OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 4 SEPTEMBER 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BACTON - PF/14/0582 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of one
and a half-storey dwelling with attached garage and garden shed; Woodlands,
Mill Road, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs Derby
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 July 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19781398 HR - Alterations and extension
Approved 27/10/1978
PF/13/1114 PF - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and outbuildings and
erection of one and a half storey replacement dwelling and detached garage
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/11/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling.
Amended plans have been received which have been re-advertised and re-consulted
upon. The site notice expires on 8 August 2014.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barry Smith having regard to the following issues:
 Proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site
 Design is inappropriate for this location
Determination of the application was deferred at the previous meeting for a Committee
site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the following grounds (summarised);
 Site is within a landscape of high amenity and can be viewed from far away,
including approximately 1 mile to the east from Old Hall Road. Readily viewed from
Bacton Woods, which lies some 220 yards away
 Existing dwelling is modest and consistent with the sparse distribution of dwellings
along Mill Road. Materials are in keeping with the area (red clay pantiles and
Development Committee
1
4 September 2014










render)
Proposed materials are alien to the architectural tradition of this area and would
look unsightly. Whilst zinc can be used in such developments it is not a
geographically local material
Level of glazing is not sensitive to flying birds
Building would be substantially larger and have a much greater overall surface
area
Design has a utilitarian character
Position of dwelling closer to the south eastern boundary would further increase
the impact upon the Countryside
Gravel within the driveway would create unwelcome additional noise
Design and Access statement states that the previous application attracted no
objection from the Parish Council. Whilst this is true, local objections were received
and the only member of the Parish Council from Edingthorpe objected
No mention is made in the Design and Access Statement of the impact of the
dwelling to the south east
Development along Mill Road is limited to a sparse distribution of mainly modest
size dwellings, very different in form, layout and materials to the proposed
Development would fail to respect its surroundings and the built traditions of this
part of Edingthorpe
Comments in respect of amended plans - Changes were minor in nature and further
amendments were needed to reduce the size of the windows. Maintain their
objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection received from 6 dwellings and 2 letters of support received during
the consultation period of the first site notice. Issues raised by the objectors
(summarised):
 Proposed new building is totally out of keeping with the character of the area and
would be an eyesore; roofline would be too high, shape would be far too complex
and the materials are more suited to industrial sites
 Footprint of the building is much too large for the site and unnecessary - over
double that of the majority of the properties situated on Mill Road (most of which
are single storey). Would result in overdevelopment
 Proposal has no aesthetic integrity and would look ridiculously untidy
 Design more suitable for a suburban area
 The number of separate elements of the dwelling do not lend themselves to sit
comfortably within the rural landscape
 Any development in this area should be single storey and feature elements of rural
structures
 The landscape value is high; gently rolling and containing woodland. The site is
exposed and therefore sensitive, in clear view of the public.
 By building the new dwelling so close to Rosy Lodge it would be an unbearable
intrusion into their privacy; building and access should be sited to the far end of the
site if permission is granted. Siting could enable a further dwelling to be built in the
site
 A building this size would cause huge disruption and chaos both during and post
construction, particular if a business is to be run from there
 Construction vehicles are likely to damage the grass verge along the side of the
Road, within which several windflowers grow
 Large gravel driveway would create high level of noise and air pollution from all the
traffic associated with the new dwelling
Development Committee
2
4 September 2014










Proposal would suggest a large occupancy and thus an increase in traffic in what is
a quiet and environmentally sensitive location
Mill Road may no longer be considered a 'Quiet Zone'.
The road has got noticeable busier of the last couple of years and this proposal
would only increase this
Impact upon the value and resale of the adjacent property (Rosy Lodge)
Dwelling would create overshadowing for the neighbour's rear garden and for their
PV panels on their rear roof slope
None of the trees on the site should be damaged, trimmed or changed in anyway
Owners of Rosy Lodge work to provide habitats for wildlife. Grass snakes have
been recent visitors. The snakes may have travelled through the applicant's site
Would find it difficult to establish a similar garden to their existing garden if they
moved (Rosy Lodge)
Amount of glass is a terrible danger to birds and bats, both of which are present in
Bacton woods
Maybe public rights of way running over and to the east of the site (not recorded on
the definitive map).
Issues in support (summarised):
 Proposed property looks like a breath of fresh air for the area
 Design would fit in well with the large site, with the glass elements reflecting its
surroundings
 Good design is needed in the Countryside to enhance the area; and this would be
an inspiration
 The current building is likely not to be environmentally friendly and whilst some
extensions could be made, these would result in a blot on the landscape
 The current design is modern and would blend into the site (e.g. dark tiles and
slates would blend with the dark leaves of the trees that surround the land of the
property)
 The new dwelling should be more environmentally friendly
 Recognise that some people don't like change, but this is not change for the sake
of change; thought has gone into the design
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions.
Environmental Health - No objection. Requested a note to be added regarding the
requirement for a notice of demolition to be given.
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):
Development Committee
3
4 September 2014
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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Scale of proposed dwelling
3. Design of proposed dwelling
4. Relationship with neighbouring property.
APPRAISAL
Application deferred from previous meeting (7 August 2014) to enable the Committee
to undertake a site visit.
The site is located within the village of Edingthorpe, just south of the part known as
Edingthorpe Green. The village falls within designated Countryside and thus falls
under Policy SS 2. A replacement dwelling is considered to be acceptable in principle
under this policy.
The site is located north west of Bacton Woods and has only one immediate
neighbour, sited to the north east. The rest of the site is surrounded by agricultural
fields. The site contains a 1930's bungalow sited to the north eastern side of the plot,
with the external materials render, red clay pantiles and dark wood stained timber
fenestration. The proposed replacement dwelling would be 1 1/2 storey in height and
of a contemporary design.
The amended plans serve to reduce the impact upon the immediate neighbours by
reducing the scale of the garage. This serves to reduce the height from 6.2m to 5.8m
and to increase the distance from the boundary from a minimum of 2.63m to 3.16m.
Policy HO 8 requires that replacement dwellings in the Countryside 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 current footprint of the bungalow is 140 sqm, with the
proposed dwelling's footprint 270 sqm. The new proposal includes an attached double
garage, whereas the existing dwelling has a single detached garage (with a footprint of
27 sqm). The bungalow does not appear to have been extended, and could therefore
be extended to both sides and to the rear under Permitted Development. The existing
bungalow measures 5.5m in height, with the proposed dwelling measuring between
4.8m and 6.9m.
The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal can be
constructed with minimal works to the trees. With the existing trees retained, together
Development Committee
4
4 September 2014
with the additive design, the impact of the dwelling upon the wider countryside would
be reduced. With no set character of the built environment within the local area and
the plot large enough to readily accommodate a dwelling of this size the increase in the
scale is not considered to be out of character or disproportionate. Whilst the
replacement dwelling is larger than the existing dwelling, on balance it is considered
acceptable under Policy HO8.
Policy EN 4 states that new development should be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. 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. In
addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers. This part of Edingthorpe is sparsely populated with no
distinctive character linked to the built environment. However the dwellings are
generally detached and on relatively generous plots. The designs are varied, in terms
of age, style, size and siting. There are currently no contemporary dwellings in the
immediate area. The only immediate neighbour's property is a red brick bungalow with
low pitched roofs, finished with red clay pantiles.
The site itself is relatively secluded, with mature vegetation throughout the site. The
dwelling has been designed in an additive form in order to reduce its impact upon the
wider countryside. The volume closer to the road has been kept smaller. The dwelling
would be largely finished in red brick on the ground floor, timber cladding to the first
floor and plain tiles or slates to the roof. A zinc clad gable ended section would be
located to the rear of the dwelling (south east). All fenestration would be painted
timber. Whilst the design is not typical for Edingthorpe the low roof pitches, red bricks
and use of timber would help it to tie into the existing character of the area. The use of
zinc cladding and plain tiles or slates is, in relation to the modern design, considered to
be acceptable in this instance.
By moving the garage further away from the only neighbour the impact upon them
would be reduced. The garage would be sited in line with the neighbour's own garage
(single storey) and be a minimum of 7.2m from their rear garden. Designed with the
pitch running away from neighbours, the ridge would be 10.6m from the garden.
Located south west of the neighbours there is anticipated to be some degree of
overshadowing. However due to the distance this is expected to be relatively minor. In
addition the neighbouring dwelling is also surrounded by agricultural fields, with fields
to their south, east and north. There are no windows along this elevation which could
cause any undue overlooking. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with
Policy EN 4 in respect of design and the relationship with the neighbouring property.
