for all storm events up to and including a 1 in 100 year event
plus a 30% climate change allowance. Peak flow will be attenuated in a below ground
tank located beneath the open space.
The detailed design of the drainage system proposed would need to be secured by
planning condition as would details of pollution prevention measures and the future
adoption and maintenance responsibilities for the proposed surface water drainage
system, which could be adopted by Anglian Water or a management company.
Foul drainage from the development is proposed to be connected into the existing
public foul sewer to the south of the site. No specific comment has been received from
Anglian Water as part of the consultation on this application. However they have
confirmed that their ‘Pre-Planning Assessment Report’ dated October 2015 in which it is
confirmed that there is existing capacity at Mundesley Water Recycling Centre and
within the public foul sewage network to allow the development to take place remains
valid for 12 months.
On this basis, the proposed development is considered to comply with the requirements
of the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and Core Strategy Policy SS4 and EN10 in
terms of flood risk and drainage considerations.
Housing Mix, Type and Density
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (17 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70 sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 36% (16 dwellings) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 40% (20 dwellings)
have floorspace of 76sqm or less. Therefore, although the scheme falls slightly short
when considering the requirement of Core Strategy Policy, Officers consider that this
very minor non-compliance with Policy HO1 does not, in itself, warrant a refusal of the
scheme.
Development Committee
74
4 May 2016
Core Strategy Policy HO2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) requires that on
developments of this size in Coastal Service Villages, not less than 50% of the total
number of dwellings should be ‘affordable’, subject to viability. The applicant has
proposed an acceptable mix of 50% affordable housing provision. However, as
mentioned above, the applicant has concurrently made an application under the
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme to deliver a reduced amount of affordable housing
(20% - 8 units) upon a quick delivery of an agreed amount of housing on the site. It is
proposed that the construction of the road infrastructure to access the initial phase, 13
dwellings and part of the public open space will be delivered within a two year period
following the grant of planning permission. The full details of this would need to be tied
into a S.106 Planning Obligation. The S.106 would include the proviso that if the
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme requirements are not met, there would be a
'fallback' position whereby 50% affordable housing would need to be provided. The
Council's Housing Strategy Team is satisfied that the proposals include a mix of
properties which would satisfy both 20% and 50% scenarios and both mixes will assist
in meeting the identified general housing need. In addition they are happy that the
affordable housing units are located towards the north of the site within close proximity
to each other and integrated within the site.
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare
paragraph 47 of the NPPF suggests that local planning authorities should set their own
approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
residential element of the site of 22 dwellings per hectare (excluding the large area of
open space). With consideration given to the context of the site, its location adjacent to
a conservation area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and surrounding densities,
it is considered that the density proposed would be acceptable and represents the most
efficient use of land in this location.
Layout and Design
Viewpoints from High Street towards Stow Mill which stands on the valley side to the
east of the site have been considered and incorporated into the layout design, with
consideration of the location and heights of dwellings, roads and open space proposed
as part of the development.
The design approach adopted has mostly been informed by the vernacular forms of
architecture within the District, having a locally distinctive feel. In terms of the individual
designs, the elevations are mostly well-proportioned and feature an acceptable mix of
traditional detailing. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader considers
that the removal of the ability to add solar panels to the roofs of the dwellings is
necessary to preserve the traditional appearance of the buildings. It is not clear at this
stage whether solar panels may form part of the energy requirements of the
development to comply with Building Regulations. It remains a judgement of the
committee as to whether it considers it necessary to restrict the ability to provide solar
panels on the roofs of some or all of the dwellings on the development, which could form
part of a planning condition if considered necessary.
The scheme has raised no objection from the Council’s Conservation, Design and
Landscape Team Leader, subject to planning conditions being used to secure
appropriate materials for construction, including boundary treatments. The proposed
development is considered to comply with the requirements of the Core Strategy Policy
Development Committee
75
4 May 2016
EN4.
Residential Amenity Considerations
Some residents have raised concerns that their properties and gardens will be
overlooked by the proposed new dwellings. Separation distances between windows at
proposed and existing dwellings are in accordance with recommendations within the
North Norfolk Design Guide.
It is acknowledged that in general properties located close to the existing access, will
experience additional noise and disturbance from vehicles and pedestrians accessing
the development compared to the current use of the land for agriculture.
Notwithstanding this, given that the site allocation policy specifies that vehicular and
pedestrian access should be derived from High Street it is considered that resisting the
application on these grounds could not be justified.
Therefore, in residential amenity terms it is considered that the development proposed
would not give rise to significantly detrimental impacts on the residential amenity of
existing residential properties close to the site in terms of noise and disturbance,
overlooking, loss of privacy or overshadowing or dominance issues as the development
meets with the Basic Amenity Criteria recommendations of the North Norfolk Design
Guide and Core Strategy Policy EN4.
Impact on designated heritage assets
The development would have an impact upon two designated heritage assets:
The Grade II Listed Stow Mill:
Although some distance from the site, there are currently important views available of
the Mill when looking south east across the site from High Street. At the point of
access there is a framed view of the heritage asset which acts as an iconic reference
point on Stow Hill, which has been identified in the Mundesley Conservation Area
Appraisal. The framed view of Stow Mill has been taken into account within the
submitted application. Whilst some of the new buildings would make an appearance in
this view, the layout has largely remained deferential to the view with a corridor having
been maintained through the open space and between the buildings and the revised
plans which propose the removal of the row of houses within the flood zone would
further open the vista down through the site towards the Mill. Therefore, whilst there
would be some additional channelling and interference, the level of harm to the setting
of the listed building would be towards the lower end of the ‘less than substantial’
spectrum for the purposes of the NPPF.
The Mundesley Conservation Area:
This includes the access point but not the main development site which lies just outside
the designation. Therefore, whilst the scheme would have a direct impact upon the
designation, the main considerations relate to its indirect impact upon the character and
appearance of the heritage asset.
The formalisation of the site access is likely to result in a relatively engineered
appearance which would have a suburbanising effect on the immediate area.
However, within the context of the overall conservation area, the level of harm would be
relatively modest.
As regards character and appearance, the site comprises an open field which slopes up
from Mundesley Beck and which provides a rural foreground to the built envelope,
affording a range of views into and out from the Conservation Area. Developing the site
would draw the built form down the slope and would thus interrupt these views. The
Development Committee
76
4 May 2016
public view through the access point instantly roots the observer in the village with the
landscape visible beyond and to infill this space would partly sever this connection
between the settlement and the countryside. There would be ‘less than substantial’
harm associated with the proposals as the development would only affect the most
southerly part of what is a much larger heritage asset and the Conservation Area for the
most part turns its back on the site and instead addresses the High Street.
Under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, it is
considered that the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of the adjacent Mundesley Conservation Area.
The identification of harm to a designated heritage asset affectively acts as a
presumption against development unless outweighed by other material considerations.
Paragraph 134 of the NPPF requires the ‘less than substantial’ harm to be weighed
against any public benefits accruing from the scheme. In this case, these involve the
short term benefits to the local economy during construction, the contribution the
scheme would make to housing supply within the District (an element of which would be
affordable), the future spend of its occupants and the public open space provided.
Cumulatively, these are significant benefits which weigh heavily against the limited
levels of localised harm.
Both the Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader and Historic England have
raised no objections to the proposals.
Landscape, biodiversity and public open space (including impact on Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)
The site is adjacent to Mundesley Conservation Area and the Norfolk Coast AONB is
located to the south of Water Lane.
Arboricultural Impacts
In terms of the impact on trees, elements of the development are not favourable, for
example the proximity of the dwellings to the south west of the site to the trees within the
adjacent conservation area. In addition concern was raised regarding the boundary
treatment around the site with a preference for hedging which would improve the
landscape setting. However, the Landscape Officer has indicated on balance the
development to be acceptable in relation to the impact on trees, subject to securing and
updated arboricultural method statement.
Ecology and Biodiversity
The main ecological asset of the site is Mundesley Beck (a Priority Habitat under
Section 41 under the NERC Act) and its associated flood meadow. The supporting
Ecological Report suggests a number of mitigation measures and ecological
enhancement opportunities which aim to safeguard protected species and priority
habitats during and after construction. The Landscape Officer considers that in
principle ecological enhancement for the river and associated habitat can be attained
but further details are necessary and can be secured by planning condition. However,
the ecological assessment was deficient in respect of the presence of water voles,
therefore further survey work is required prior to determination of the application.
Subject to satisfactory completion of the above requirements the development is not
likely to result in any significant impacts on protected species, habitats and biodiversity.
Landscape and Public Open Space
The proposed tree, lawn and shrub planting in the internal section of public open space
will retain views through to Stow Mill. To the south of the proposed dwellings, between
the housing and the public open space by Mundesley Beck, a number of Hop Hornbeam
Development Committee
77
4 May 2016
trees are proposed, these are large trees which will add significant scale and structure
to the planting proposals. The trees will act as a natural screen for the proposed
dwellings, alleviating some of the landscape and visual impact, particularly when
viewed from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) to the east.
The site is located adjacent to the Norfolk Coast AONB, to which Core Strategy Policy
EN 1 (Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) applies. Development which
will detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or its setting will not be
permitted. The Norfolk Coast Partnership has commented that the area of open space
together with good landscaping proposals to the boundary of the proposed housing
should avoid any significant impacts on the setting of the AONB.
A significant area of the site, an area in excess of 1.8 hectares, is proposed as publicly
accessible open space as Policy MUN06 within the Site Allocations DPD commands.
A Management Plan submitted as part of the application suggests how the area of open
space could be managed while maintaining public access to the site. The principles of
the management plan are to improve the area for biodiversity and to increase the
species diversity for invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. This is to be
secured by increasing and improving the diversity of the grassland and meadow habitat
by grazing and an appropriate mowing regime. In addition, wildflower areas are to be
created and some recommended improvements to the beck. The plan stipulates that
the area is to be accessed by the general public. The principle of the management plan
for the area of public open space is generally acceptable, however some revisions are
required to tie in other landscaping changes and clarify the position with regards
ownership and maintenance responsibilities, which can be secured by planning
condition. The site plan shows a circular footpath around the open space with two
proposed new bridges across Mundesley Beck of which more detail has been
requested by the Environment Agency and which will be secured by planning condition.
The Landscape Officer has raised no in principle objection to the proposal, subject to
the imposition of conditions requiring, the submission of an updated Arboricultural
Method Statement and Open Space Management Plan, a Construction Environment
Management Plan, Landscape and Ecological Management Plan together with an
updated comprehensive landscaping scheme.
A large proportion of the proposed area of open space is located within Flood Zone 2
and 3 as defined by the Environment Agency. This area of the site also has a
designation as ‘Undeveloped Coast’ and therefore Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy is of
relevance. The use of this part of the site as public open space is not considered
contrary to the provisions of Policy EN2, as the use and maintenance of the open
appearance of this area of the site will not be significantly detrimental to the open
coastal character.
Highways issues
A Transport Statement was provided to support the application which highlights the
sustainable location of the application site which is within reasonable walking and
cycling distance of existing facilities and services, with good access to frequent public
transport services.
Vehicular access is proposed via the existing access from High Street, which will be
upgraded, incorporating a footway along both sides of the access, to accord with current
design standards and to ensure it is adequate and suitable for the proposed
development. No vehicular access is proposed onto Water Lane.
Off-site highway improvements are required as a result of the proposals. Due to the
Development Committee
78
4 May 2016
likely increased number of pedestrian movements along High Street both heading north
to the town centre and south to the schools, the length of existing footway to the west
side of High Street between the vehicle repair garage and Northfield Road will require
widening to ensure safe pedestrian movement within this area. A pedestrian crossing
point clear of the access to the development site is also required to access the footpath
on the west side of High Street. Also the provision of part-time 20mph speed limits
signs on Trunch Road in the vicinity of the village schools is required. All of the above
will be secured through the use of appropriate conditions of any approval.
A footpath following a circular route is shown around the area of open space. Exit of
the footpath on to Water Lane no longer forms part of the proposals, due to the
associated highway safety issues.
Parking is provided through garaging, on plot parking and small areas of parking to the
front of dwellings. The amount of parking provided is in accordance with the Councils
parking standards.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have raised no objection to the
principle of the proposals on this allocated site, subject to the imposition of conditions.
The proposed development is therefore considered to comply with Core Strategy
Policies CT5 and CT6.
Other issues
An application has been made under the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme for a
relaxation of renewable energy requirements of the application.
A fire hydrant would be required as part of the development.
Some residents and the local ward member have raised the potential for light pollution
from the development. The site is located directly adjacent to existing residential
properties that form the current edge of Mundesley village in this location. Dwellings
on the new development would form a new edge with the countryside and would be
viewed in the landscape alongside the existing built form on the valley side with
landscaping also proposed to the southern edge of the development and within the area
of public open space. The other consideration is street lighting for which the need would
be determined when the detailed technical design of the highway works is considered,
in consultation with the parish council in their capacity as local lighting authority. Street
lighting is not an essential requirement on this development.
S.106 Planning Obligations
In the event of this application being approved it will need to be the subject of a S.106
Planning Obligation to secure a number of financial contributions and other
requirements including those in relation to the accompanying application under the
Council's Housing Incentive Scheme. In this respect the applicants have agreed to the
following:




Financial contributions towards libraries (£60 per dwelling).
Affordable housing requirements.
Provision of area of public open space.
Agreed level / timescale of dwelling completions, road infrastructure and public open
space in exchange for a reduction in the amount of affordable housing (20%).
Summary
The development proposed is on an allocated site. Site specific policy MUN06 within
the Site Allocations DPD establishes the principle of development of approximately 40
Development Committee
79
4 May 2016
dwellings and provision of 1.8 hectares of open space, these proposals comply with
those requirements. The provision of 8 affordable dwellings (20%) would comply with
the Council’s Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme. The quantity of housing, housing
mix, design and layout of the development are considered to be acceptable and
compliant with Development Plan policy. A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment as
required by Development Plan Policy, has been provided to demonstrate that the
residential part of the development proposed is located outside of areas subject to
medium or high flood risk. There are considered to be no adverse effects on the
character and appearance of the Mundesley Conservation Area, views to Stow Mill or
the setting of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Whilst concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and local residents, as this is
an allocated site and statutory consultees have raised no objections, it is considered
that the development would accord with Development Plan policy and the provisions of
the NPPF, subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to no new grounds of objection being raised by the Landscape Officer
following receipt of water vole surveys and any mitigation required, and
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the
terms set out in the report.
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to;

highways construction, provision of a visibility splay, construction
traffic management plan, off-site highway works,

securing appropriate design of bridges over Mundesley Beck,

details of finished floor levels for Plots 7 and 51 and site levels
information,

securing appropriate design details and materials,

hard and soft landscaping,

updated arboricultural method statement, updated landscape
scheme, updated open space management plan (including details of
access, maintenance, ownership and monitoring), arboricultural and
ecological mitigation, construction environmental management plan,
landscape and ecological management plan,

lighting strategy,

surface and foul water drainage,

provision of a fire hydrant,

and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
Development Committee
80
4 May 2016
(11) SCOTTOW - PF/15/1676 - Retention of surfaced multi-use games area and
associated fencing; Douglas Bader Centre, Filby Road, Badersfield for Short
Stay School for Norfolk
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 February 2016
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
CWRM Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
CTMLBF Contaminated Land Buffer
TPOCA Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
TW Tree Works
CTML Contaminated Land
CONA Conservation Area
ARCS Archaeological Site
S106 Section 106 Planning Obligations
TPO Tree Preservation Order
LDFCTRY LDF - Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/15/1676 PF
Retention of surfaced multi-use games area and associated fencing
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for the retention of a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) to the front of the
existing school building, situated within a residential part of Badersfield. The games
area at present consists of a part grey/part red frame, varying in height from 1m up to
3.6m at either end of the structure, with two basketball/netball nets and goal mouths.
Around the structure are a number of plastic coloured panels, whilst the ground
surfacing would consist of a line-marked wet pour rubber tarmac.
The site is located on a small, elevated grass bank, with boundary metal mesh fencing
along part of Filby Road and along the south-eastern boundary of the site. The grounds
are located on a tree-lined section of Filby Road with a series of semi-detached
residential properties on the opposite side of the road. The site sits within the RAF
Conservation Area, forming part of what is known as the 'Married Quarters'.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr S Shaw due to local concerns regarding impact of the play area
upon the Conservation Area.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Scottow Parish Council - The area has been designated as a Conservation Area and
the multi-coloured play equipment is totally out of character here. There is plenty of
room for the equipment to be sited away from the residents of Filby Road and from the
RAF Memorial Gardens. The present site is also in full view of members of the public
using Filby Road which could be an issue with child protection, especially as it is close to
the prison. The Parish Council asks that planning permission for this site be declined
and that the school should find an alternative area which will be safer for the children
Development Committee
81
4 May 2016
and not be intrusive for the residents here.
31/03/2016 - following re-advertisement of revised details relating to the colour of the
MUGA, no further objections to the amended proposals have been raised.
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired on 04 January and the press advertisement on 06 April 2016.
Following re-advertisement, no further public comments have been received to date,
though correspondence has taken place between the Council and a member of the
public regarding ongoing concerns about the application.
CONSULTATION
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Question
whether this is the most appropriate site, with a lack of justification for the position. The
bold colours do little to reduce the visual impact. extra planting/screening should be
secured, as should some toning down of the colours. Conclude that the current MUGA
results in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area and this
harm, subject to the mentioned improvements, could be outweighed by the public/social
benefits. No overriding objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection to the
location of the MUGA, not out of keeping with the school environment. Suggest that
some screening may be beneficial, which could be secured by condition.
Following re-consultation on amended details: no further comments.
Environmental Health - No objection, subject to relevant conditions.
Following re-consultation on amended details: no further comments.
Historic England - Understand that an Article 4 direction exists within the area with a
view to maintaining the character of the settlement. Recognise that the development of
a games facility within the grounds of the school would have a degree of public benefit.
Would not therefore wish to object to the development of a MUGA facility in principle.
The location, nature and form of the facility, in particular the garish colours are however
at odds with the spirit of the character of the Conservation Area and its designation. We
consider that the development would therefore bring a degree of harm to the
significance of the Conservation Area. We accept that the degree of harm would be less
than substantial and therefore we would ask that the local authority look to seek
justification for the harm and determine the application in accordance with paragraph
134 of the NPPF. We would recommend however that an alternative location or colour
scheme could be considered and that this may help to alleviate concerns.
30/03/2016 - following re-consultation on the amended details, the screening and
change in colour scheme is recognised and would reduce the harm to the heritage
asset, but would have preferred a less harmful location.
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
Development Committee
82
4 May 2016
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 EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for
new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
Section 7: Requiring good design
Section 8: Promoting healthy communities
Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle
Design - appearance
Impact on Conservation Area / Heritage assets
Landscaping
Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site in question lies within the Countryside policy Area of North Norfolk, as defined
under Policy SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, new school
facilities are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies. Policy CT 3 of the Core Strategy states that such
facilities need to meet the needs of the local community - clearly in this case, the
proposal is intended to serve an existing school, and is an educational facility required
for primary aged pupils. The principle of the development is therefore considered
acceptable.
Design and Appearance - Heritage Impact (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The site lies within a Conservation Area, as defined under by Policy EN 8 of the Core
Strategy. Given the proposed appearance of the MUGA as outlined above, its position
within the Conservation Area, and the retrospective nature of the application, the
structure has raised significant concerns amongst local residents. Of particular concern
has been the chosen colour scheme of the facility. Multi-Use Games Areas come in a
variety of designs, with this particular MUGA adopting a more colourful appearance -
Development Committee
83
4 May 2016
the reason for this, as put forward by the school, is due to the type of school and pupils
that the facility serves, with the bright colours helping to engage and stimulate the
senses of pupils using the games area. In addition to the colour, frustration has been
expressed as to why this particular site within the school grounds has been chosen, with
other areas within the grounds seemingly available for the facility. Again, the school
have responded, stating that this location is the most appropriate for its current needs,
given that it is a piece of primary aged equipment, with the primary aged pupils located
in this eastern section of the school. The facility is required to be located away from the
other external recreation areas which are available to older pupils.
Public representations received refer to the facility being in conflict with Policy EN 8, the
North Norfolk Design Guide and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). The Council's Conservation & Design Team and Historic England have
provided a response to the application, with both concluding that the current structure
has resulted in some harm to the significance of the Conservation Area, however, both
also refer to Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which
states that 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use'. Both
conclude that the degree of harm is considered to be less than substantial. In addition to
this, they comment that an alternative site for the MUGA would be preferable, or an
alternative colour scheme used.
Following the concerns raised, the applicant has proposed the following mitigation:
- the planting of a beech hedge, 3 plants per metre, initially at 1-1.2m high, allowed to
grow up to a height of 2.5m (to be secured by condition);
- the repainting of the railings and replacement of some of the panels on the games area
to a more recessive colour, to include darker shades of blue, green and brown. The
school has further commented that, given the type of school that it is and the needs of
the pupils who would be using the MUGA, there is a limited degree of 'toning down' of
the colours that could take place, before it makes the educational intention of the
brighter colours obsolete, thus defeating the purpose of the facility.
The proposed hedging would help to provide a degree of screening to the lower half of
the play area from Filby Road, and, by continuing the hedge around the south-eastern
boundary of the site, would help to provide a further degree of separation between the
school grounds and the adjacent Memorial Gardens. In addition to this, replacing the
panels with a more recessive colour will again make the play area appear less visually
intrusive within the street scene and the Conservation Area, reducing even further the
'less than substantial harm'. The combination of both these measures is welcomed, with
both the Landscape Officer and Conservation & Design Officer raising no objection.
Upon re-consultation, Historic England have maintained their response in regards to an
alternative location being preferable, but recognise the amendments made. Historic
England have further raised a concern relating to a lack of evidence provided in
response to paragraph 128 of the NPPF, requiring the applicant to justify the proposal.
The school does state that they have tried to balance both the Conservation Area and
the needs of their pupils, and are now attempting to address concerns raised.
Taking the above matters into account and following amendments made to the scheme,
it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of design, bearing in mind that
the facility sits within the context of an existing functional school building which is
already enclosed by an unattractive metal fence. The school buildings themselves are
of no great architectural merit. It is accepted that an alternative site may be more
appropriate for the facility, however, the school have provided reasons as to why the
facility would have to be in the position it is currently in. Furthermore, the application has
Development Committee
84
4 May 2016
to be looked at as submitted, with the MUGA in its current position.
The proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm, as referred to in
paragraph 134 of the NPPF, again further helped by the mitigation measures offered.
This harm does not outweigh the public benefits of the proposal in relation to providing a
facility for the existing school and local pupils. As such, it is considered that on balance,
the proposal complies with the aims of Policy EN 8 and the NPPF, subject to
appropriate conditions.
Further reference is made in the objections received to paragraph 74 of the NPPF,
which states that 'existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land,
including playing fields, should not be built on....'. In this regard, the piece of land in
question forms a small area of grassed school grounds that does not appear to be part
of the formal playing area and as such, the loss of this small area of grass is not
considered to be particularly significant.
Neighbouring amenity (Policy EN 4)
Concerns have been raised by local residents in regards to the possibility of noise
arising from the games area, and the potential for balls to stray beyond the site
boundary. The games area is not hard against the boundary of the site, with a sizeable
gap between the facility and the road, with further separation from the residential
properties by virtue of the road itself. Furthermore, it is not unusual to have public play
areas/playgrounds/school fields in close proximity to dwellings. Upon consideration of
this, and the planting of a hedge (along with existing trees) around the site which should
further mitigate against the potential for balls to stray out, this is not considered to be of
major concern.
In regards to noise, the school has stated that the games area would be used during
school hours between 9am and 2pm, with no more than two 1 hour sessions of use
during this time. Given that this is a relatively low frequency of use, during school hours
and is within the grounds of an existing school with playground areas that are
themselves likely to generate noise during and even beyond these stated hours, it is not
considered that any noise generated from use of the games area will be significantly
detrimental.
In regards to the above matters, the Environmental Health team has commented that
they do not have an objection to the MUGA, subject to appropriate conditions.
Further comments have been raised in regards to antisocial behaviour from pupils of the
school, and the proximity of the games area to the road with the possibly of security
being a problem. The matter of historic antisocial behaviour is not a material planning
consideration, whilst the matter of security is noted, however, the games area is with the
grounds of a school that is arguably more secure than a standard public play area.
As such, in regards to neighbouring amenity, the proposal is considered to be compliant
with Policy EN 4, subject to appropriate conditions.
Conclusion
On balance, it is not considered that the less than substantial harm caused by the
games area, as referred to by both the Conservation & Design Team and Historic
England, is significant enough to outweigh the community benefit of the games area for
the school. If the current games area, as it currently stands, without any further
mitigation and seen within the context of existing school grounds, is considered to have
less than substantial harm, then the mitigation proposed through toning down the
colours and providing hedged screening around the site, would only serve to reduce this
Development Committee
85
4 May 2016
harm even further. As such, the application is recommended for approval, subject to
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
matters:





Approve, subject to conditions covering the following
Development in accordance with approved plans/details
Hedge planting in accordance with approved details/retained and replaced if
required
Restricted hours of use
No external lighting
Any other conditions deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning
(12) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/16/0185 - Installation of fixed jetty to lower quay wall
and associated works; Tugboat Yard for Wells Harbour Commissioners
Minor Development
- Target Date: 12 April 2016
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Open Land Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19750654 PF
Boatbuilding and slipway
Withdrawn 24/06/1975
PLA/19890673 QF
Demolition of concrete harbour wall. Construction of steel sheet piled quay
Approved 27/06/1989
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for the installation of a fixed jetty to the lower quay wall at Tugboat Yard
in Wells-Next-the-Sea. The jetty will be erected to facilitate a floating pontoon (44m in
length) which will be attached to the fixed jetty via a hinged ramp which will protrude into
the harbour by approximately 12m. The floating pontoons are being installed under
permitted development rights of the Harbours Act by the Wells Harbour Commission.
Amended plans have been received which details the fixed jetty extending flush with the
concrete path of the lower quay wall by 2.4 metres with a width of 1.3 metres. The jetty
will be constructed of a galvanised steel structure and handrail with hardwood decking.
The jetty will be supported on steel tube piles with knee bracing which will be painted
black.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Fitzpatrick to consider the principle of the development.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Wells Town Council: Object to originally submitted plans and amended plans, due to
Development Committee
86
4 May 2016
concerns about restricted access in the channel, the impact upon Tug Boat Yard area
which is a registered Village Green and requested further deliberation on detail.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of support and two letters of objection have been received on the following
grounds:
Summary of support
1. Experience from a fishing angling/charter vessels that operate from Tugboat yard
considers that people using and sitting at Tugboat Yard enjoy viewing the fishing
vessels and show a high level of interest.
2. It is not considered that the landing jetty situated at Tugboat yard will affect the
enjoyment of people using the grassed area.
3. The jetty will enhance the area as it will provide a safer and improved access and
egress for all, including the elderly and persons with disability.
4. It will encourage business to the town and sustain livelihoods.
5. The pontoons will benefit the charter boats and other commercial enterprises in
Wells.
6. It will encourage tourism in Wells.
7. It will enhance the area and improve facilities for angling boats, lifeboat and harbour
leisure boats.
Summary of objection
1. Object to the pontoon access from the walkway.
2. The concrete walkway is owned by NNDC.
3. The concrete walkway would be obstructed by a ramp and platform.
4. The ramp with the three steps would obstruct free flowing access to all.
5. The access would create dangerous congestion to pedestrians.
6. Tug boat yard used to access more pontoons would spoil the relaxing leisure area.
7. Confirmation that the Harbour Commissioners own the concrete walkway.
8. Is the access for commercial or leisure users? Traffic from commercial boats would
be unacceptable.
9. The east side of the harbour office with pump out facilities and toilets is better suited
for increased pontoons.
10. Concerns with cluttering the harbour with increased pontoons and access from the
walkway.
11. The proposal affects Tug Boat Yard as a registered Village Green.
12. Concern in respect to the extent of the pontoon in to the channel.
13. The pontoon would restrict access through the channel.
14. The submitted plans do not adequately illustrate how far the pontoons extend in to
the channel.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency: Whilst the proposed development does not require a Flood
Defence Consent the applicant should consult the MMO to discuss the requirement of a
MMO licence. It is also recommended that Natural England is consulted due the
proximity of designated sites.
Natural England:

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and
Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats & C) Regulations 2007 (as
amended) – The site sits adjacent to the Norfolk Coast Special Area of
Protection (SPA), North Norfolk Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and
the North Norfolk Coast Ramsar site. It can be excluded that the application will
Development Committee
87
4 May 2016


have a significant effect on any SAC, SPA or Ramsar site, either individually or
in combination. Therefore, an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of
this proposal on the sites conservation objectives should not be required.
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – The site is located adjacent
to the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest where the proposal
is not considered to damage the interest features for which the site has been
notified.
Marine Works Environment Impact Assessment Regulation 2007 (as amended)
– On the basis of the material supplied, that in respect of statutory designated
sites, seascapes and protected species an Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) will not be required.
Norfolk Coast Partnership: No comments received to date.
Marine Management Organisation: Recommends that the applicant confirm with the
MMO, whether a marine licence under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act
2009 is required for the proposed instillation of a fixed jetty, pontoons and associated
works.
Conservation and Design: No objections.
Council’s Landscape Officer: Given the relatively small and innocuous works for the
fixed jetty that require planning permission, the Landscape Section concur with the
assessment by Natural England and do not consider that the development (if carried out
in accordance with the submitted information) will have a likely significant effect on the
conservation objectives of the SAC or the adjacent SPA or Ramsar site, alone or in
combination with other plans or projects.
The site is located within the Norfolk Coast AONB, therefore policy EN1 of the Core
Strategy applies. Wells harbour is a working harbour of a commercial fishing fleet, day
fishing boats and numerous leisure craft of differing sizes. Currently small to medium
sized fishing and leisure craft moor adjacent to the quay wall on a floating jetty. The
replacement of the existing pontoon with a jetty and floating pontoon (situated 12m off
the quay wall) will necessitate the removal of the existing pontoon and moored craft
(although the planning permission relates to the small fixed portion of jetty to the quay
wall only). This will result in the removal of the existing boats off the quay wall and allow
views out into the marshes on the other side of the harbour. This is likely to have a
small positive visual effect on the AONB and for users of Tugboat Yard. As an aside,
the addition of moored boats and the floating jetty (not subject to this planning
permission) is unlikely to have a significant negative visual effect given the number of
existing moored craft within the channel at Wells. The application is considered to
comply with Policy EN1 of the adopted Core Strategy.
It is noted that the installation of the floating jetty will be carried out in accordance with
the relevant legislation in respect of European designated sites.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
88
4 May 2016
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be
permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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 CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss of
open space).
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)




Paragraph 14 - has a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 28 – (inter alia) planning policies should support economic growth in rural
areas in order to create jobs and prosperity…..support sustainable rural leisure and
tourism development that benefit business in rural areas, communities and visitors.
Paragraph 115 - great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic
beauty in, amongst others, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the
highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
Paragraph 118 – LPA’s should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION







Principle of Development
Design
Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), other Designated Sites
and Wildlife Ecology
Impact on Tourism
Impact of Open Land Area/Village Green
Ownership
Overall Summary
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy, a Conservation Area and the AONB.
Core Strategy Policies SS2, EN1, EN3, EN4, EN8, EN9, EN10 and CT1 are considered
to be relevant.
Development Committee
89
4 May 2016
The application proposes a fixed jetty on the lower quay wall of Tug Boat Yard in
Wells-Next-the-Sea to enable the installation of a pontoon. It is considered that the
pontoon itself does not require planning permission as this falls within Schedule 2, Part
18, Class A(c) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development
(England) order 2015 (where the following is considered ‘Permitted Development’).
Development that is authorised by (c) an order under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 (orders for the securing
harbour efficiency etc. and orders conferring powers for improvement, construction etc
of harbours.
The statutory powers and duties which apply to individual harbour authorities are set out
in their local legislation which may be local Acts of Parliament, or orders made under the
Harbours Act 1964 ("HA 1964"), most commonly harbour revision orders (HROs).
These local Acts and orders set out the powers, functions and duties of the harbour
authorities which they exercise through harbour masters appointed by them for that
purpose.
Wells-Next-the Sea harbour falls within the jurisdiction of the Wells Revision Harbour
Order 1994. This Order may be cited together as the Wells Harbour Acts and Order
1835 to 1994.
The relevant sections of the 1994 Revision Order are as follows:




(5) General Powers of the Commissioners - (inter alia) - 'the Commissioners may
(a) improve, maintain, regulate, manage mark and light the harbour and the
harbour estate and provide harbour facilities therein.
(15) Works in the Harbour – ‘The Commissioners may from time to time maintain,
renew or alter all works now vested in them, or hereafter to be acquired or
executed by them, in the harbour.
(19) Consent works by other persons within the Harbour - (inter alia) – No persons
other than the Commissioners shall construct, alter or extend any works within the
harbour.
(21) Tidal Works not to be executed without the approval of the Secretary of State
(a marine works licence from MMO).
Design
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are set.
Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance the
character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
The proposed jetty is modest in size and proportions where it will be fixed flush to the
existing concrete wall using sympathetic materials and external finishes. As such, it is
considered that jetty is compliant with Policy EN4 of the Adopted Core Strategy.
Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), other Designated Sites and
Wildlife Ecology
There is a general duty for authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving or
enhancing the natural beauty of AONB’s when coming to any decisions relating to land
within them. They have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and
scenic beauty. The related Core Strategy Policy EN1 requires that development
proposals do not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Development Committee
90
4 May 2016
In terms of that duty, consideration has been made to the function of the area as a
working harbour where a mix of commercial and leisure craft of differing sizes utilise this
area and moor adjacent to the quay wall on an existing floating pontoon. It is
considered that the proposal will not detract from the natural beauty of the AONB but
would likely result in a small positive visual effect on the AONB and for users of Tugboat
Yard. The removal of the existing pontoon with the installation of a fixed jetty would
result in the removal of the existing boats away from the quay wall, and allow for
increased views out into the marshes on the other side of the harbour from Tugboat
Yard. The proposal is not considered to detract from the special qualities of the
Norfolk Coast AONB and is considered to comply with Policy EN 1 of the Adopted Core
Strategy.
Other Designated Sites, Wildlife and Ecology
The site is located adjacent to the North Norfolk Coast SPA, the North Norfolk Coast
Ramsar Site and the North Norfolk Coast SSSI. The Wash and North Norfolk Coast
SAC (Special Area of Conservation) abuts the quay wall in this location, therefore the
fixed jetty and support pile is located within a European designated site. The related
Core Strategy Policy EN9 requires development proposals to protect the biodiversity of
land and buildings and minimise fragmentation of habitats.
As far the ecological implications of the development are concerned, Natural England
(as the Statutory Nature Conservation Body) has been consulted as part of the planning
application process and has indicated that providing the works are carried out in strict
accordance with the submitted plans the proposals will not have a significant effect on
any SPA, SAC or Ramsar site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and
that an appropriate assessment is not required. This has been re-affirmed by the
Councils landscape Officer.
Furthermore, the LPA had regard to the criteria set out in Schedule 3 of the regulations,
the proposal was screened and concluded that the development was unlikely to have a
significant effects on the environment and would therefore not require an EIA. This
again was confirmed by Natural England and Councils landscape Officer.
Impact on Tourism
Representations have suggested that the proposed jetty (and pontoon which is not
subject to this planning permission) would have an adverse impact on the Village Green
and in turn the increase in commercial boats who may use the jetty. In addition, it has
been suggested that both the jetty and pontoon would impact upon the landscape and
amenity value of Tug Boat Yard.
Alternatively, a number of representations suggest that the proposed jetty (and pontoon
which is not subject to this planning permission) would provide significant benefits to the
tourism industry. The benefits are said to be improve access, egress and would
increase the overall tourism offer.
It is considered that the jetty which will facilitate the floating pontoon will provide an
enhanced tourism offer for Wells-next-the-Sea as a tourist destination and as a working
harbour.
Impact of Open Land Area/Village Green
The application site is situated adjacent to an Open Land Area. These are areas which
make an important contribution to the appearance of an area or to opportunities for
informal recreation. The related Core Strategy policy, CT1, has a presumption against
development except where it enhances the open character or recreational use of the
Development Committee
91
4 May 2016
land.
The applicant suggests that the adjacent Village Green will not be affected as the jetty
will facilitate the improvement of the site visually via the removal of the old pontoon and
existing access for customers and visitors. The Landscape Officer goes on to further
suggest that the removal of the existing boats away from the quay wall will allow views
out into the marshes on the other side which will likely to have a small positive visual
effect on the for users of Tugboat Yard.
As a result, it is considered that by virtue of its modest size, proportions and position on
the quay, that the jetty would not detract from the open character of the land and
complies with Policy CT1 of the Adopted Core Strategy.
In response to comments about the impact upon the Designated Village green, informal
discussion has taken place with DEFRA in regards to the Section 12 of the Inclosure Act
1857 and Section 29 of the Commons Act 1876.
Section 12 of the Inclosure Act 1857 makes it a criminal offence to:





wilfully cause injury or damage to any fence on a green;
wilfully take any cattle or other animals onto a green without lawful authority3;
wilfully lay any manure, soil, ashes, rubbish or other material on a green;
undertake any act which causes injury to the green (e.g. digging turf); or
undertake any act which interrupts the use or enjoyment of a green as a place of
exercise and recreation (e.g. fencing a green so as to prevent access).
Section 29 of the Commons Act 1876 makes it a public nuisance to:



encroach on a green (e.g. extending the boundary of an abutting property so as to
exclude people from that area);
inclose a green (i.e. by fencing it in, whether or not the effect is to exclude public
access); erect any structure other than for the purpose of the better enjoyment of
the green; or
disturb, occupy or interfere with the soil of the green (e.g. camping) other than for
the purpose of the better enjoyment of that green.
With regards to the above, a court is likely to be concerned whether there is any material
harm caused to the green and whether there has been interference with the public's
recreational enjoyment. Other relevant issues may include the proportion of a green
affected by the development and the duration of the interference.
DEFRA have informally advised that they do not consider that the proposal of a fixed
jetty on land adjacent to the Village Green would materially affect the green itself or
interrupt the public enjoyment given the overall modest scale of the jetty itself. In
summary, DEFRA would not normally be consulted on development of this scale. The
proposal was discussed with the Council's Legal Manager where it is not considered
contravene either Section 12 of the Inclosure Act 1857 or Section 29 of the Commons
Act 1876.
Flood Risk
The jetty is located within the high risk flood zone as designated by the Environment
Agency. The proposal is considered to be water compatible development as identified
within the NPPF. The Environment Agency were consulted and has no objection to the
application.
Development Committee
92
4 May 2016
Ownership
In relation to ownership, Certificate A has been completed as part of the application
form which states that the concrete path is owned by the Harbours Commissioners.
Land Registry mapping confirms that the area of wall in which the jetty will be fixed is
situated outside of the land owned by North Norfolk District Council. However, the
grass area adjacent to the concrete walkway is in the Ownership of North Norfolk
District Council.
Overall Summary
It is considered that the proposal would not have a likely significant effect on the
conservation objectives of the SAC or the adjacent SPA or Ramsar site, alone or in
combination with other plans or projects. Furthermore, the proposal is unlikely to have
a significant negative visual effect on the North Norfolk Coast AONB. In consideration
of the impact upon the designated Open Land Area and Village green, this is considered
to be negligible. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the relevant
Development Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of the following
conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by the Head of
Planning
1.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section
51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site,
in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(13)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following applications.
The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
SCOTTOW – PF/16/0092 - Change of use of selected existing former military
buildings to commercial uses comprising light industrial, general industrial and
storage (B1, B2 and B8) at Scottow Enterprise Park for Norfolk County Council
Development Committee
93
4 May 2016
SCOTTOW – PF/16/0093 - Change of use of selected existing former military
buildings to storage (B8) at Scottow Enterprise Park for Norfolk County Council
SCOTTOW – PF/16/0094 - Change of use of Building 261 to mixed use of
office/business (B1), storage (B8) and cafe (A3) uses, and continuation of use of
former
runway/taxiway/perimeter
track/hard
surfacing
for
driver
training/testing, car handling, access to storage, model aircraft flying, running
course and new cycling uses at Scottow Enterprise Park for Norfolk County
Council
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the range of planning issues to
consider and in order to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
(14) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1361 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of
dwelling; Garden Cottage, Alby Hill, Alby for Mr & Mrs Hughes
(Householder application)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/16/0284 - Replacement of windows and doors with
woodgrain upvc; Thwaite Barn, Thwaite Common for Mr Snape
(Householder application)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/15/1774 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission
ref: 12/1263 to allow extended use until 31 October and re-open 20 March;
Baconsthorpe Meadows Campsite At, Pitt Farm, The Street for Mr R Youngs
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/16/0103 - Erection of conservatories to serve 2 dwellings.; 1 & 3
The Wherry, Coast Road, Bacton for Mrs M Delaney
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/16/0209 - Erection of side/rear extension and detached garage;
Hammond Lodge, Bacton Road, Edingthorpe for Mr M Gerrad
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/16/0170 - Reversion of building to 2 dwellings including new
access and single storey side extension.; Coastguard Cottages, Walcott Road,
Bacton for Mr & Mrs McCartney
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - NMA1/15/0225 - Non material amendment request to alter access point
from within the curtilage; Wrights, Coast Road for Mr & Mrs Shepherd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BARTON TURF - PF/16/0157 - Erection of extensions to dwelling and detached
timber cart shed style double garage/carport and new vehicle access; Ivy
Cottage, Common Road The Common for Mr & Mrs Smith
(Householder application)
Development Committee
94
4 May 2016
BINHAM - PF/15/1854 - Erection of steel portal framed livestock building;
Nutwood Farm, Binham Road, Wighton for S C and G M Savory and Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - LA/16/0045 - External alterations to facilitate insertion of ground floor
window to rear elevation of dwelling; Stewards House, Blacksmiths Yard, Front
Street, Binham for Mr S Brunt
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/16/0303 - Erection of shed; The Whins, The Downs for Mr
Massingham
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/16/0090 - Erection of two-storey and single storey extension to
farmhouse, single storey extension to barn and change of use of garage and
barn to ancillary accommodation; Franklins Farm, Hart Lane for Mr and Mrs W
Beeson
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - PF/16/0156 - Variation of condition 2 of 09/0954 to allow
alterations to porch; Meadowsweet, The Street for Mrs Broughton
(Full Planning Permission)
BRINTON - PF/16/0124 - Erection of garden shed and summer house/studio; The
Coppice, The Street, Brinton for Mr G Jones
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/16/0188 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling; 27 Mill Lane,
Briston for Mrs S Scott
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/16/0216 - Conversion and extension to garage to form ancillary
annexe accommodation; 29 Old Post Road for Mr & Mrs Pegden
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/16/0236 - Erection of single storey extensions to side and rear of
dwelling; Nuholme, Ludham Road for Mr Lowe
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/16/0019 - Erection of car port and store; The
Barn, The Street, Saxthorpe for Mr M Mace
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/0973 - Variation of conditions 2 and 11 of PF/13/0111 (granted
on appeal, ref APP/Y2620/A/13/2202724) to allow for minor changes to design
and location of substation, levels and landscaping.; The Court House, Holt Road,
Cromer for McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/16/0129 - Alterations and single storey extensions to side and rear
of dwelling, replacement of existing juliet balcony with protruding balcony and
erection of single garage; 15 St Martins Close for Abery-Neale
(Householder application)
Development Committee
95
4 May 2016
CROMER - LA/16/0203 - Application of lime render to front elevation; 7 Jetty
Street for Russell House and Jetty Street Management Company Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/16/0235 - Variation of condition 2 of 15/0227 to allow roof
extension and additional window in gable end; Castleby, 3 Howards Hill for Mr
and Mrs Black
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/16/0190 - Change of use of office (B1) to chiropractor (D1); H
Bullen & Son Ltd, Central Road, Cromer, NR27 9BW for Ms C Groom
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/16/0281 - Erection of two-storey extension to side of
dwelling; Stoneway, The Green, Walcott for Mr J Love
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/16/0245 - Conversion and extension of outbuildings to form
annexe; The Pightles, Rectory Road for Mr B Shillabeer
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/16/0244 - Erection of single storey extension to side and single
and two-storey extensions to rear of dwelling and detached replacement garage
(Revised scheme); 15 The Street, Calthorpe for Mr & Mrs Richardson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1657 - Variation of conditions 2 and 6 of planning permission
ref: PF/15/0456 to allow revised car parking arrangements; 188 Norwich Road,
Fakenham for Haller Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1658 - Erection of two single storey dwellings; 188 Norwich
Road, Fakenham for Mr Claxton
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/16/0145 - Erection of warehouse; Anglian Chemicals, Millers
Close, Fakenham for Steel Build Masters Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/15/1562 - Non material amendment request to replacement
of windows; 23A Bridge Street for Mrs D Pollard
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/16/0315 - Erection of detached garage; Beech Lodge, 4
Thorpland Road for Mr P Allen
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - PF/16/0161 - Erection of single and two-storey extension to rear
of dwelling and erection of detached cart shed; Barn Owl Cottage, 2 Hall Road,
Felmingham, North Walsham for Mr Davis
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/16/0152 - Erection of annexe to rear of dwelling; Sawtree, 16
Cromer Road, Lower Gresham, Norwich for Mr P Knowles
(Householder application)
Development Committee
96
4 May 2016
GUNTHORPE - PF/16/0160 - Erection of detached double garage; Uplands, Field
Dalling Road, Bale, Fakenham for Mr Chapman
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/16/0111 - Erection of extension to rear of dwelling.; 9 Raynham
Road, Hempton, Fakenham for Mr R Cubitt
(Householder application)
HICKLING - LA/15/1666 - Demolition of existing bungalow.; Poplar Farm, Sutton
Road, Hickling, Norwich for Norman Farming Partnership
(Listed Building Alterations)
HIGH KELLING - PF/16/0204 - Erection of replacement detached garage; Mole
End, Warren Road for Mr M Woolliscroft
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/16/0149 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
detached timber car port; Brackenwood, Cromer Road for Professor M Hoxley
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/16/0172 - Siting of portable building to provide changing
facilities; The Pavillion, Wells Road for Hindringham Football Club
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - PF/16/0233 - Subdivision of dwelling into 2 flats for staff
accommodation in association with The Victoria Inn.; 32 Park Road, Holkham,
Wells-next-the-Sea for Coke Estate Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/16/0082 - Change of use of first and second floors from Chiropractic
clinic (D1) to residential dwelling; 5 Lyles Court, Lees Yard for Mr N Lyle
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/16/0183 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling; 4
Glaven Hale Close, Holt for Mr & Mrs J Garwood
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/15/1803 - Erection of detached cart/carriage store and loose box
building; Pinehurst Lodge, Ingham Old Hall, Sea Palling Road for Mrs Jefferies
(Householder application)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/16/0057 - Change of use from residential annexe to one unit
of holiday accommodation; The Gardeners Shed, The Street for Ms P Blake
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/16/0222 - Erection of single storey kitchen extension; 3 The Old
Dairy, The Street, Kelling, Holt for Mr & Mrs Eggelton
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/15/1836 - Construction of replacement tennis court; Manor
Cottage, Cockthorpe Road for Mr Blackwell
(Householder application)
Development Committee
97
4 May 2016
LANGHAM - NMA3/11/0890 - Non material amendment to remove flint to rear of
dwelling and provide additional window to lounge; Land Adjacent Rowan
Cottage, Hollow Lane, Langham for Mr N Viney
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MATLASKE - PF/16/0296 - Erection of side porch extension; 2 The Green,
Matlaske for Mr I Fitzpatrick-Swallow
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/16/0234 - Removal of condition 1 of 11/0103 to remove time
limit for siting of seafood trailer during summer months.; Land at Public Car
Park, Beach Road, Mundesley for Mr R Dennis
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/16/0205 - Retention of mobile home permanently; 12 Cromer
Road for Mr H C Truong
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/16/0187 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, insertion of
window to first floor side elevation and conversion of garage to hobby
room/lobby; 59 High Street, Mundesley for Mr S Barker
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/16/0280 - Erection of extension between dwelling and garage
and insertion of windows to side elevation; 23 Hawthorn Rise for Mr Cracknell
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - NMA1/15/1173 - Non material amendment request to the pole type
and utilisation of the existing foundation, a Phosco Phase 4.5 monopole
supporting 3no. antennas (with a top height of 22.5m) on the existing base as an
alternative to the relocation of the existing Phosco Phase 2 monopole
supporting 3no. antennas on a new headframe (with a top height of 23m) to the
west; Rear of Ivy Farm, School Road, Neatishead for CTIL & Telefonica UK Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/16/0007 - Erection of first floor side and single-storey
rear extensions; 1 Foundry Court, Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Roffey
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/16/0265 - Change of use to hairdressers (A1); 6 Mitre
Tavern Yard for Mr N Watson
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - AN/16/0184 - Installation of fascia sign; 27 Market Place for
Mr A Hoyes
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/16/0068 - Erection of sectional garage in existing parking
space; 51 Lynfield Road for Mr Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/16/0298 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and
single storey extension to front of dwelling; 27 Kimberley Road for Mr Sayer
(Householder application)
Development Committee
98
4 May 2016
POTTER HEIGHAM - AI/16/0027 - Installation of illuminated advertisement signs;
Post Office, Bridge Road for Mr Thiruchandran
(Advertisement Illuminated)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/1895 - Erection of two-storey extension to side of
dwelling to provide garage with room over; Purslane Cottage, 56 Church Road,
Potter Heigham for Mr Austin
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - LA/16/0035 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate the change
of use of first and second floor of disused control tower to residential dwelling;
Former Control Tower, Blenheim Way, West Raynham for Mr J Booty
(Listed Building Alterations)
ROUGHTON - PF/16/0178 - Erection of extensions to sides of dwelling; 237
Roughton Road, Cromer for Mr S Nash
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/16/0287 - Change of use of shop (A1) to residential (C3); Ceres, 16
High Street, East Runton for Miss Berry
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/15/1842 - Erection of side and rear single-storey extensions
and erection of detached outbuilding; Old Farm, Coast Road for Ms Martin
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/16/0193 - Installation of substation and associated cables in
connection with solar farm (approved under application PF/14/1334); Scottow
Moor Solar Ltd, Scottow Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield, Scottow for
Scottow Moor Solar Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/16/0194 - Installation of substation and associated cables in
connection with solar farm (approved under application PF/14/1334); Scottow
Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield, Scottow, NORWICH, NR10 5FB for
Scottow Moor Solar I Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/16/0227 - Installation of substation and associated cables in
connection with solar farm (approved under application PF/14/1334); Scottow
Moor Solar Ltd, Scottow Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield, Scottow for
Scottow Moor Solar IV Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/16/0228 - Installation of substation and associated cables in
connection with solar farm (approved under application PF/14/1334); Scottow
Moor Solar Ltd, Scottow Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield, Scottow for
Scottow Moor Solar II Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/16/0229 - Installation of substation and associated cables in
connection with solar farm (approved under application PF/14/1334); Scottow
Moor Solar Ltd, Scottow Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield, Scottow for
Scottow Moor Solar III Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
99
4 May 2016
SCULTHORPE - PF/16/0232 - Erection of extension to side of dwelling.; Cambria,
53 Sandy Lane, Fakenham for Mr Wood
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/16/0266 - Erection of porch to front of dwelling; 6 Creake
Road, Sculthorpe, Fakenham for Mr T Ryder
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/16/0131 - Erection of 0.8m high boundary fence to front
garden; 12 Laburnum Grove for Mr K Simms
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/16/0006 - Erection of extensions to front and rear, roof
extensions to sides and creation of balcony and 2 dormer extensions to rear; 30
Weybourne Road for Mr & Mrs Rees
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1768 - Erection of extensions to 13 The Driftway and
formation of three flats to include creation of balconies; 13 and 15 The Driftway,
Sheringham for Mr I Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1832 - Demolition of shop and erection of one and a
half-storey dwelling; 41 Church Street for Mr Parks
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/16/0241 - Erection of garage extension to side of dwelling; 22
Uplands Park, Sheringham for Mr A Sturman
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - AN/16/0162 - Installation of 3 non illuminated signs; The Mo
Sheringham Museum, Lifeboat Plain for Sheringham Museum Norfolk Trust
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/16/0214 - Erection of extension to dwelling; Sunhaven
Cottage, 16 Pit Street, Southrepps for Mr & Mrs Holding
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PF/16/0142 - Erection of rear extension and insertion of glazing to
west first floor gable; The Thatched Cottage, Aylmerton Road for Mr M Taylor
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - LA/16/0143 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate erection of
rear extension, replacement windows and insertion of glazing to first floor west
gable; The Thatched Cottage, Aylmerton Road for Mr M Taylor
(Listed Building Alterations)
SUSTEAD - PF/15/1667 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to 5 residential
dwellings; Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr P Wrighton
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/15/1583 - Conversion of redundant out-building to holiday let
and erection of cart lodge style garage.; Swafield Hall, Knapton Road, Swafield,
North Walsham for Mr T Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
100
4 May 2016
TUNSTEAD - NMA1/15/1727 - Non material amendment request to increase
length of extension by 300mm; 20 Fletcher Close, Tunstead for Mr R Coldham
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/16/0144 - Erection of single-storey and two storey
extensions; Highlands, Northfield Lane for Mr & Mrs Isaac
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/16/0148 - Erection of single-storey extensions to
front and rear of dwelling; 2 Polka Place, Polka Road for Mr & Mrs D & S Howard
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/15/0965 - Non-material amendment to permit
alterations to steelwork encasement of balcony; Flat 6a, The Granary, The Quay,
Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr French
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WIGHTON - PF/16/0316 - Erection of oak framed garden room; Temples Barn,
High Street, Wighton for Mr & Mrs Shackleford
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/15/1513 - Change of use of land to equestrian and erection
of stable block and storage building (part retrospective); Parkside, Foulsham
Road for Mr P Ormosi
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/16/0201 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling;
9 North View, Honing Road, Lyngate, Worstead for Mr Fisher
(Householder application)
(15) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ANTINGHAM - PF/16/0012 - Erection of single storey strawbale eco-home
dwelling; Site adjacent to Church Lane, Antingham for Mr R Neale
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1898 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached garage;
Land at front of 39 New Road, Blakeney for Mr & Ms Lindop & Armstrong
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PO/15/0652 - Erection of a replacement detached dwelling for Poplar
Bungalow, Sutton Road, Hickling and detached double garage; Poplar Farm,
Sutton Road for Norman Farming Partnership
(Outline Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - NMA1/14/0989 - Non-material amendment to permit inclusion of
additional windows, formation of entrance porch, formation of plant room in
courtyard, and internal alterations; Manor Farm Barns, West Raynham Road,
South Raynham for Saham Park Estates Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
101
4 May 2016
APPEALS SECTION
(16) NEW APPEALS
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0483 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land at
Little Lane, Blakeney for Mr Lindop
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1043 - Siting of 5 holiday-let caravans; Land adj to the Ship
Inn, Cromer Road for Mr G Cotsicoros
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/1707 - Retention of balcony to rear first floor gable and
velux windows to north and south roof slopes; Cangate Cottage, Cangate Road,
Cangate for Mr M Claxton
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1462 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling
and detached garage; 30 Skeyton New Road for Mrs Davison
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
STALHAM - PF/15/1857 - Erection of 2 bungalows and associated works (Revised
Scheme 15/1370 refers).; Land adjacent to Holly Grove, Yarmouth Road for East
Anglian Property Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/1246 - Use of residential annexe for holiday let;
Annexe At, 3 The Green, Thorpe Market for Mrs McClymont
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(17) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks and
crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road, Bodham for Genatec Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 November 2016
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/1669 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum
height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation
building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure;
Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead, NR25 6NF for Selbrigg Generation
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 November 2016
(18) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
FAKENHAM - AI/15/1236 - Instillation of illuminated "H" frame totem sign; 16-18
Norwich Road, Fakenham for Aldi Stores Ltd - Chelmsford
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0968 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 35
Fairview Road for Mr P Banthorpe
Development Committee
102
4 May 2016
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0770 - Demolition of garage and erection of two-storey
side/rear, part first floor and two-storey side and two-storey east elevation
extensions to facilitate creation of semi-detached dwelling, alterations to vehicle
access and car-parking arrangements; Fairway, 2 Links Road for Mrs J Greene
WALCOTT - PF/15/0503 - Retention of single-storey replacement dwelling; The
Glen, Helena Road, Walcott for Mr & Mrs Robinson
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham
(19) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BRISTON – PF/15/0337 – Use of land as agricultural contractor’s storage
yard, erection of agricultural storage building and retention of alterations
to access: site at Tithe Barn Lane, Briston
The Committee is requested to note the summary of the appeal decision relating to
application PF/15/0337 (site at Tithe Barn Lane, Briston) at Appendix 2.
STALHAM - PF/15/1370 - Erection of 2 bungalows and associated works.; Land
adj Holly Grove, Yarmouth Road for East Anglian Property Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- APPEAL WITHDRAWN
(20) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
103
4 May 2016
APPENDIX 1
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 25 FEBRUARY 2016
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station; Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk for Broadland St
Benedicts
Major Development
- Target Date: 08 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Unclassified Road – Priory Crescent
C Road – Walsingham Road
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19921593 VO
Residential development
Refused 05/02/1993
PLA/19801499 HR
Proposed 4 no 6 type bungalows deemed permission
27/10/1980
PLA/20042193 PF
Erection of nine dwellings and construction of access road
Approved 13/04/2005
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 28 dwellings on approximately 1.14 hectares of land on the
south west edge of the village. Existing residential development is located adjacent to
the north and east of the site. The existing access from Priory Crescent will serve 12
of the affordable dwellings and a new point of vehicular access will be created from
Walsingham Road to serve 16 dwellings, with no route for vehicles provided through
the site.
Development Committee
104
4 May 2016
A public footpath runs to the west of the site and provides access to the Village
Memorial Hall and playing fields to the north. A small area of on-site open space is
proposed to the north of the site adjacent to Priory Crescent.
The application site also includes a small area of land to the south of the Walsingham
Road junction with Hindringham Road and Front Street which is required to provide
junction improvements to improve visibility at that road junction.
50% of the units (14 dwellings) are proposed to be affordable and 50% (14 dwellings)
are proposed to be for sale on the open market.
The affordable dwellings will consist of 10 dwellings on an affordable rent basis
consisting of;
 2 x one-bed bungalows,
 4 x one-bed houses,
 3 x two-bed houses,
 1 x three-bed house.
While 4 dwellings are proposed on a shared ownership basis consisting of;
 2 x two-bed houses,
 2 x three-bed houses.
The market dwellings mix consists of;
 8 x three-bed houses,
 5 x four-bed houses,
 1 x five -bed house.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Overarching Planning Statement (Amended)
 Overarching Viability Assessment (Commercially Confidential)
 Design and Access Statement (Amended)
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Flood Risk Assessment
 Desk Study Summary Investigation
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement
 Ecological Survey
 Screening Under Habitat Regulations for Broadland Housing Sites
 Archaeological Evaluation
 Landscape, Visual and Heritage Statement
 Social Impact Report of Proposed Housing Development within Binham Village
 Transport Note and Trip Rates, Front Street Automatic Traffic Count,
Walsingham Road Automatic Traffic Count (to be read alongside the Transport
Note)
 Generic Energy Strategy
The application is also accompanied by a draft S.106 Agreement which makes
provision for fourteen of the 28 dwellings on this application site to be used for the
provision of affordable housing and confirms contributions relevant to this application
site to libraries of £1,680 and to off-site public open space improvements and
allotment provision of £6,000, as requested by the relevant consultees.
Development Committee
105
4 May 2016
Amended plans have been submitted in response to comments received from local
residents and consultees revising parts of the site layout and to address concerns
raised relating to design, highways, parking and landscaping issues.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the wide range of planning
considerations connected with this package of proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL
Response to original plans: The Parish Council does not oppose the plan but would
ask for a number of alterations to be made.
 The density should be lowered to match the average of the present houses to
Priory Crescent;
 Visibility at the junction of Front Street/Hindringham Road/Walsingham Road
should be improved before construction vehicles access the site and
Walsingham Road should be the only access for construction traffic;
 Traffic calming measures should be taken on Hindringham Road;
 Concerns about lack of parking spaces and suggestions in relation to this and
the green space provision;
 Issues surrounding intrusion of bollard's into the public footpath;
 Comments/suggestions in relation to boundary treatments;
 Query in relation to maintenance of landscaping and open space;
 Comments in relation to window frame specifications;
 Suggestions in relation to setting up a Liaison Group;
 Comments in relation to ‘planning gain’ and restricting the sale of the dwellings
for investment purposes and preventing the future sale of housing association
properties at a discount.
However, further responses were received following receipt of the amended plans.
Although accepting the principle of building a mixed development on the site to attract
young families to the village the Parish Council now oppose the amended plans.
Again comments are provided in relation to concern about the high density of the
development and in particular the affordable housing element of the scheme.
Comparisons are made between existing affordable housing adjacent to the site and
relative plot sizes, parking provision being directly in front of the dwellings, which is not
considered appropriate in a rural setting and inadequacy of the common parking area.
In order to be positive and engage in on-going discussion the Parish Council have
tabled an alternative proposal for 14 affordable and 10 market dwellings, using the
figures provided within the applicant’s viability summary, producing a £36,000 surplus
for cross subsidy of other schemes. Justification is provided to taking this approach to
provide a more balanced scheme given that 90% of the subsidy generated by the
current scheme will be used to build affordable houses in four other villages/Parishes,
not adjacent to Binham. Also removing 4 market houses will free up land to increase
plot size and provided more parking as the current parking provision is inadequate for
rural communities. They also suggest spreading new market housing across the
village to generate funds locally.
Also additional comments are made in relation to timing of highway works and
restriction of construction access.
Clarification is requested on landscape
maintenance responsibilities and the Parish Council request a firm commitment from
the applicant to set up a development liaison committee.
REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
106
4 May 2016
11 letters of objection have been received of which the main issues are summarised
below:

The development is disproportionate to the existing housing stock in the
village and a smaller development should be considered which would also
allow new and existing residents to use the remaining green area for amenity
purposes;

Density is quite significant, there are too many houses on a small piece of
land and is not in keeping with Binham;

The density is more appropriate to an urban setting not a rural village;

Any significant incremental expansion of villages should be avoided and
development should be limited to individual housing or small groups of
houses which enhance the form and character of the village and its setting;

Affordable housing targets should be met by appropriate and sustainable
development. The proposed plan is not appropriate and is not supported by
the majority of residents in its current form;

The proportion of affordable to open market is wrong;

The affordable houses need to be bigger for people to comfortably live in;

We already have affordable homes that were built a few years ago and
therefore is there a need for the amount suggested?

The market houses are very tall and are too close and over powering;

The affordable housing will bring extra traffic to Priory Crescent where lots of
children live;

Junctions to both Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road are concealed,
creating an accident waiting to happen;

There will be a large influx of vehicles travelling on single track country lanes
not designed for additional traffic;

Detailed comments relating to potential highway safety measures that could
be put in place;

The plans appear to show insufficient parking for the number of properties
proposed;

Parking is already a problem with no room for visitors;

2 existing bungalows will lose their allocated parking;

If not enough parking the green areas will be used and become muddy and
will not look good for the village;

Bollard's and a concrete area at the pumping station intrude into the public
footpath;

The large wall to Walsingham Road does not seem in keeping with the
surrounding village designs;

The plan overdevelops the site and would have an adverse impact on the
landscape in a conservation area;

What are the special circumstances to override the harm to the conservation
area and greenfield site?

The plan would adversely affect the visual amenity of the occupiers of
adjacent dwellings;

Insufficient local material such as flint is being used and design is out of
context with the character of the village;

Concern over the pumping station and potential associated leaks, overflows
and noise;

The sewers in Priory Crescent are a problem and the sewage needs to
definitely go out to the Walsingham Road;

The plan is nothing but a money pot for other developments elsewhere;