Policy EN 6 requires that all new development will be required to demonstrate how it
minimises resource consumption, minimises energy consumption compared to the
current minimum required under part L of the Building Regulations, and how it is
located and designed to withstand the longer term impacts of climate change. Whilst a
Sustainability Construction Checklist has been submitted outlining how the proposed
dwelling may meet these requirements, a condition would be added to require the
dwelling to achieve at least a 3 star rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes. The
dwelling has been designed to benefit from solar gain, with large sections of glazing
sited to the south east.
The site is of sufficient size to readily accommodate the dwelling and the proposal is
not considered to be an overdevelopment.
As previously mentioned the site is well screened and the submitted Arboricultural
Development Committee
5
4 September 2014
Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal can be constructed with minimal
works to the trees. The Landscape Officer has no objection subject to conditions and
Policy EN 2 can be complied with.
The submitted Bat Survey report indicates that no bat roosts were found at the site.
However it does state that the site falls within a well used bat commuting and foraging
route, therefore it is not unreasonable to anticipate that the site is used for occasional
roosts. The works have potential to impact upon bats should they use the bungalow for
occasional roosts. As such suitable precautions should be taken during the build,
together with mitigation works. The Landscape Officer has no objection subject to
conditions and Policy EN 9 can be complied with.
As a 5 bedroom dwelling the Parking Standards set out within Appendix C of the Core
Strategy state that a minimum of 3 parking spaces would be provided. Whilst the
garage, at 6m by 6m, is not large enough to count as parking (minimum 7m deep),
there is enough space within the driveway area to park 3 cars. As such Policy CT 6 is
considered to be complied with.
It is considered that the proposal generally accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, unless any new material considerations are raised prior to the
consultation period expiring (8 August 2014).
2.
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0785 - Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two
and a half storey replacement dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road for
Mrs K Cargill
Minor Development
- Target Date: 29 August 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0828 PF - Erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling Withdrawn by Applicant 19/09/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of a 1950‟s bungalow, associated outbuildings and barn and the
erection of a contemporary style two and half storey dwelling.
The proposed dwelling which would be “L” shaped in form would be sited some 76
metres, to the south east of the existing bungalow at its closest point and would have a
total floor area of 332 sq. metres of habitable accommodation and would comprise 5
bedrooms. In addition there would be a further 183 sq. metres of ancillary
accommodation including a library games room, storage, and garaging.
Development Committee
6
4 September 2014
It is envisaged that the materials to be used would consist of a mix of soft Norfolk red
bricks and natural finish timber cladding to the walls, whilst the roof would be a smut
finished clay Norfolk pantile.
As part of the scheme a comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed both for the
holding which runs to some 16 hectares and the proposed curtilage of the dwelling
which is shown to be some 0.91 hectares. This would be based on the 20 year vision
as expressed in the Integrated Landscape Guidance for the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB) and include the removal of a line of poplar trees and conifers,
remediation of the former nursery to managed heathland, and extension of the lowland
heath habitat. In addition, the planting of species rich meadows and the management
and replanting of hedgerows in order to provide an interconnecting matrix for wildlife
are proposed.
As part of the scheme, three existing holiday cottages adjacent to the northern
boundary of the site would be retained.
The application is supported by plans showing the proposed dwelling, a Planning
Statement, Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement, Protected Species
Scoping Survey, incorporating a Bat Survey, Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal
and Landscape principles plan.
An e-mail from the applicant‟s agent confirms that although a number of objections
appear to argue against the proposal on Paragraph 55 of the NPPF grounds none of
their submitted documentation mentions Paragraph 55 of the NPPF and they do not
believe that this planning guidance is relevant in this case. Furthermore, they contend
that the proposal is compliant with the guidance set out in the NPPF, and they believe
that the overriding policy that applies to this proposal is Policy H08 of the NNDC Core
Strategy.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning due to the level of local concern.
PARISH COUNCIL
Wiveton Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds that when viewed in
the open landscape to the east, from the Glaven Valley, the building would have a
significant and damaging effect on the „Setting of Heritage Assets‟ namely Cley and
Wiveton Churches and the proposal is contrary to Policies HO8, EN1, and EN2 of the
North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy.
Furthermore, there is a statutory duty under s.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have regard as to whether the new building will
preserve or enhance the setting of the two churches. Renewed emphasis for this
comes from the Barnwell Manor wind turbine challenge earlier this year in the Court of
Appeal.
In terms of Policy HO8 the Parish Council considers that the proposal would breach
this policy as it would replace a modest single story bungalow with a two and half – in
effect three story building, sited in a large open area where it would be visible from
across the Glaven Valley. Furthermore, the new dwelling would be sited in a different
location to the existing. Also the so described „farm barns‟ are of a temporary nature
and should not be included as footprint for further development.
The applicants make much the new building‟s height being reduced by 1.8 metres.
The drawing presented in the applicant‟s submission to NNDC and English Heritage
Development Committee
7
4 September 2014
exaggerates this reduction considerably. (The Parish Council has submitted a drawing
produced by a qualified surveyor, which they suggest shows the reduction much more
accurately). While EH were clearly taken in by this sleight of hand, NNDC as the
planning authority need to be very careful not to be, and if they are not sure which of
these drawings to believe they should us their own in-house expertise to establish
exactly what this reduction will look like, so the elected members are left in no doubt.
This reduction in height (small as it is) is mostly achieved by setting the building into
the ground, and as the face of the building will be open to the east makes absolutely no
difference to the impact it will have on views of it from the Glaven Valley, from where
the full east side of the building will be visible.
Whilst in respect of Policies EN1 and EN2 the Parish Council suggests that the
photomontage images included in the applicants mission statement are in camera
perspective and therefore do not show the major impact this building would have in the
landscape. (An accompanying image has been submitted as part of the Parish Council
representation which they suggest corrects this). It is clear that this building will have a
significant impact from Saxlingham Road and other vantage points in Blakeney, but
these concerns will no doubt be raised by Blakeney Parish Council. Wiveton Parish
Council‟s concern is with the major impact it will have on the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area and our Grade 1 listed Church. The first view of the Glaven Valley
that greets everyone approaching from the east, be they driver, walker, or cyclist, is
from the Wiveton, Blakeney approach along Bridgefoot Lane. From this vantage
point one of the most magnificent views of the entire valley is spread out before them;
this new dwelling will sit right in the middle of this and become one of its most
significant features. This dwelling will undoubtedly give its owners the wonderful views
they seek but it will be at the expense of all the surrounding views, the setting is soft
open landscape that cannot accommodate such brutal architecture.
To give permission for such a building would fly in the face of the AONB designation as
well as the Local Development Framework and would set a dangerous precedent for
much of the land to the south of Blakeney that has been land banked by those with an
eye to the future. Should this proposal get permission more applications would follow
which would be very difficult to reject. This single application has the potential to
change the landscape of north Norfolk forever.
Wiveton Parish Council accepts that planners today believe that there is a room for
modern innovative architecture in north Norfolk, whether those who live here share this
belief is much less certain. The almost 2000 people who have visited our web site
would suggest that it isn't. While new government initiatives clearly seek to
encourage development in the countryside this remains an AONB and that designation
alone should take precedence over any sort of development innovative or otherwise in
open countryside
Should this application be approved, it is quite likely that Wiveton PC, in conjunction
with others would seek a Judicial Review.
REPRESENTATIONS
One hundred and Fourteen letters of objection have been received which raise the
following concerns, (summarised):1. The style of architecture and size of development is not appropriate within the Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
2. The proposed dwelling is far too large and brutalistic in its appearance.
3. The proposed development would result in a serious visual intrusion into the
Development Committee
8
4 September 2014
Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
4. The proposed dwelling would be too large and high and prominent in this part of the
north Norfolk coast.
5. The dwelling would be seen from some considerable distance especially from
Wiveton and the Glaven Valley with its listed churches.
6. The proposed dwelling would be 5 times larger than the existing bungalow and
would contravene Core Strategy Policy HO8, which means the dwelling as it was
built in 1948 and should not include the barns and outbuildings.
7. The proposal would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside.
8. The applicant has failed to engage in dialogue with the local community as
suggested in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
9. The proposed dwelling is outside of the original curtilage of Pyes Farm.
10. The application would be contrary to the aims of Core Strategy Policy EN2 which
seeks to protect visually sensitive skylines.
11. The dwelling is described as two and half storey yet the plans clearly show three
storey.
12. The only way to assimilate a building of the floor area proposed would be for the
building to be spread over a larger area, thus reducing its height.
13. The proposal would set a precedent for further applications in this vulnerable and
precious Conservation Area and AONB.
14. The design is clearly not in keeping with the area and pays scant regard to the
NNDC Design Guide.
15. Potential noise and light pollution would adversely affect the S.S.S.I Blakeney
Esker and Wiveton Downs to which it adjoins.
16. This application is a step to far and provides an ideal opportunity for NNDC to take
a firm stance against insensitive and highly intrusive architecture.
17. As with the previous application the applicants should be required to erect a
scaffold mock-up in order to establish the potential impact of the development.
18. Are we to assume the design of the house meets with the approval of English
Heritage and NNDC as this is the impression given in the submission.
19. The proposal would result in irreversible harm to an area of great beauty.
20. The proposal is totally inappropriate in the context of the mediaeval Glaven Valley
villages and its surrounds.
21. If approved the application would set a precedent that would open the flood gates
to further development of this area to the south of Blakeney.
22. The proposed materials are not flint and brick in conformity with local practice.
23. The existing building is low key and could be restored/improved on the exact same
footprint without altering their rustic quality and without detriment to the landscape
as a whole.
24. The poor design would fail to improve the character of the area as required by
paragraph 64 of the NPPF.
25. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires that great weight should be given to
conserving the landscape and scenic beauty in AONB‟s, clearly this proposal fails
this test.
26. The first views of the Glaven Valley when approaching from the east are from
Bridgefoot Lane and the proposed dwelling would sit right in the middle of this view
and would become one of its most significant features.
27. The proposal would affect the “heritage setting” of two of the Glaven Valleys most
beautiful churches.
28. The claims in the applicant statement that there are precedents elsewhere in the
district for such a development offer no significant support to the case.
29. The applicants seem to have no comprehension that the proposed dwelling is
completely out of keeping with the environment in which it would be situated.
30. The Landscape and Visual Aspect Statement is produced by the same consultants
Development Committee
9
4 September 2014
who produced the planning policy for the Norfolk Coast Partnership and as such
the statement must be considered to be compromised and should be removed
from the submission.
31. The sketches on page 30 of the Design and Access Statement are totally
inaccurate and have led to misunderstandings between the mass of the current
proposal and the previous application, with the result that the building has only
been reduced in height by 0.8m.
32. English Heritage has failed in their responsibility to assess the impact of the
development against Section 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
Act 1990.
33. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that other examples of replacement
dwellings in the countryside set a precedent.
34. This is not the place for modern Innovative architecture.
One letter of comment has been received which suggests that the challenge is to make
the proposed developments prominence in the landscape a positive statement in the
valley without diminishing the valley's essential character and without diminishing the
integrity of the Glaven Valley. In addition it is suggested that whilst the height of the
building has been reduced by 1.8 metres it might be possible to reduce this still further.
In addition, a letter of objection has been received from a solicitor acting on behalf of
the Glaven Valley Protection Group which states that the group has a membership of
over 30 individuals, many of whom have deep-rooted association and commitment to
the valley and serves as a voice for the wider community. The letter is reproduced in
full at Appendix 1, however the concerns raises are summarised as follows:1. The withdrawn scheme should be completely ignored and the current application
considered upon its merits.
2. The applicant be requested to erects a scaffold mock up so that the actual impact
can be clearly gauged.
3. The proposed development cannot be seen as a replacement for the existing
bungalow either in terms of location or characteristics, being located away from the
existing dwelling and over 5 times the size.
4. Suggests that NPPF paragraph 55 is relevant in this case.
5. In order to qualify under paragraph 55 the development must meet four tests, 1)
truly outstanding or innovative, 2) highest standard in architecture, 3) significantly
enhance its immediate setting, and 4) sensitive to the defining characteristics of the
local area.
6. The proposal would fail all four tests as it is not a rural design, would not enhance
its immediate setting and is brutish and insensitive in so many ways.
7. The precedents for the development put forward support of the proposal do not
square with the principle that each application should be considered on its own
merits.
8. The development is not sustainable as claimed by the applicant and there is no
presumption in favour of “sustainable development” where a proposal is within the
AONB.
9. Considers that a replacement dwelling of the same size of up to 50% larger in the
same location as the existing dwelling with a complementary design would not be
controversial.
10. The proposal would set a precedent for other similar developments.
A letter and statement has also been received from Council for the Protection of Rural
England, Norfolk, who objects to the application and make the following comments
(summarised):1. Proposal would not comply with Core Strategy, Policy HO8 as even allowing for
Development Committee
10
4 September 2014
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
permitted development rights the cubic content of the dwelling would be increased
by 2.1 times, 208%.
The attempt to justify the increase by adding the volume of no residential buildings
is not valid.
The five examples cited of precedents elsewhere in the district to justify the
proposal are not valid as they are not direct comparisons.
The determination of this application is not just critical because of the impact it
would have on the landscape of the AONB and Glaven Valley but as a precedent
for other similar developments.
Even if the proposal complied with Core Strategy Policy HO8 it would still
comprehensively fail to comply with the NPPF, paragraph 55.
NNPF paragraph 14 states that the determination must be made in accordance
with the development plan unless materials considerations indicate otherwise.
The proposal also fails to comply with the environmental policies contained in the
Core Strategy.
The statement is reproduced in full at Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Blakeney Parish Council – Object strongly to the application on the following grounds:The proposal is to build the new house almost 100 metres away from the site of the
existing bungalow, in a very open position in clear view from the Glaven Valley. It
should therefore properly be considered as a new house in the countryside rather than
a replacement dwelling. The NNDC‟s Local Development Framework Core Strategy
makes it clear (Policies HO4 & HO5) that new houses in the countryside can only be
allowed when they meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and people working in
agriculture, forestry or other essential workers connected with the land who cannot be
housed elsewhere. This clearly does not arise in this case.
A replacement dwelling
If considered to be a replacement dwelling, our previous objections apply to this
proposal as before, which were as follows.
1. It is totally contrary to Policy HO8 of the NNDC‟s Local Development Framework
Core Strategy which has been adopted to protect the character of North Norfolk‟s
countryside. The policy states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings in
the 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 clearly fails in both respects. The proposed new dwelling is enormously
larger than the existing dwelling in plan area, height and scale and will have a
substantially increased impact on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The
floor area of the proposal is more than four times the size of the existing dwelling.
(The floor area of the barn to be demolished cannot be considered in this respect as it
is not part of the existing dwelling.)
2. It is contrary to Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy, which has been adopted in order
to protect the Norfolk Coast AONB. The policy states that proposals that have an
adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be
located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the
development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts. The proposal clearly fails this test
as there are no benefits to outweigh the damaging impact the development will have
on the appearance of the surrounding countryside, and a house of this size and scale
could clearly be accommodated on a less sensitive site.
Development Committee
11
4 September 2014
3. It is contrary to Policy EN2 which has been adopted for the protection and
enhancement of landscape and settlement character. The policy states that
development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance;
 Visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features.
 The setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas.
This proposal, because of its height, scale and prominent position within the AONB
and the Glaven Valley Conservation Area will have a seriously damaging impact on the
landscape, standing out obtrusively within this very sensitive landscape and in no way
can be considered to enhance it.
This is a highly sensitive site which the above Policies have been designed to protect,
and a proposal such as this one cannot be allowed to over-ride them. If approved, it
would set a dangerous precedent for further, equally damaging, developments in the
North Norfolk countryside. The Norfolk Coast AONB is an important resource for those
living in the area and, equally importantly, for the tourism on which so much
employment relies and it should be protected with great care and vision.
North Norfolk District Council have had the vision to set out, in their LDF, clear policies
to protect the special character of the countryside, and proposals for development
within the countryside must follow these policies if this character is to be preserved.
Precedents
The precedents quoted by the applicants in order to justify this proposal are not similar
in any respect. Although technically in the „countryside‟ as not being within the areas
of the villages defined for development, they are, nevertheless all either surrounded
by, or adjacent to, other existing houses.
The attempted use of these „precedents‟ does emphasis the danger of allowing the
current proposal to go ahead. It would undoubtedly create a precedent for future large
houses in the countryside, completely contrary to the NNDC‟s carefully considered and
clear policies designed to protect the precious quality of the North Norfolk AONB and
Glaven Valley Conservation Area. If this proposal is approved it will open the gates to
further developments of this type which it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to
resist.