There is no statutory requirement for profit from one development to cross
fund proposed developments in other areas. Affordable housing needs in
Development Committee
107
4 May 2016








other areas could be met in the same way as proposed for Binham (a mix of
open market and affordable properties).
Any profit made from the development should be invested for the benefit of
the village and ring fenced for future development of the remaining land on
this exception site;
Inappropriate development would have an adverse impact on the continued
viability of a community that currently functions well;
Lack of school places, long appointment waiting times at doctors, lack of
infrastructure in Binham to accommodate a large influx of new residents, lack
of jobs in Binham and high unemployment in North Norfolk;
Large distances to doctors/pharmacies/vets and supermarkets requiring car
journeys due to lack of bus service, against the Government’s own
sustainable agenda;
Sales for non-permanent occupation should be prevented and restrictions
should be placed on the sales of houses on exception sites for investment
purposes;
The new houses will be bought by second home owners;
New residents will be isolated and stuck;
People living in Binham are either very elderly or second home owners, there
is no thriving village community;
1 comment has been made raising the following issues;
 Density – there seem to be to many houses for the area;
 The open market houses seem very large and over-bearing scale;
 A beautiful old hedge is set to be removed from the Walsingham Road
boundary, can this not be retained preserving the natural habitat and
preventing an eye sore.
1 letter of support has been made but raises the following issues;
 The number of houses proposed is too great for the space and the number of
parking spaces is too small;
 The density of houses proposed must be decreased as it is not appropriate for
a small Norfolk village;
 Understand the principle of affordable houses being partly financed by
privately purchased houses, so if the proposal is to be viable the numbers of
both may need to be reduced.
A further 5 letters of objection (3 of which had made representations previously) were
received further to reconsultation on the amended plans. Issues raised again related
to;
 the parking not being improved and not being sufficient,
 the affordable housing being cramped,
 the development not being in the interests of the current or future residents of
Binham,
 19 properties (from the viability calculations) is the maximum number of
properties that should be allowed as being appropriate for this small rural
conservation village,
 The NPPF allows small sites to be developed for affordable housing in rural
communities, the proposed development is too large,
 Other villages not adjacent to Binham will use the profits from the market
dwellings to build in their village which is not in line with the definition of an
exception site.
Development Committee
108
4 May 2016
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection. Still awaiting final conditions, but
likely to relate to; roads, footways, foul and surface water drainage construction,
provision and maintenance of the required visibility splay, details of a construction
traffic management plan, on-site construction worker parking, full details of off-site
highway improvements and promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order in relation to
extension of the 30mph speed limit.
County Council (Public Rights of Way) – No objection as the proposals no longer
represent an obstruction to a public footpath.
County Council (Infrastructure Requirements) - Requires the following financial
contributions to be secured via a Section 106 obligation:
 Nil requirements towards education.
 £60 per dwelling for library provision (£1,680 total)
Norfolk Fire Service - Planning condition required for provision of one fire hydrant.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – No objection and confirm that a
planning condition requiring a programme of archaeological works comprising an
archaeological excavation will be required.
Housing Strategy - Supports the application. Binham is designated as Countryside
Area and as such the new dwellings are required to be provided in line with Policy
HO3 as Exception Scheme Housing and the National Planning Policy Framework –
March 2012 section 54, Part 6.
There is an identified local housing need for affordable housing in Binham. The
inclusion of market housing in the scheme proposal, to enable the delivery of the
exception scheme housing is subject to a financial viability assessment. The Section
106 agreement will need to stipulate the dwellings are let in accordance with the Local
Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are met.
There are 80 households on the Housing List who have a local connection to Binham
and the adjoining parishes. The requirement for 1 bed dwelling is (48.75%) 2 bed
(28.75%) and 3 bed or larger (22.50%) properties indicates there is an overriding
requirement for 1 bedroom properties.
There are currently 9 local lettings properties in Binham. However there is a further
local housing need for affordable housing in Binham. The proposed development
would therefore assist in meeting some of the proven local housing need.
The proposed housing development is 14 affordable dwellings and 14 market
dwellings. It is noted the affordable dwellings are located predominately in the north
east section of the site. We would welcome greater integration of the affordable and
market dwellings. The proposed housing mix supports the identified local housing
need.
Conservation and Design Team Leader – No in principle objections as the land in
question has the appearance and feel of an infill site which offers an opportunity to
create a more representative gateway into what is predominantly an attractive,
traditional village.
Rather than following the strict regimentation of Priory Crescent, the layout has
instead turned to the traditional village core for its inspiration. Hence, it features
Development Committee
109
4 May 2016
variations in building orientation and spaces, and provides good links through to the
existing infrastructure.
In terms of density, the scheme certainly features a closely packed arrangement of
dwellings which would be denser than that found across significant parts of the village.
However, with the village core characterised by the close-knit relationships between
its buildings, it is considered that it would not be so out of character as to justify an
objection on this ground. This said there would definitely be support for a reduction in
the numbers to increase compatibility. This would particularly apply in respect of Plot 9
which feels like an ‘extra-curricular’ part of the scheme which impinges upon the
existing landscape buffer by separating the built form from the wider countryside and
thus reduces the immediacy of its visual impact.
Although the larger market houses are slightly larger than some of the existing
properties found in the area, the overall scale of the scheme is not considered
incompatible with the locality. The fact that the new buildings generally drop in size on
the eastern flanks of the development helps in this regard. Overall the new build units
are of a domestic scale which is considered appropriate for a village location.
The scheme mixes traditional styles on the principal plots and buildings of more
neutral appearance where the site abuts the existing social housing. Because there
are also historic buildings within reasonably close proximity, and because the
individual designs have a reasonable authenticity, it is anticipated that the principal
buildings would add visual interest and architectural quality to the immediate vicinity.
The prominent position of the site within the Binham Conservation Area means that
the emphasis should be on using natural products and the use of conditions is
recommended to secure appropriate materials for construction.
The green spaces within the scheme have a major role to play in terms of breaking up
the hard elements. It is therefore imperative that they are properly designed and do
not become overspill parking areas. They therefore need timber bollards, estate
railings and/or trees around their edges to prevent this happening.
Landscape Officer - The layout is broadly appropriate, picking up on the prevailing
built form of the village, providing a mix of architectural styles and incorporating
informal desire lines. The areas of open space are well located, providing linkage with
the existing dwellings along Priory Crescent and pedestrian routes through the
development to footpaths and the open countryside to the east. The green and the
three areas of green space along the main spine road form appropriate spaces within
the built form.
With regards the small piece of land required for provision of the visibility splay at the
Walsingham Road junction with Front Street/Hindringham Road, three trees require
removal, along with most of the boundary hedge and a 9m section of flint wall. While
some of the trees are able to be retained, a significant amount of vegetation is to be
removed to facilitate the required vision splay. However, it is confirmed that no
replanting is required, given the amount of remaining vegetation on this corner plot.
The reinstatement proposed is a grassed verge and this should also include bulb
planting to add visual amenity to this key junction in the village. There is no proposal
for a new boundary to this site at the back of the visibility splay, this will require some
definition and a post and rail fence with new hedge planting would be appropriate.
The application was accompanied by an Ecological Survey and Arboricultural Impact
Assessment, Tree Protection Plan & Method Statement and the mitigation measures
Development Committee
110
4 May 2016
and recommendations within these reports should form a specific condition of any
formal consent.
The Landscape, Visual & Heritage Statement includes a landscape strategy the
components of which are compatible with the rural setting and edge of settlement
location. The scale of the development together with the landscape proposals will not
result in significant landscape or visual effects.
Historic England – These proposals would amount to harm to the significance of the
conservation area and would change the way the conservation area is seen from the
south and west. Due to the increased density of housing on the western side of the
site and the reduction of an open, green feeling to the edge of the settlement Historic
England would not support this application in its current form and suggest that the
Council considers the degree of harm in terms of paragraph 132 of the NPPF and
weighs it against the public benefit that would be delivered, in accordance with
paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Binham village is most notable for the Scheduled priory site which contains the parish
church. Both the priory and the application site are towards the western edge of the
settlement but it is not believed that the proposals would result in harm to the
significance of the heritage asset by development in its setting.
Considering the current proposals in light of the NPPF and relevant Historic England
guidance, developing the site has potential to be implemented without resulting in
harm to the conservation area. However, there is concern that the density and
distribution of the proposed buildings would result in a more densely built edge to the
western side of the area. This would erode the open, green feeling of the settlement
edge and would result in harm to the significance of the conservation area in terms of
paragraph 132 of the NPPF. In this instance, there is a degree of public benefit from
new housing. The council should weigh this public benefit delivered by the
development against this harm as stated in paragraph 134 and seek the 'clear and
convincing justification' required (paragraph 132). If minded to approve, we suggest
that the Council seeks clarification on materials, boundary treatments and improved
fenestration pattern, to better satisfy the good design required by the NPPF.
Environmental Health – Comments made relating to the following.
The findings of the contamination desk study have not identified any obvious sources
of contamination. However, given the number of properties proposed and sensitivity of
the proposed use, the recommendations of the report are agreed with and further
examination of the site is requested which must include a Phase 2 intrusive
investigation, to be secured by condition.
It is understood that the local backing up of sewers issues has been resolved.
Should air source heat pumps be proposed, noise data should be requested before
approval to enable appropriate siting and any noise control measures that may be
necessary to be secured.
Conditions are requested in respect of details of disposal of sewage, disposal of
surface water, contaminated land and provision of air source heat pumps.
Anglian Water - Confirm that Langham Water Recycling Centre does not currently
have capacity for flows from the site but they are obliged to accept flows from a
development with the benefit of planning consent and would take the necessary steps
Development Committee
111
4 May 2016
to ensure sufficient treatment capacity exists if permission is granted.
sewerage network has available capacity to cater for the development.
Environment Agency - No comments received to date.
The foul
Internal Drainage Board – Should discharge be made into the IDB boundary then a
one off Surface Water Development Contribution will need to be paid for any increase
in rate or volume of flow.
Crime Prevention Design Advisor – Confirm that they are happy with the overall
layout of the development and the crime prevention measures and have no concerns
or recommendations to make.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The proposals would deliver approximately
377m2 of new public open space. This is well below the standard of about 2000m 2.
However, the proposed development is situated close to the village playing-field which
can be accessed via the public right of way running along the western side of the
development site. They have spoken to the Parish Clerk who has indicated that there
is some demand for more allotments. The existing allotments are situated on land
rented from a local landowner and there is a waiting list for two plots. The play area on
the village playing-field is in need of improvement being in a state of partial
completion.
The three small areas of open-space in front of plots 6 – 8 may be problematic. They
are very small and could be used as un-official parking spaces. This would result in
the grass becoming worn and rutted. It is therefore important to make sure that these
areas are properly designed to deter parking either by planting the trees in strategic
positions or by the use of bollards.
It is suggested that the developer provides a contribution of £5,000 for improvements
to the existing children’s play area on the nearby playing-field. It is also suggested
that £1,000 be provided to rent and set out three or four additional allotments to cater
for existing need together with the probable further need generated by the new
development.
North Norfolk District Council would not be minded to adopt the on-site open space
and this should be managed by others.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
112
4 May 2016
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
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 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 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).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both planmaking and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 54 - in rural areas, Local Planning Authorities should be responsive to local
circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for
affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local
Planning Authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market
Development Committee
113
4 May 2016
housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to
meet local needs.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should
be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the
asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal.
Paragraph 137 - Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and within the setting of heritage assets to
enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of
the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the
asset should be treated favourably.
Paragraph 173 (Ensuring viability and deliverability) states that development should
not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be
developed viably is threatened.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
Annexe 2: Glossary a definition of ‘rural exception sites’ as “small sites used for
affordable housing in perpetuity which seek to address the needs of the local
community, where sites would not normally be used for housing. Small numbers of
market homes may be allowed at the local authority’s discretion, for example where
essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding”.
Other material considerations – Section 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
& Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and Design
 Impact on designated heritage assets
 Landscape, biodiversity and open space
 Highways issues
 Drainage
 Other issues
 Habitats Regulations Assessment
 S.106 requirements
 Development Viability
Development Committee
114
4 May 2016
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda
which relates to this application and the other four applications submitted on behalf of
Broadland St Benedicts (refs: PF/15/1223, PF/15/1227, PF/15/1228 & PF/15/1461).
The application site comprises open rough grassland, which is located to the southwest of Binham. Residential development is located adjacent to the north and east of
the site. To the south and west is agricultural land. The site’s southern boundary
fronts Walsingham Road, with Priory Crescent a residential estate road, providing
access to the village centre to the north. A public footpath runs to the west of the site
and provides access to the Village Memorial Hall and playing fields.
The site adjoins a group of nine existing affordable housing units on Priory Crescent.
This adjacent scheme was granted planning permission in 2005 under the now
superseded Local Plan.
The Committee visited the site on 18 February 2016.
Principle of the development
The site lies within the ‘countryside’ policy area where under Policy SS2 of the
adopted Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable housing in designated
Countryside is acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies including the
Council's rural exception site policy (HO3).
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:
 The demonstration of a local housing need;
 Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
 Proposals for ten dwellings or less to adjoin an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under
the policy;
 Occupation limited to people with a local connection to the Parish and adjacent
Parishes.
Within the Design & Access Statement that accompanies the application the applicant
states that ‘the site is part of the District-wide development strategy to deliver
affordable housing and is one of five rural exception sites. The housing will in part,
provide affordable homes for people with a recognised local need. The remainder will
comprise market accommodation, which in accordance with national planning policy is
required to cross subside the development of affordable housing.’
You will note that this application is of a scale in excess of the provisions of Policy
HO3 given its location adjacent to a group of ten or more dwellings but some distance
from a settlement with a development boundary and the scheme includes the
provision of market dwellings.
However, the more recently published NPPF sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and this document is a
material consideration that is afforded significant weight in determining planning
applications. Paragraph 54 of the NPPF states that in rural areas local planning
authorities are required to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing
development to reflect local needs, including affordable housing through rural
exception sites and does not set a quantum of development that is permissible and
Development Committee
115
4 May 2016
also allows the inclusion of some market housing to facilitate the provision of
significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
The current complexities surrounding the financing and delivery of affordable housing
are explained within the initial summary report accompanying this application and this
is a consideration that spans each of the five development sites proposed as part of
the applicant’s District-wide strategy and is discussed in more detail in a later section
of this report.
Therefore, given recognised changes in the availability of public funding and the
publication of the NPPF, the Council has taken an approach to affordable housing
provision that reflects the requirements of the NPPF through flexibility in respect of the
scale of development and the inclusion of some market housing, where its provision
would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local
needs.
The Committee will note that the Strategic Housing team have confirmed that there is
a local affordable housing need in the Parish/adjacent Parishes for the number of
affordable dwellings proposed and that this proposal has been designed to specifically
address that local need.
To conclude, it is considered that there are sufficient material considerations in this
instance to permit a departure from development plan Policy HO3 in respect of the
scale and location of the dwellings, due to the identified local need and justification
provided by paragraph 54 of the NPPF which allows the provision of market housing
to subsidise additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
Further, whilst the site is not in a selected village and the sustainability of the location
therefore needs to be questioned, Binham is not without certain facilities, including a
public house, village hall, butchers shop and small store with petrol pumps and
development of this site would help to support these existing facilities and enhance the
vitality of the village as paragraph 55 of the NPPF promotes.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per
hectare, it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for
exception sites in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests
that local planning authorities should set their own approach to housing density to
reflect local circumstances.
Density is an issue that has been raised by a number of local residents who are
concerned that too many dwellings are proposed, resulting in cramped development
which is not in keeping with the character of the area. In comparison the existing
development at Priory Crescent takes two forms with the older original development
being of a density of approximately 17 dwellings per hectare, while the more recent
development granted consent in 2005 has been constructed at a density of
approximately 45 dwellings per hectare.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
site of 25 dwellings per hectare. It is acknowledged that the density varies across the
site between the area of affordable dwellings and the area of market dwellings. This is
due to a large extent on the mix of properties identified to meet local housing need
Development Committee
116
4 May 2016
being smaller 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings which command a smaller area of outside
amenity space and also these properties not having on plot parking, thus reducing plot
size.
The Conservation and Design section acknowledges that the scheme features a
close-knit arrangement of dwellings. However, with the village core also characterised
by the close-knit relationships between its buildings, it is considered that the
development would not be so out of character as to justify an objection on this ground.
A reduction of one or two units from the scheme would clearly help to create more
space for parking and help to overcome issues that have been raised in relation to
development in the north-west corner of the site. It is recognised however that a
reduction in density can only be achieved by reducing the overall number of dwellings
proposed to be built on the site and on this site in particular this will have a significant
impact on the viability of the scheme and its significant contribution towards the
delivery of the District-wide strategy.
Therefore, with consideration given to the context of the site and surrounding
densities, it is considered that the density proposed would be acceptable and makes
the best and most efficient use of land.
Housing Mix
There are a wide range of dwelling types and sizes proposed as part of the scheme to
cater for and attract a variety of people to the village, including the provision of family
accommodation.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings (11 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a
floorspace not more than 70sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an
existing imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 40% (11 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 70sqm floor space or
less. Also 29% (8 units) have ground floor bedrooms which are suitable or easily
adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled, in compliance with Policy
HO1 of the Core Strategy and the North Norfolk Design Guide.
The Committee will note that comments from the Council's Housing Strategy team
conclude that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
(including the four units proposed for shared ownership) reflects the local housing