Environment Agency – No objection
Norfolk Coast Partnership – Suggest that the proposal does not appear to comply with
Policy HO8 of the Local Plan principally due to its scale and location.
The dwelling is considerably larger than the dwelling it is proposed to replace. The
inclusion of other structures such as greenhouses and agricultural buildings within the
area of the dwelling proposed for replacement, as used in the Planning Statement
(2.2.1), distorts the intention of Policy HO8, in which it is clearly the size of the existing
dwelling that is to be used for comparison purposes. The proposed dwelling has a
much greater footprint and height than the existing bungalow (i.e. dwelling).
Furthermore, the proposed replacement dwelling is located away from the location of
the dwelling it is proposed to replace, in a more exposed position and is designed with
views to the north east, so inevitably there is also likely to be relatively high visibility
from this direction. Even in quite distant views from this quarter this is likely to be the
case.
In common with many planning statements relating to proposed developments, the
planning statement references and quotes in parts various paragraphs of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) but omits to reference or quote paragraphs 115
(regarding the weight that should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty
in AONBs) and footnote 9 to paragraph 14 (which indicates that paragraph 115 can
Development Committee
12
4 September 2014
outweigh other considerations in the NPPF).
Despite the claims of overall landscape improvements for the application, it is unclear
whether the proposal would result in net public benefit and this is not sufficient to
outweigh the conflict with policies. Approval of an application based on this
interpretation of policies, particularly Policy HO8, is likely to set a precedent for other
inappropriate applications that would be difficult to resist.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Overall, the Landscape
Officer concurs with the findings of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
(LVIA) and does not consider that the impact of the development on landscape
character or the visual impact of the development will be significant or detrimental to
the AONB. The Landscape Officer therefore considers that the development is
compliant with the requirements of Policies EN1, EN2 and EN4 of the Core Strategy,
subject to the implementation of the landscaping strategy as identified in the LVIA.
The Landscape Officer recommends that a condition is placed on any permission
given requiring the submission of a Landscape Mitigation and Planting Plan and
Maintenance Strategy covering a period on no less than ten years.
Whilst in terms of wildlife interests the Landscape Officer has indicated that a
Protected Species Scoping Survey did not reveal any roosting bats within the buildings
on site although a number of bats of different species were seen to be foraging around
and commuting through the site. The barns on the site supported nesting birds
however three owl boxes within the buildings did not reveal any signs of nesting barn
owls. The grassland around the site had the potential to support reptiles. Therefore
subject to the implementation of the recommendations, the development would have a
neutral to beneficial impact on biodiversity in accordance with Policy EN9 of the Core
Strategy.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Building Control - No comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Has no
objections to the proposed demolition on the basis that: The buildings in question are not of any particular architectural or historic interest, and
as existing, the site has a rather disparate and jumbled feel which could only be
enhanced by their removal.
Whilst in terms of the replacement building, there has already been much discussion
about its form and design and numerous iterations of the plans. This is reflected in the
latest scheme which has now addressed the original substantive concerns; i.e. that the
contemporary approach lacked local distinctiveness, and that the scale and form of the
building would make it unduly dominant within the landscape.
Hence, with the building now properly „grounded‟ on site by virtue of the traditional and
natural materials proposed, and with the negotiated reductions in scale, Conservation
and Design conclude that the development would not harm the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area or other heritage assets.
Therefore, whilst there are still subjective aspects of the scheme which do not overly
appeal, there are now no objective reasons to object to this application. Overall, it is
considered that the gains to be had in securing a bespoke piece of contemporary
architecture and in rationalizing the site would more than outweigh the concerns
around the larger new build. Should Committee be minded to approve the application,
it is recommended that conditions be imposed requiring the submission of the
proposed materials to be used in the construction of the new building.
Development Committee
13
4 September 2014
English Heritage - In contrast to the original scheme which had a very steep roof, which
gave the roof space a bulky appearance and made it look like a 3 storey building the
proposed dwelling has been reduced in height by 1.8m, the amendments also include
a recessed roof with a shallower pitch and dormer windows which sit back within the
roof form. Lowering the buildings height would reduce its prominence in the landscape
and the amendments to the dormer windows have simplified the roof form helped to
reduce the massing of the roof, thereby improving the relationship between the roof
and dormer windows which was a previous concern.
It is therefore considered that on balanced the revisions have helped to assimilate the
building more successfully within its setting. As a result English Heritage no longer
objects to the proposals impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
Natural England - Does not consider that the proposal would have a significant
effect features for which The North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA, Ramsar and The Wash
and North Norfolk Coast SAC have been classified, or will damage or destroy the
interest features for which Wiveton Downs, Bilsey Hill and the North Norfolk Coast
SSSI‟s have been notified.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy 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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 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).
Development Committee
14
4 September 2014
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Landscape Impact
4. Impact on heritage assets.
APPRAISAL
Members will recall that they visited this site on 22 August 2013, prior to the previous
application (13/0828) for a two and half storey replacement dwelling subsequently
being withdrawn by the applicant.
The site is situated in the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy and is also within the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where Policies
HO8, EN1, EN2, EN4, and EN8 are applicable.
Policy HO8 states that 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.
In determining what constitutes a „disproportionately large increase‟ account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been
extended or could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing
character of the area.
For the purposes of this policy „original dwelling‟ means the house as it was built, or as
existed on the 1st July 1948, whichever is the later.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect,
on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it;
 is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or
is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
 does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
 seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken
as they arise.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities
of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals be informed by, and be sympathetic
to, the distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development Committee
15
4 September 2014
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
 the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character)
 gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
 distinctive settlement character
 the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of
wildlife
 visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
 nocturnal character
 the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
Policy EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. 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.
Development proposals, extensions and alterations to existing buildings and
structures will be expected to:










Have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide;
Incorporate sustainable construction principles contained in policy EN6;
Make efficient use of land while respecting the density, character, landscape and
biodiversity of the surrounding area;
Be suitably designed for the context within which they are set;
Retain existing important landscaping and natural features and include landscape
enhancement schemes that are compatible with the Landscape Character
Assessment and ecological network mapping;
Ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the
surrounding area;
Make a clear distinction between public and private spaces and enhance the public
realm;
Incorporate footpaths, green links and networks to the surrounding area;
Ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible; and
Where appropriate, contain a variety and mix of uses, buildings and landscaping.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets, (in this case the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area), and other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that
would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not
be permitted.
Furthermore, the character and appearance of Conservation Areas will be preserved,
and where possible enhanced, and, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, area
appraisals and management plans will be prepared and used to assist this aim and to
encourage the highest quality building design, townscape creation and landscaping in
keeping with the defined areas.
In addition, the following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework,
(March 2012) are considered to be relevant.
Development Committee
16
4 September 2014
Paragraph 60 - 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 115 - Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic
beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which
have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The
conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these
areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.
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. Substantial harm to or loss of a
grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or
loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I
and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional.
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, including securing its optimum viable use.
Paragraph 137 - Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites 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.
At the present time the site is occupied by the existing bungalow, which has a floor
area of some 160 sq. metres and is situated close to the entrance off the Saxlingham
Road. Under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development )
Order 2008 a single storey extension could be added to the rear of this property which
would give a total floor area of 244 sq. metres. Whilst adjacent to the northern entrance
to the site is a single storey rectangular barn of asbestos and steel sheeting which is
used for garaging/storage and has a floor area of some 126 sq. metres, giving a total
potential domestic floor area of 370 sq. metres. Whilst further east along the north
boundary are three holiday cottages, which are to be retained, beyond which is a more
modern open fronted barn of asbestos and steel cladding which has a floor area of
some 252 sq. metres. In addition, there are other buildings within the site including a
summer house, and Polly tunnels and greenhouses which would be removed as part
of the scheme.
In contrast the proposed dwelling would have lower and upper ground floors and also
an element of first floor accommodation and have a total floor area of 332 sq. metres.
In addition, a further 183 sq. metres of floor space which would be used as ancillary
accommodation is proposed giving a total floor area of 515 sq. metres, including 100
sq. metres of space to be used as storage and garaging.
Development Committee
17
4 September 2014
Schedule of floor areas:Existing dwelling including garaging and ancillary storage
Existing bungalow
Possible extension under Permitted Development Rights
Detached garaging and ancillary storage within barn closest to dwelling
160 m2
84 m2
126 m2
Total floor area
370 m2
Proposed dwelling including garaging and ancillary storage
Lower ground floor
Ground floor
First floor
Ancillary accommodation, library/games room/storage, garaging
118 m2
157 m2
57 m2
180 m2
Total floor area
515 m2
Net increase in floor area compared to existing dwelling
including garaging storage
145 m2
Whilst in terms of the dwelling location although it is proposed that this would be some
76 metres further to the east, due to changes in ground level, which in the area of the
dwelling would be lowered by some 800 millimetres, the ridge height would only be
approximately 2.8 metres above that of the bungalow.
As far as Policy HO8 is concerned this makes no reference to the need for the
replacement dwelling to either be on the same footprint as the existing property or for it
to be in close proximity or indeed within the immediate curtilage. Instead, the policy
concentrates on whether the replacement would result in a disproportionately large
increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling, and whether it would materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
In addition, the Policy makes allowances for the fact that the existing dwelling could be
extended under Permitted Development Rights.
In terms of the increase in scale of the dwelling, based solely on the net increase in
floor area of some 145 sq. metres on balance this is not considered to be excessive.
Whilst in respect of the height of the dwelling, although the tallest part would be some
3.8 metres more than the existing dwelling the two wings would be of an equivalent
height.
Turning to the second criteria although the position chosen for the dwelling would be
some distance further to the east than the existing property the fact that the ground
level in this area is slightly lower coupled with the proposed further reduction in ground
level would mitigate against any increase in the visual impact of the dwelling. The
photomontages submitted as part of the Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal
prepared by Sheils Flynn, Chartered Landscape Architects, illustrate that when viewed
from two viewpoints, 1.6 metres above ground level along the Langham Road, referred
to as 5 and 6 to the east of Wiveton Downs, the closet point to the site of which is
approximately 560 metres, the dwelling would be seen against the backdrop of woods
to the west of the site, or masked by a coppice of trees. Whilst from viewpoint 4 the
closest to the site at 380 metres, views of the site through a gateway in the roadside
hedge would be masked by the coppice of trees in the middle of the field. However, it is
Development Committee
18
4 September 2014
possible that at one location between viewpoints 4 and 5, which is some 390 metres
from the site, it might be possible to see the top half of the roof of the main body of the
building against the sky line above the roadside and field hedges. Whilst further to the
east towards Wiveton any views of the site would be interrupted by roadside and field
hedges. Furthermore, any impact of the dwelling would further be mitigated by the
palette of materials which include smut clay pantiles to the roof together with natural
timber boarding and Norfolk red brick to the walls, which once weathered would only
contribute to the recessive appearance of the proposed dwelling.
Therefore in terms of Policy HO8 on balance it is considered that the proposal would
not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling or materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
As far as the design of the dwelling is concerned although the proposal does not
adhere strictly to the vernacular form of the area, Core Strategy Policy EN4 does allow
for innovative and energy efficient design, which it suggests will be “particularly
encouraged”. 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 does however go
on to suggest that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.
It this particular case it is considered that this is a site which is capable of
accommodating a contemporary style dwelling for the 21st Century rather than a
pastiche of the past, and that the building is properly grounded on the site by virtue of
the traditional and natural materials, and its additive and simple form. As such, whilst
there are subjective elements to the scheme it is considered that the dwelling would
assimilate successfully in this location. This view is confirmed by the Council‟s
Conservation and Design Officer who considers that the gains to be had in securing a
bespoke piece of contemporary architecture and the rationalisation of the site as a
whole more than outweigh the concerns surrounding the larger new building.
As far as the impact on the wider landscape the Landscape and Visual Impact
Appraisal, which has been prepared in accordance with recognised standards and
guidelines, suggests that the landscape of the site does not have particularly
significant inherent value; however it is located within a highly distinctive and sensitive
landscape, of exceptional visual and ecological value. The combination of elevated
land, long seaward views and the mosaic of a heathland landscape makes the site and
surrounding landscape one of the feature landscapes of the AONB.
The appraisal goes on to suggest that the development and proposed landscape
enhancements have been influenced by the vision for the landscape character as
identified in the Integrated Landscape Guidance for the AONB, as a result the impact
on the landscape character can be seen as slightly beneficial. It is suggested that
discordant features within the landscape will be removed as part of the proposals
(poplar trees, redundant buildings and planting) and new features introduced which
re-create lost elements of the landscape such as replacement hedgerows and a
mosaic of heathland and native planting. The proposed building would create a focal
point within the farm complex more comparable to a traditional farm holding, albeit with
a more contemporary design.
The visual assessment notes that the zone of potential visual impact is restricted to the
immediate surrounds of the site on the western, northern and eastern flanks, as views
from the south are restricted by the presence of the esker. In general views are limited
Development Committee
19
4 September 2014
to those from the public highway and some rights of way, mainly through gaps in
hedgerows and field accesses. The majority of views of the proposed building will be
seen against the backdrop of land, with the only view of the building above the skyline
from the Wiveton/Langham road.
The LVIA concludes that many of the visual effects of the development will absorbed
by the complex elements of the landscape – topography, trees, copses and
hedgerows, and that views of the development will be transitory as glimpses are
gained from field accesses and gaps in hedgerows. It is also proposed that in time,
once landscape planting has established, short distance views of the building will be
reduced further.
Having assessed the content of the LVIA the Landscape Officer has concluded that
overall the visual impact of the development is not seen as significant and would not
detract from the overall qualities of the AONB. Therefore subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies EN1,
EN2 and EN4.
In terms of the potential impact on heritage assets, in addition to the site being within
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, the other principle assets in the area are the
Parish Churches of, Blakeney, Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea, which are grade I
listed buildings. St. Nicholas Church, Blakeney is situated on higher ground some 1.0
km to the north east and the upper half of the tower is visible from the site above trees
at Howe Hill. Whilst St Mary‟s Church, Wiveton and St. Margaret's Church,
Cley-next-the-Sea are set in the valley bottom north north-east of the site
approximately 1.3 km and 1.9 km way respectively.
When approaching the site from the east along Bridgefoot Lane the village of Wiveton
and the parish church are seen in the foreground, as indicated from the photomontage,
Viewpoint 10, with the site itself some 2.4 km beyond being seen against the backdrop
of rising ground and the tree line beyond. Whist the upper half of the tower of Blakeney
church is visible in above trees some distance to the northwest. From this direction
given the distance involved, together with intervening features and the recessive
nature of the proposed materials it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would
have a significantly harmful impact on either of the setting of these churches or indeed
the wider Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Whilst in respect of the view from Church
Lane, Cley-next-the-Sea, some 2.3 km from the site, although the site would be seen
in the context of both the Parish Churches of Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea which are
in the foreground, given the distance involved and the fact that the dwelling would be
seen against rising ground it is not considered that the proposal significantly affect
these listed buildings or their setting. Whilst closer to the site from the Wiveton Road,
just to the south of The Old Rectory there would be a fairly open view of the site just to
the south of Rubbery Hill. From here the site would be some 700 metres, to the south
west with the dwelling itself seen both in its landscape setting and against the
backdrop of trees. Whilst it is accepted that the dwelling from this location would be
visible in the landscape it is considered that it would not have a significantly adverse
impact on the setting of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and any harm has to be
weighed against the general site improvements.
Both English Heritage and the Council‟s Conservation and Design Section have
indicated that they consider that the proposal would not harm the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and other heritage assets, and as
such would accord with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN8 and NPPF
Paragraphs 132 and 134.
Development Committee
20
4 September 2014
As far as the concerns raised in the letter from the solicitor acting on behalf of the
Glaven Valley Protection Group, and also the reference to NPPF paragraph 55 in the
letter from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Norfolk, which states that
"this is central to the case made by the applicant for approval", to clarify the applicant
has not submitted the application for consideration under paragraph 55, and their
submission makes no reference to this. Officers therefore consider that the reference
to this in representations is not relevant to the consideration of this application.
In terms of the concerns raised that the proposal would set a precedent for other
similar developments, as Members will be aware each application needs to be
considered on its individual merits. Furthermore, although five examples of
replacement dwellings under Policy HO8 within north Norfolk have been cited as part
of the application these are not considered to be relevant to the determination of this
application and do not formed part of the analysis.