need.
Layout and design
The scheme has been designed to provide a coherent and sympathetic entrance to
the village in a way that is sensitive and reflects the overall character of the village.
Priory Crescent currently has an incomplete feel to it and the proposed layout seeks to
resolve this by completing the streetscape to Priory Crescent and creating a frontage
to Walsingham Road. However, rather than follow the strict regimentation of Priory
Crescent, the layout has instead turned to the traditional village core for its inspiration.
Hence, it features variations in building orientation and spaces, and provides good
links through to the existing infrastructure, including providing a pedestrian link
through the site from Walsingham Road to Priory Crescent and to the public footpath
to the western boundary that provides access to the Village Memorial Hall to the north
of the village.
Development Committee
117
4 May 2016
The scheme mixes traditional styles on the principal plots, adding visual interest and
architectural quality to the immediate vicinity, with buildings of more neutral
appearance where the site abuts the existing housing to the north.
Comments from the Councils Conservation and Design team and from Historic
England suggest that the western edge of the site and its interaction with and
transition into the open countryside beyond is an important consideration. The
development on Plot 9 in the north west corner is considered a somewhat removed
part of the development that extends into the part of the site that provides the green
buffer to the countryside. In an attempt to address this concern the applicant has
altered the house type to a ‘barn style’ dwelling and moved it off of the western
boundary to create the appearance of a building which would stand in this location
adjacent to open countryside. Although this is not considered to be an entirely
convincing argument it will not result in substantial harm being caused to the
conservation area and a refusal of the scheme could not be justified on this basis.
There are a mix of building types, heights, styles and designs both on the site and
within the vicinity and, against this backdrop, the dwellings are of a domestic scale
considered appropriate for a village location. It would usually be the case that tenures
are interspersed across a site, however it has not been possible in this instance to
achieve this. The layout of existing development that surrounds the site and the large
variation in house sizes proposed does not easily allow for a layout that integrates
smaller affordable dwellings across the development. The Committee will note that
the Conservation and Design Team Leader has no overriding objection to the scheme,
subject to conditions regarding materials.
It is recognised that there would be some shortfalls in the Basic Amenity Criteria
recommendations for window-to-blank gable distances between a small number of
proposed dwellings to the east of the site. Also the dwelling on Plot 11 is located a
relatively short distance from the northern boundary, but the arrangement of the
fenestration at first floor level together with existing boundary screening will be
sufficient to mitigate unacceptable levels of overlooking. Therefore, on balance, it is
considered that the small number of basic amenity criteria shortcomings of the
scheme do not warrant a refusal of the whole scheme and would be outweighed by
the public benefits of the proposal.
Impact on designated heritage assets
In terms of the Council exercising its statutory duties under Section 66(1) and 72 of
the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, special
regard/attention needs to be paid to the preservation or enhancement of the District’s
heritage assets. In the event of any harm being identified, this affectively acts as a
statutory presumption against development unless outweighed by other material
considerations or public benefits. This is reiterated in paragraphs 132 and 134 of the
NPPF which states that any harm to a heritage asset or development within its setting
should be quantified and requires a clear and convincing justification. Where harm is
less than substantial this should be weighed against any public benefit of the
proposals.
The assessment of the degree of harm to designated heritage assets is something
that both the Councils Conservation and Design Team Leader and an Inspector from
Historic England have commented on. Binham’s Scheduled priory site which contains
the parish church is towards the northern edge of the settlement and it is not
considered that the proposals would result in harm to the significance of this heritage
asset by development in its setting.
The site however occupies an important position on the south western approach to the
village and at the southern extent of the Binham Conservation Area. At present the
Development Committee
118
4 May 2016
site represents a featureless piece of land that remains left over from previous
incremental development of the area to the north and east. The site does however
help to provide a green edge to the settlement in this location although it is currently
contained behind hedging to the Walsingham Road to the south and to the public right
of way to the west.
In this case, it is considered that the proposed development would amount to ‘less
than substantial harm’ to the significance of the Binham Conservation Area, resulting
from the increased density of housing on the western side of the site and the reduction
of an open, green feeling to the edge of the settlement which will impact upon the way
the conservation area is viewed from the south and west. The Historic England
Inspector has placed greater emphasis on the degree of harm to the conservation
area than the Councils own Conservation and Design Team Leader, although both
acknowledge that the harm is less than substantial in scale. Also it should be
recognised that the effected part of the conservation area is a rather peripheral
element of a much larger designation.
The degree of harm in terms of paragraph 132 of the NPPF should be weighed
against the public benefit that would be delivered, in accordance with paragraph 134
of the NPPF. In this instance, the public benefit is the provision of affordable housing
to meet an identified local need on this site and acknowledgement of the contribution
that this site in particular makes to the delivery of a substantial amount of affordable
housing on this and other sites across the District through the generation of a
substantial level of surplus. In weighing this public benefit against the identified harm
as stated in paragraph 134, it is considered that the provision of the significant amount
of affordable housing that would be secured as part of the District-wide strategy
represents the 'clear and convincing justification' sufficient to outweigh the less than
substantial harm to a designated heritage asset as required by paragraph 132.
Landscape, biodiversity and open space
A Landscape, Visual & Heritage Statement accompanies the application and includes
a landscape strategy with content that is considered compatible with the rural setting
and edge of settlement location, ensuring that the proposed development will not
result in significant landscape or visual effects. The landscape strategy is centred on
the creation of a landscaped green located to the north of the site, bound by Priory
Crescent. The green will provide a focal point for the site and create a sense of
space. The scheme also provides three landscaped areas along the main spine road
which also provide landscape features, increasing the amenity of the area. The areas
of open space will be maintained by Broadland Housing Group or the Highway
Authority in areas that contain highways drainage features. Planning conditions will
be used to secure appropriate boundary treatment (including planting), to the edges of
the open space to ensure its continued use for this purpose and to prevent use for
parking.
Individual householders will maintain new boundary hedging associated
with individual plots.
The layout picks up on the prevailing built form of the village and the areas of open
space are well located, providing linkages with the existing dwellings along Priory
Crescent and pedestrian routes through the development to footpaths and the open
countryside to the west.
An existing oak tree to the south west corner of the site is to be retained and although
the existing hedgerow along the southern site boundary is required to be removed to
deliver highway improvements, new hedges will be planted to the new front garden
boundaries to Walsingham Road. A weldmesh fence with hedge planting alongside is
proposed to the boundary of the site to the public footpath on the western site
Development Committee
119
4 May 2016
boundary and is considered an appropriate means of softening the transition between
the site and the countryside beyond.
Tree and vegetation works required to the small piece of land required for provision of
the visibility splay at the Walsingham Road junction with Front Street/Hindringham
Road, are considered appropriate subject to satisfactory reinstatement of the grassed
verge and appropriate boundary treatment which can be secured by planning
condition.
The application was also accompanied by an Ecological Survey and Arboricultural
Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan & Method Statement and the mitigation
measures and recommendations within these reports should form a specific condition
of any formal consent.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer has no objection to the proposed
development subject to conditions securing elements of remaining detail and
implementation in accordance with submitted plans and surveys.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
As a competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) the council must have regard to the requirements of the
Regulations when determining planning applications. The Council must decide if a
proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or incombination with other plans or projects, on the conservation objectives of a European
designated nature conservation site (Natura 2000 site).
The increasing residential development within the District has been identified as
having the potential to result in in-direct effects on the conservation objectives of
Natura 2000 sites, arising from in-combination recreational disturbance effects. For
some of the residential allocations within the District (those that form part of the Site
Allocations DPD) a mitigation and monitoring package is required to mitigate for the
potential significant effects that may arise as a result of the development. This
package is secured through a financial contribution to the council from the developer
of £50 per dwelling.
The in-combination effects arising from residential recreational disturbance from these
additional dwellings together with other additional dwellings permitted in the District
cannot be ruled out. A solution for the impact of the additional residential
development would be to secure mitigation to offset any potential effects that may
occur as a result of the development. The mitigation could take the form of the
previously agreed mitigation package for other residential development within the
District, that of securing £50 per dwelling to contribute to the council's monitoring and
mitigation package. A conclusion of no likely significant effect on Natura 2000 sites
could then be established and the council will have discharged its duties under the
Regulations.
The applicant is aware that the charge relating to this site amounts to £1400.
Highways issues
The application proposes a new point of vehicular access from Walsingham Road to
the south to serve 16 dwellings. This necessitates junction improvements to improve
visibility at the junction of Walsingham Road and Hindringham Road/Front Street,
which will also deliver a wider benefit to road users at this junction. In order to achieve
the required junction improvements the acquisition of third party land is necessary and
such works will be secured utilising necessary planning conditions and legal
agreements.
Development Committee
120
4 May 2016
The existing access from Priory Crescent will serve 12 of the affordable dwellings.
There will be no route for vehicles through the site, reducing the amount of traffic
utilising Priory Crescent, although the Highway Authority have confirmed in principle
that the entire development could be served off Priory Crescent.
The supporting information suggests that the impact of the proposed development on
the surrounding highway network is likely to be very small and therefore the proposed
development would not give rise to any inherent safety concerns or highway safety
issues which may impact upon the local area. A number of measures to enhance
highway safety are proposed, including the offsite junction improvements to
Walsingham Road and Front Street/Hindringham Road junction, and the extension of
the 30mph speed limit along Walsingham Road.
The Council's parking standards require a maximum of 59 spaces for this
development. As amended, the scheme proposes a total of 61 car parking spaces
through a combination of on plot parking spaces and garages together with one
communal parking court. Additionally there are four proposed spaces for the two
existing dwellings owned by Victory Housing Association that will have their parking
displaced as a result of the development proposed. The Parish Council and some
local residents have raised concerns about insufficient parking provision for the
proposed scheme. Attempts have been made by officers to negotiate an improved
parking layout as it is recognised that the allocation of spaces within the parking court
relative to the corresponding dwellings is not ideal and could give rise to localised
parking issues in this area of the site. There is also no provision of formal visitor
parking, however this is not a requirement of Core Strategy Policy CT6 or the Councils
Car Parking Standards.
Some improvements have been made to the initial layout plan with regards parking
provision and across the development as a whole it is recognised that the number of
spaces provided is in accordance with the required standard and therefore complies
with Core Strategy Policy CT6. The Committee will note that the Highway Authority
have not raised any objection to the scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Drainage
In relation to drainage, the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy
provided in support of the application concludes that the ground conditions of the site
are mixed. The drainage strategy proposes surface water to be directed to local
soakaways for the 100 year flood event with a 30% allowance for climate change.
Private driveways and parking areas will also be constructed using permeable paving,
in addition to drainage within the estate road via trapped gullies to soakaways within
the areas of open space. Further details of the surface water drainage system will be
required and can be secured by way of an appropriately worded planning condition.
With regards to foul drainage, due to concerns over capacity and flooding in Priory
Crescent, the proposal is to direct all foul drainage south towards Walsingham Road
and then east to the public foul sewer. Anglian Water has confirmed that the foul
system at this location has capacity for the development but the discharge will need to
be pumped through an on-site pumping station, located near Plot 6. The facility will be
accessed via the junction of Walsingham Road and the footpath along the western
boundary. The location has been agreed in discussions with Anglian Water.
The FRA and Drainage Strategy concludes that the risk of flooding from all sources is
low, that the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and subject to the
provision of a pumping station, capacity exists within the local network to handle the
Development Committee
121
4 May 2016
foul drainage requirements of the development. On this basis, the proposed
development complies with the requirements of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy
SS4 and EN10.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of
the Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer
applicable as government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing
the Code for Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer
require compliance with these standards.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development
to be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. The applicant has by way of
a basic generic ‘Energy Strategy’ concluded that the capital building costs to install the
necessary renewable technologies in tandem with enhanced thermal insulation to
meet directly with policy EN6 is economically unviable. High levels of insulation, solar
thermal or PV, air source heat pumps and high efficiency mechanical heat recovery
ventilation will be adopted to reduce energy demand. Given the known and well
documented viability issues associated with delivering sites that contain a high
proportion of affordable housing and the specific viability information that has been
provided in support of this planning application it is considered that sufficient
information has been provided to justify non-compliance with the energy generation
requirements of Policy EN6 on viability grounds. Precise details including the location
of any air source heat pumps to be installed will be secured by planning condition, to
ensure a full assessment of noise impacts are taken into account before agreeing to
their installation.
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health has advised that further
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting the
site is required. This will form part of a condition.
Further to the comments from Anglian Water relating to capacity issues at Langham
Water Recycling Centre, further comment has been requested to determine whether
there are any associated implications. Committee will be updated verbally on this
matter once comments are available.
You will note that comments have been received from the Internal Drainage Board
requesting a one off Surface Water Development Charge be paid by the developer
should discharge be made to within their boundary. This is ultimately a matter to be
resolved between the applicant and the IDB, separate from this planning application.
A fire hydrant would be required as part of the development.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to the
existing children’s play area on the nearby playing-field and provision of
allotments
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies for mitigation and monitoring of
potential impacts on European designated sites.
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and submitted for consideration.
Development Committee
122
4 May 2016
Development Viability
The subject of development viability is set out within the initial summary report that
accompanies this application and provides details of how the applicant considers the
five rural exception sites as contributing towards a District-wide strategy for the
provision of affordable housing (Further details can be found in Appendix 1.)
Details suggest that the development at Binham includes a level of market housing to
directly finance the amount of affordable housing proposed on the site itself and would
result in a significant amount of surplus at £1,265,495, equating to a developer return
of 18.7%. This identified surplus will be reinvested in the provision of affordable
housing on other sites.
It is recognised that the means of delivering affordable housing has changed due to
reduced availability of grant funding and with further impending changes to
Government policy. Looking for more innovative ways of delivering affordable housing
will therefore be required. In this instance the overarching viability appraisal highlights
that the delivery of this site will generate a significant amount of surplus, including
subsidy from Broadland Housing Association, that will be recycled back in to the
provision of affordable housing on the other development schemes that form part of
the District-wide strategy. The delivery of development on this site is therefore linked
to delivery of the District-wide affordable housing strategy. Without the surplus
generated from this site the resulting reduction in the overall scheme surplus could
potentially have a significant impact on the viability of the District-wide strategy.
Summary
As a proposed rural exception housing scheme, whilst not in strict compliance with
Core Strategy Policy HO3, in terms of the scale of development and tenure mix; the
development is considered to nonetheless accord with paragraph 54 of the NPPF
which does not set a quantum of development acceptable on rural exception sites
where the numbers proposed reflect local needs and allows the inclusion of market
housing. The guidance within the NPPF is a material consideration that should be
afforded significant weight.
Any harm in landscape and visual amenity terms is considered to be negligible in the
long term. It is acknowledged that less than substantial harm has been identified to a
designated heritage asset, that being the Binham Conservation Area. Considering
paragraph 132 and 134 of the NPPF, the public benefit of providing much needed
local needs affordable housing on this site, together with the contribution that the
delivery of development on this site will make to the overall District-wide strategy, is
considered a clear and convincing justification sufficient to outweigh the limited harm
to the designated heritage asset in this case.
Although it is acknowledged that a not insignificant amount of local objection and
concern has been raised concerning the development of this site, including objection
from the Parish Council, the development accords with relevant development plan
policies other than in the instances already identified above where justification is
provided by provisions of the NPPF. Also there are no objections from statutory
consultees, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the
terms set out in the report.
Development Committee
123
4 May 2016
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and
construction worker parking, provision of a visibility splay, construction
traffic management plan, off-site highway works and Traffic Regulation
Order, securing appropriate design details and materials, hard and soft
landscaping, arboricultural and ecological mitigation, surface and foul
water drainage, provision of a fire hydrant, contamination site investigation,
details of use of renewable technologies and any other conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning
Development Committee
124
4 May 2016
25 FEBRUARY 2016
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
R Reynolds (Chairman)
R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs S Butikofer
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
N Coppack
Mrs P Grove-Jones
S Hester
P High
N Pearce
P Rice
S Shaw
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs G Perry-Warnes – Corpusty Ward
Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett – observer
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Miss S Hinchcliffe – Major Projects Team Leader
Mr N Doran – Solicitor
Mr D Mortimer – NCC Highways Development Management Officer
Mr S Bizley - Consultant
(201) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were in attendance.
(202) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Minute
206
Councillor:
N Smith
Interest
Lives adjacent to the site.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the Officers’ report, the Committee
reached the decisions as set out below.
Development Committee
125
4 May 2016
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
The Head of Planning explained the proposed procedure for this meeting. Following
receipt of an overarching report which covered issues common to all applications,
each application would be presented to the Committee in turn and debated. No
proposals would be sought until all applications had been presented and debated.
For the benefit of members of the public, the Head of Planning explained that
lobbying was a normal part of the planning process but Members of the Committee
needed to come to the meeting with an open mind and to listen to the debate before
reaching a decision.
(203) PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF BROADLAND ST BENEDICTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN BINHAM, EDGEFIELD, ERPINGHAM GREAT
RYBURGH & TRUNCH
The Major Projects Team Leader presented a report relating to five, full planning
applications for residential development which had been submitted by the applicant,
Broadland St Benedicts, for separate parcels of land across the North Norfolk
District. The report provided an overview of planning policy and financial viability
related issues for each of the planning applications under consideration.
With the exception of application PF/15/1228 at Great Ryburgh, each application
represented a departure from the development plan in that the three sites at Binham,
Edgefield and Erpingham lay outside of any defined development boundary,
proposed more than 10 dwellings and proposed a mix of market and affordable
housing. Application PF/15/1227 at Trunch proposed more than 10 dwellings
consisting of 100% affordable housing.
The applicant had put forward a case in support of their proposals that a District-wide
development strategy would enable the delivery of a greater amount of affordable
housing to meet identified local need. This would be brought about through an
element of market housing, the proceeds of which would be used to cross subsidise
the delivery of affordable housing across all of the sites.
The report highlighted a range of material planning considerations that were common
to all five proposals, namely:




Mechanisms for Delivery of Affordable Housing - The case being put forward
in support of the proposal by the applicant;
The main planning policy implications of the proposals;
Development viability; and
Proposed S.106 Obligation – Draft Agreement
The Portfolio Holder emphasised that the five applications contained a large number
of affordable homes, which was one of the Council’s key corporate objectives, and
would go a long way towards addressing housing need.
The Major Projects Team Leader presented each of the following applications,
displayed plans and photographs of the proposals and outlined the main issues for
consideration in each case, which were set out in detail in the Officer’s report. She
updated the Committee as shown below.
Development Committee
126
4 May 2016
(204) BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station; Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk for Broadland St
Benedicts
Public Speakers
Mr D Frost (Binham Parish Council)
Mrs P Alford (objecting)
Mr A Savage (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader read to the Committee the comments of Councillor
V FitzPatrick, a local Member, referring to the Parish Council’s comments and views
of local residents. Councillor FitzPatrick considered that the proposal appeared to be
sustainable and did not breach any significant planning considerations.
The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve this
application as set out in the report.
Councillor S Hester, a local Member, expressed concern at the proportion of market
housing to affordable housing and questioned how it could be interpreted as small.
He considered that it would be preferable to relocate some of the proposed market
dwellings elsewhere to create more space for the proposed affordable dwellings.
At the request of the Chairman, the Major Projects Team Leader explained that the
NPPF did not give an interpretation of “small” in relation to the proportion of
affordable housing. She also clarified that the proposed green area could not be
used for dwellings as it contained soakaways.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the provision of jobs and housing for young people
should be foremost in Members’ minds. The cumulative proposals would result in 55
affordable dwellings in the District. The affordable dwellings in this application were
concentrated in one small area but it was not possible to move dwellings around to
make more space for the affordable dwellings because of the drainage situation. He
considered that the proposals were futuristic and deserved to go forward.
Councillor P W High expressed concern regarding the proportion of market dwellings.
He considered that the application should be deferred to consider the density of the
affordable dwellings and possible reduction in the number of market dwellings.
Councillor N Smith expressed concern that the affordable dwellings were crammed
into one corner of the site.
In response to a question by Councillor B Smith, the Major Projects Manager
explained that this proposal was an exceptions scheme. The model for delivery of
affordable dwellings was new and looked at funding across all the sites. He
considered that it was likely that more schemes of this type would come forward as
funding from Central Government was reduced.
Councillor N Pearce expressed concern regarding parking provision. He considered
that if cars were to park on Priory Crescent it would exacerbate problems for large
vehicles.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the scheme met the Council’s parking
standards. Additional parking for the affordable dwellings would be provided in a
communal parking area. The development had been designed to enable lorries to
turn. The Highway Authority had not raised an objection to the scheme.
Development Committee
127
4 May 2016
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that the issues raised had been
explained in the report. The village had good facilities. She referred to the
comments by the Major Projects Manager with regard to delivery of affordable
dwellings.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer expressed concern with regard to the location of the
affordable dwellings.
Councillor S Hester raised concerns regarding Human Rights in relation to
disturbance during the anticipated 4-year construction period. This was a densely
populated area with elderly people in close proximity. Binham was a small village
and this proposal represented 17% growth.
The Head of Planning stated that Human Rights implications had been considered
and taken into account.
Councillor N Coppack asked if the proposed bollards were removable as he was
concerned with regard to emergency access.
The Major Projects Manager stated that the bollards were intended to stop people
driving through to Priory Crescent. A condition could be imposed to ensure they
were detachable. He added that parking on the roadway was not a planning matter.
(205) EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1223 - Erection of twenty two residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works.; Land off Rectory Road and
Holt Road, Edgefield, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts
Public Speakers
Mr J Seymour (Edgefield Parish Council)
Mr R Window (objecting)
Mr I Hill (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that a neighbour had raised issues
regarding a series of ponds close to his property and recent flooding. It was
considered unlikely that the proposal would contribute to flooding but this issue would
need to be raised with the Environment Agency.
The Major Projects Manager stated that conditions could be included to agree
drainage details prior to commencement of the development.
Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, the local Member, stated that there was a need for
affordable housing and she considered that the benefits to the community
outweighed the disadvantages. She stated that she would be grateful if the issue
regarding the bus shelter could be resolved. However, she wholeheartedly
supported this application.
Councillors Mrs P Grove-Jones and P High commended the spread of the affordable
units across the site.
Councillor S Hester considered that the proportion of market housing to affordable
housing was not small. He asked why 28 dwellings were being proposed on 1.3
hectares at Binham, whereas only 22 dwellings were being proposed on 1.83
hectares on this site.
Development Committee
128
4 May 2016
APPENDIX 2
APPEAL SUMMARY: BRISTON – PF/15/0337 – Use of land as agricultural
contractor’s storage yard, erection of agricultural storage building and
retention of alterations to access: site at Tithe Barn Lane, Briston
Planning permission was refused for the erection of a building to be used for the
storage of agricultural equipment on land at Tithe Barn Lane, Briston. An appeal was
made to the Secretary of State against that decision.
The appeal Inspector found the main issues to be –


Whether the proposed development would be appropriate in this location, in
the context of relevant Planning policies
Highway safety
On the first issue, the Inspector noted that Core Strategy policy SS2 limits
development in the countryside to that which requires a rural location and is for
purposes specified in the text of the policy. The Inspector stated that the appellant’s
agricultural contracting business reflects changing agricultural practice and that the
services provided by the business are valued by clients. However, whilst the
proposed development would support agriculture, it is not in itself agricultural
development. Whilst policy SS2 allows for certain new build proposals, this
development does not meet the requirement of the policy for a specific
environmental or operational justification.
The Inspector referred to policies in the NPPF to which attention had been drawn by
the appellant (including paragraph 28 which is supportive of rural businesses) but
found this not to outweigh the identified conflict with policy SS2. He concluded that
the proposal would not be appropriate in this location in the context of planning
policies for development in the countryside.
Turning to highway matters, the Inspector referred to the appeal site being located a
short distance from the B1354 but accessed over very narrow lanes. It was also
noted that it would not be possible to achieve 90m visibility distances at the access
and that NPPF paragraph 32 requires that decisions take account of whether safe
and suitable access can be achieved. In the Inspector’s view, the proposal would
conflict with paragraph 32 and also with Core Strategy policy CT5, which requires
that proposed development provides safe and convenient access. Overall, the
Inspector concluded that there would be an unacceptably detrimental impact on the
safe and effective operation of the local highway network.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Source – Roger Howe
Planning Legal Manager
Ext. 6016
Development Committee
129
4 May 2016