In summary, the application has raised a considerable amount of concern primarily in
relation to the proposed re-siting of the dwelling, its scale, massing and design and its
impact on the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the character
and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Whilst these concerns are fully understood they have to be balanced against the
relevant Development Plan policies and guidance contained in the National Planning
Policy Framework together with responses from statutory consultees. Based on these
considerations although the proposed dwelling would not be on the same footprint as
the dwelling it would replace this is not a policy requirement providing the dwelling
would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling and materially increase its appearance on the surrounding
countryside. When taking into account the size of the existing dwelling, together with
garaging and storage and the level of additional accommodation which could be
provided under Permitted Development Rights it is not considered that the proposed
dwelling would result in a significant increase in scale. Whilst due to its proposed siting
on lower ground the overall ridge height would not be significantly higher than the
dwelling it would replace. Furthermore, whilst it is conceded that from close to the site
to the east it is possible that the upper half of the roof of the dwelling might be seen
against the skyline, from other vantage points to the east and north east of the site it
would be seen again the backdrop of rising ground and trees beyond. As a result
subject to the use of recessive materials on balance it is considered that the dwelling
would not detract from the special qualities of the AONB and would not harm the
character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area or other heritage
assets.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including
the submission of a landscape and ecological
management plan and precise details of the materials to be used in the
construction of the dwelling.
Development Committee
21
4 September 2014
3.
BRINTON - PF/14/0793 - Retention of timber buildings for use as storage; The
Hawthorns, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr G Riches
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 August 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0495 PF - Use of land for storage and milling of timber and erection of
storage/workshop building (part retrospective)
Refused 26/06/2013
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks the retention of timber buildings for storage purposes on a small
parcel of agricultural land. Retrospective applications should be determined as if the
development has not already taken place. The site is approximately 170m in length
and where it fronts the highway is approximately 43m wide tapering to 10m in width at
its southern end. The buildings are situated in two locations on the site; the first being a
cluster of small shed type structures that are joined together and lie approximately 55m
south of the highway and towards the western boundary. This building is indicated as
being comprised of a field shelter, water tank, chicken coop, tool/machinery/hay store
and tea shed. Footprint of approximately 34sqm. Maximum height of 2.3m. The
second building is situated at the rear of the site approximately 4.3m north of the
southern boundary and approximately 1.4m east of the western boundary. Maximum
height of 2.5m with a footprint of approximately 15sqm.
The northern boundary (road frontage) benefits from mature hedgerow as does much
of the western boundary. A post and wire fence approximately 1m in height runs
along the eastern and southern boundaries and part of the western boundary. A mixed
hedgerow has been recently planted along the eastern boundary. The site is mostly
grassed with a small vegetable plot located adjacent the northern boundary.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Brettle in order for the Committee to be aware of the issues of the
wider site and due to the level of local concern.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
 the site is in open countryside at the entrance to the Glaven Valley and is
visually a very sensitive and important area
 it is sub-division of a larger field.
 The sheds were erected without permission over a year ago; there has been no
agricultural use during that time. There are no animals and only a tiny
vegetable plot
 The area of grass is mowed like a garden
 There is a letter box and the sheds have a chimney
 The sheds and field are being used for recreational purposes - the applicant
confirmed this at the Parish meeting (see minutes attached at Appendix 2)
 The size of the site means it is not a viable agricultural unit
 If permitted the Council will actively encourage further sub-division of this and
Development Committee
22
4 September 2014
other fields in the open countryside with each owner allowed to erect a range of
sheds for recreational use simply by saying their intended use will be
agricultural.
 This is demonstrated by another part of the field already having a range of
buildings which are being occasionally used for overnight stays
REPRESENTATIONS
22 objecting representations received on the following grounds (summarised):
 site is an eyesore
 field should be returned to grazing or similar
 out of keeping with the surrounding countryside
 highway not suited to additional vehicular traffic that the development would
generate
 the application is retrospective and illegal
 change of use to leisure could set a precedent resulting in further
developments
 development urbanises a rural setting
 development here is growing like a cancer on the landscape
 site lies close to a watercourse that runs through Sharrington drains into the
Glaven Valley. Development could potentially pollute this watercourse
 using machinery within a hay barn would be a fire hazard
 what machinery is proposed?
 consider intention may be for buildings to be inhabited in the future
 disappointed with the Council. Buildings have been ordered to be removed
over a year ago but they remain and more have been erected
 planning permission already refused on adjacent land
 proposal would detract from the appearance of the site and fail to conserve the
special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area
 application is a pre-cursor for residential use of the site
 site has look and feel of a residence including a letter box
 application does not include change of use to recreational/leisure
 buildings are out of scale with the size of the land
In addition several of the representations raise concerns which relate directly to the
adjoining parcels of land and not to the application site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection - subject to the use of these buildings being
ancillary to the agricultural use of the land, in relation to highways issues only, as this
proposal does not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic, Norfolk
County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of consent
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection - The
buildings are of a modest scale comparable to the size of the small holding. The
materials will weather down over time which will assist with integrating the buildings
into the environment. No conditions are recommended.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
Development Committee
23
4 September 2014
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Use of the land and buildings
2. Impact on the surrounding landscape
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies SS2, EN2, EN4, and CT5 are
relevant.
Policy SS2 states that in areas designated as Countryside development will be limited
to that which requires a rural location and includes agriculture; forestry; extensions to
existing businesses and new-build employment generating proposals where there is a
particular environmental or operational justification. Policy EN2 requires that proposals
for development demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials protect,
conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness
of the area. As far as Policy EN4 is concerned this requires that all development be
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness and be suitably designed
for the context within which they are set.
The application seeks the retention of timber buildings for use in conjunction with the
agricultural use of the land. The parcel of land previously formed part of a larger parcel
of land which had been registered as a smallholding. The application site is 0.37ha and
does not therefore benefit from permitted development rights for agricultural buildings,
as provided within the General Permitted Development Order 1995, as amended.
The adjoining land to the east of the site is currently under enforcement investigation,
however activities outside of the application site should not form part of consideration
of this application.
Whilst concern has been raised that the land is not in agricultural use and that instead
a change of use has occurred, Officers consider that there is no evidence to
substantiate a change of use has occurred. The applicant has advised in writing that
the intention is to use the land to keep chickens, ducks, sheep and goats or similar and
for growing of vegetables. They have advised that their intention is to increase the size
of the vegetable plot and to grow fruit trees. It is considered that all of these activities
fall within the definition of agriculture. Agriculture is defined in the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, s336 as:
Development Committee
24
4 September 2014
“agriculture” includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the
breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of
food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of
land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds,
and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for
other agricultural purposes, and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly"
It is therefore considered that this application should be considered on its merits as
proposed and whether the buildings as proposed comply with the policies of the
development plan.
The Council's Landscape Officer considers that the buildings are of a modest scale
comparable to the size of the small holding and that the materials will weather down
over time which will assist with integrating the buildings into the environment. The
buildings are considered to be suitably designed for the context within which they sit
and by virtue of their scale, form and materials would conserve the character of the
area in accordance with Policies EN2 and EN4.
The County Highway Officer has advised that this proposal does not affect the current
traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic. It is therefore considered that the proposal
complies with Policy CT5.
Given that the proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the
agricultural use of the land, subject to the imposition of a condition that removes
permitted development rights for the erection of any further gates, fences, walls or
other means of enclosure, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
development plan and is recommended for approval. Given the concerns of the Parish
Council in respect of the recent sub-division of the adjoining land this condition, whilst
not preventing further subdivision in ownership terms, would nonetheless prevent
further physical subdivision without consent.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
1. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions
of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting
that Order with or without modification), no fence, gate or wall, shall be erected within
or around the planning unit subject to this permission, other than in accordance with
any details indicated on the approved plan, unless planning permission has been first
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order to safeguard the character of the countryside in accordance with Policy EN 2
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
25
4 September 2014
4.
ITTERINGHAM - PF/14/0786 - Installation of access steps, replacement door,
side ramp and rear ramp; Fair Meadow House, Wolterton Road for Mr & Mrs G
Applin
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 August 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development in the Countryside
Conservation Area
Unclassified Road (adopted)
Provision and Retention of Local Facilities and Services
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030940 PF - Alterations to community shop and formation of gallery access
steps
Approved 04/08/2003
PF/10/1131 PF
Variation of condition 3 of planning reference: 03/0368 to permit retail use of the studio
for three days a week
Approved 23/11/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to install access steps, replacement door, side ramp and rear ramp. The
application as originally submitted and advertised included reference to entrance
gates. However, as they are proposed to be less than 2m in height they do not
require planning permission and have since been removed from the description.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. J. Perry-Warnes with regard to the following issues:
1) Parish Council objections to the application
2) The number of objections to the proposal
PARISH COUNCIL
Itteringham Parish Council object to the proposal on the following grounds:
 The shop address the needs of disabled persons by serving them at their cars and
making home deliveries
 Wheelchair/disabled access to the rear of the shop would not permit access to the
shop as there are a number of obstacles to overcome between the rear of the shop
and the retail area - including internal steps and lack of room in the shop for
wheelchairs
 The security of the shop would be jeopardised - a member of staff would have to
leave the retail area/post office to attend to the disabled person at the rear door
 The proposed fence would block light from the shop's kitchen and storeroom
 The shop has flooded in the past and the proposed changes to the rear of the
property could potentially increase the risk of flooding in the future
 The change of use from private to public access to the rear of the shop would
impact on the privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring property
 The track to the side of the property is 3.5 metres and a ramp will narrow the area
making it impossible for farm machinery/private vehicles to access the track
thereby restricting their right of access
 Safety issues - disabled/wheelchair users using an area used by farm machinery
Development Committee
26
4 September 2014


and private vehicles - the ramp would be dangerous in the winter months
The change to the front steps would place users in the path of traffic accessing and
egressing the track
The steps would be directed alongside a large plate-glass window which in case of
a fire the window could blow out over those escaping from the fire
REPRESENTATIONS
Seventeen letters of objection have been received and one letter of comment. The
following is a summary of the issues raised:













The shop address the needs of disabled persons by serving them at their cars and
making home deliveries
Wheelchair/disabled access to the rear of the shop would not permit access to the
shop as there are a number of obstacles to overcome between the rear of the shop
and the retail area - including internal steps and lack of room in the shop for
wheelchairs
The security of the shop would be jeopardised - a member of staff would have to
leave the retail area/post office to attend to the disabled person at the rear door
The proposed fence would block light from the shop's kitchen and storeroom
The shop has flooded in the past and the proposed changes to the rear of the
property could potentially increase the risk of flooding in the future
The change of use from private to public access to the rear of the shop would
impact on the privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring property
The track to the side of the property is 3.5 metres and a ramp will narrow the area
making it impossible for farm machinery/private vehicles to access the track
thereby restricting their right of access
The fencing/gates would impact on delivery vehicles manoeuvring at the rear of the
property
Safety issues - disabled/wheelchair users using an area used by farm machinery
and private vehicles - the ramp would be dangerous in the winter months
Highway safety - parked cars dropping off disabled persons would further obscure
vision at an already blind corner
The change to the front steps would place users in the path of traffic accessing and
egressing the track - the junction has limited visibility
The steps would be directed alongside a large plate-glass window - in case of a
fire, the window could blow out over those escaping from the fire
Urbanisation of a rural area
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority: No objection
Building Control: No objection - in this instance the window and front steps would be
acceptable
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design): Having
viewed the application C&D did not wish to make any detailed comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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
Development Committee
27
4 September 2014
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for
new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Pedestrian Safety - particularly the disabled and wheelchair users and their carers
2. Vehicle access
3. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring property
4. Impact on the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The application is in relation to the community shop which lies adjacent to Fair
Meadow House and is owned by the occupants of Fair Meadow House. The shop is
leased to the Community Village Shop.
The site lies in an area designated as Countryside. Acceptable development within
such a designated area is limited, however, development which aids the rural
economy, enables the retention of village facilities i.e. village shop/post office and
promotes the 'North Norfolk' brand which contributes to the tourist economy is in
principle permitted. Thus in terms of Policies SS2, SS5 and CT3 the proposal complies
with the adopted Core Strategy and paragraph 28 of the NPPF.
The current application seeks to make several minor changes to the exterior of the
community run shop/post office.
The development proposes to replace a set of steep steps which lie to the northern
aspect of the shop front. The replacement steps would direct customers to the side of
the property in the direction of a vehicle access track which lies to the side of the
property. Currently, the steps discharge directly on to the road. Objectors have stated
that directing people towards the track would be dangerous. However, the track only
serves Fair Meadow House's garage, shop (delivery vehicles), agricultural land and
vehicle access to the neighbouring cottage. Given the low volume of traffic entering
and exiting the track it is considered that the repositioned steps would be a safer option
to that which current exists.
Development Committee
28
4 September 2014
Objectors also raised concerns that the repositioned step would pass in front of a
plate-glass window, which in the event of a fire could shatter onto the steps. The
District Council Building Control officer has been consulted on this matter, in this
instance he believes the risk of the window shattering and injuring someone on the
steps would be negligible.
At present access to the rear of the shop is via the gravel surfaced track. The proposal
is to remove a 1.2 metre strip of gravel (to the side of the property) and replace it with a
concrete surface, in effect creating a smooth surfaced ramp which could be used by
the elderly, disabled, wheelchair uses and their carers, delivery persons and refuse
collectors. The ramp would be marginally higher than the gravel surface but not so
much higher that it would impede traffic from using the track. Objections have been
received regarding the safety of the elderly, disabled and wheelchair uses and their
carers using this ramp, stating: the track is narrow and there would not be enough
room for individuals and vehicles/farm machinery to pass, furthermore it would be icy
and/or slippery during the winter months. It has also been brought to the Local
Planning Authorities attention that heavy farm machinery driving back and forth over
the ramp would damage the concrete resulting in a cracked and pitted surface which
would be dangerous for those with mobility issues. It was also stated that mud from
farm machinery would make the ramp slippery.
It is considered that the volume of traffic entering and exiting the track and the numbers
of elderly, disabled and wheelchair users and their carers using the ramp would be low,
therefore, risk of accident/injury would also be low. The County Council Highway
Authority has been consulted and they raise no objections to the proposal. Initially, the
Highway Authority objected to a “traffic mirror” being installed on the front wall of the
property. The installation of a mirror has now been removed from the application.
The matter of damage to the access ramp by vehicles would be a civil matter.
The proposed ramp would extend to the rear of the property, terminating at the back
door. The concrete paving to the rear of the property would also form a hard-standing
area for the shop's refuse bins. The property is lower than the ground to its rear and
surface water run-off has in the past flooded the shop. Several objectors have
commented that the alterations to the rear would increase the risk of flooding. It is
believed that the alterations to the rear of the property would not exacerbate the risk of
flooding.
The plans indicate the rear of the property would be enclosed within a 1.8 metre close
board fence with gates. This would aid in securing the rear of the property. Again,
concerns have been raised that the fencing could have the reverse effect, in that
somebody could hide behind the fence and attack anybody locking-up or opening-up
the shop. The shop is also a post-office with a time-lock safe. Furthermore, it has been
raised that the fencing and gates could impact on the manoeuvrability of delivery
vehicles, the neighbouring property's parking area and would prevent large farm
machinery from accessing the field to the rear of the shop. The fencing/gates,
however, being less than 2 metres in height are permitted development (The Town and
Country (General Permitted Development Orders) 1995). The Council therefore has
no control of over that part of the development.
Given the area is within a designated Conservation Area the District Council's
Conservation and Design (C&D) Team were consulted. Having reviewed the
application they have judged the alterations to be of a minor nature and had no
detailed comments to make. The proposal is acceptable in design terms, preserves the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is considered to comply with
Development Committee
29
4 September 2014
Policies EN2 and EN8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
In terms of Policy EN4 (Basic Amenity Criteria): the occupant of the neighbouring
property has expressed concern regarding the impact public access to the rear of the
property would have on her privacy and garden amenity. It is considered that the
number of people using the proposed rear (disabled) access would be low and it is
considered that there would be no significant loss of privacy/garden amenity to the
occupant of the neighbouring cottage. The proposal is considered to comply with the
aims of Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
In terms of Policy CT5 (The transport impact on new development): It is acknowledged
that the rear fencing/gates could cause vehicle access problems. This, however, is a
right-of-access issue, which is a civil matter. The Highway Authority has raised no
objection.
In terms of matters relating to planning, the proposed development accords with the
aims of policies within the Adopted Core Strategy and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions listed below
1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section
91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions
of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5.
LUDHAM - PF/14/0664 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 14 Catfield
Road for Mr A Tedder
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 July 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/0415 PF - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 09/05/2014
Development Committee
30
4 September 2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a two storey dwelling on a plot of land that is currently part of the garden
of 14 Catfield Road. A three bedroom property is proposed with a footprint of
approximately 58 sqm. The dwelling would be set some 12m back from the road
frontage and proposes a shared driveway, parking and turning area with number 14.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous Committee for a site visit.
Originally referred by Cllr. Williams having regard to the following planning issue:
Highway safety
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:
 the property is not in keeping with the character of the area
 the road at that point is narrow, with huge congestion issues at school pick
up/drop off times - this property would only add to the issues and would
increase levels of congestion.
 additional traffic and additional properties would exacerbate the current issues
 the Parish Council recommends any outdoor lights associated with the
proposed development should be:
 fully shielded (enclosed in full glass cut-off fitments)
 directed downwards (mounted horizontally to the ground and not tilted
upwards)
 switched on only when needed (no dusk to dawn lamps)
 white light low energy lamps (Philips Cosmopolis or fluorescent) and not
orange or pink sodium sources)
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways: Objects, recommends refusal.
This proposal is to be served from Catfield Road (C405) a 4A2 Link Road in the Norfolk
County Council Route Hierarchy which at the point adjacent the application site is
subject to a 30 Mph speed limit. My recent site inspection, carried out outside of peak
travel times, indicates the C405 to be subject to steady intermittent traffic flows.
The proposal suggests the sub-division of the curtilage of the existing dwelling 14
Catfield Road. Vehicular access to the proposed and existing dwelling will be gained
via a centrally located access point on the sites roadside frontage.
My site inspection reveals the maximum level of visibility from the required 2.4m
setback at the access point to be restricted to some 9m to both the north (traffic
direction) and south. The C405 at this point is a location where it is acceptable to use
visibility guidance provided in 'Manual For Streets' (Communities & Local Government
& Department of Transport (2007)) and from this document and on-site observation I
believe it reasonable to expect a new access at this point to provide visibility sight lines
of 59m X 2.4m x 59m commensurate with 85th Percentile vehicular speeds of 37Mph.
Visibility is measured from land under the applicants control and highway
Development Committee
31
4 September 2014
verge/footway only, and in this case this amounts to the site roadside frontage
(approximately 14m) and very narrow strip of verge to the north. The submitted
photographs provided in the Design & Access Statement shows visibility both over
land outside of the applicants control and to points within the carriageway rather than
to the nearside carriageway edge which is the correct method.
It is therefore the case that visibility available at the access with the C405 amounts to
only15% of safety recommendations to both directions.
In addition to the highway safety concerns regarding the acceptability of the access
point, the proposals suggested parking arrangement relies on considerate parking by
occupiers of both dwellings to provide the indicated four spaces. Should all spaces be
occupied it is highly likely that a driver in wishing to exit the site would need to reverse
onto the C405.
Any vehicle reversing from the site would be via an access point that has severely
restricted visibility to both directions.
It also should be noted that to provide any likelihood of on-site turning space the
boundaries between the two dwellings would need to be crossed. Any boundary
treatment between the two dwellings, which potentially could be erected in the future
without planning permission, would make on-site turning impossible for either dwelling.
A single additional dwelling is considered to engender 8-10 vehicular trips a day
(TRICS), and at this location I see no reason to expect any deviation from these
figures. Taking into account the severely restricted visibility available at the site access
and the constrained layout of the parking and turning facilities which has the potential
to result in unacceptable on-street parking and manoeuvring I must consider the
proposed additional dwelling on this site detrimental to highway safety and
recommend it's refusal for the following reasons:1. Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway Catfield Road (C405) and this would cause danger and
inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway. Contrary to Development Plan
Policies.
2. The proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority. The
proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in
on-street parking and manoeuvring to the detriment to highway safety. Contrary to
Development Plan Policies.
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.
Development Committee
32
4 September 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy HO 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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
3. Design
4. Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
The application seeks the sub-division of the garden of 14 Catfield Road to erect a
detached two storey dwelling. The site lies within a designated residential area where
Policy SS3 permits appropriate residential development subject to compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies. The principle of this proposal is therefore
accepted.
In terms of the proposed design of the building it is considered that the scale and form
respects the character of the area. The relationship with No.14 would fall short of the
design guide criteria for window to blank wall separation distances. No.14 has a living
room window at ground floor on its north elevation and a bathroom and landing window
at first floor. The proposed dwelling would have a facing blank gable. However the
recommended distance between blank wall and window to living room is 11m. Here
approximately 1.6m of separation would be provided. However, the applicant is in
ownership of No.14 and has proposed as part of this application to obscure glaze the
first floor bathroom window and to block up the living room window and replace with
French doors to the eastern elevation thereby somewhat addressing the conflict with
the design guide amenity criteria. It is considered that a condition could be imposed
that would ensure those changes to the fenestration of No.14 were implemented prior
to occupation of the proposed dwelling. A minor shortfall with the recommended
distances would still occur, however given the proposed positioning of the dwelling,
partially set back from the existing dwelling, it is considered that this relationship would
not introduce any significant detriment to the amenity of the occupiers of No.14 nor that
of No.16.
The application follows the withdrawal of application reference 14/0415 which
proposed the dwelling further forward on the site than the current proposal. The
Highway Authority raised concerns over 14/0415 and requested submission of suitably
Development Committee
33
4 September 2014
scaled plans to address matters of access visibility and on-site parking and turning
provision. The applicant withdrew that application to address the highway concerns.
The revised application proposes to position the dwelling further back into the site to
provide a greater area for parking and turning. The Highway Authority (see
consultations above) considers that the revised proposal does not satisfactorily
address the highway safety concerns and recommends refusal of the application on
the grounds of inadequate visibility splays and inadequate parking and turning facilities
(for both the proposed and existing dwelling).
It was queried that the original Highway Authority advice referred to a minimum of 43m
x 2.4m x 43m visibility splay yet the response to this proposal requires 59m x 2.4m x
59m. The Highway officer further advised that the original figures were minimum
sightline distance for vehicles travelling at 30mph under the Manual for Streets
Guidance (MfS). It is considered that the response to this application is more detailed
and with an expectation that actual 85th Percentile vehicle speed in the vicinity of the
site would be above the 30mph limit the actual visibility splay requirement 59m x 2.4m
x 59m is given, which under MfS equates to a 85th Percentile speed of 37mph. If the
applicant disputes that this speed (37mph) is correct it is open to them to commission a
traffic survey to establish definite speed. Notwithstanding this the Highway Authority
consider that the site access sightlines do not comply with either of the speed
standards.
The Parish Council have raised objection on the grounds of highway safety, relating to
level of additional traffic generated, adding to current problems of congestion in the
vicinity.
The applicant has advised that it is his intention to provide the dwelling for rent to a
local family at a reasonable rent which he states is sorely needed. No indication or
undertaking has been given as to what he considers to be a 'reasonable rent'. He
considers that this should be a material consideration that outweighs the Highway
Authority's objection.
Officers do not agree that this outweighs the highway concerns.
Given the above it is considered that the proposal has failed to demonstrate
compliance with Core Strategy policies CT5 and CT6 and therefore a dwelling on this
site would be detrimental to highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
1. Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway Catfield Road (C405) and this would cause danger and
inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway. Contrary to
development plan policy CT5.
2. The proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority.
The proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable
increase in on-street parking and manoeuvring to the detriment of highway
safety. Contrary to development plan policy CT6.
Development Committee
34
4 September 2014
6.
APPLICATION 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 application.
The application 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.
DUNTON – PF/14/0730 – Formation of lagoons for the storage of digestate from
anaerobic digester with connecting pipeline; land off Helhoughton Road for Mr
D Blyth
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
7.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - PF/14/0705 - Conversion of barns to six residential
dwellings; Pitt Farm, The Street, Baconsthorpe for A V Youngs (Farms) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/14/0496 - Continued use of land for storage, processing and
ancillary sales of wood; Woodlands, Bacton Road, Edingthorpe, North
Walsham, NR28 9SP for Mr R Hayden
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/14/0799 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission ref:
07/1753 to permit full residential occupation; Heath Farm, Barchams Lane, The
Green, Edingthorpe, North Walsham, NR28 9SR for Mr M Sidebotham
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/0699 - Erection of rear extension; Wren Corner, Shoals
Road, Irstead, Norwich, NR12 8XR for Mr R Penstone-Smith
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0698 - Installation of play/recreational equipment and
creation of BMX track; Blakeney Parish Playing Field, Langham Road,
Blakeney, Norfolk, NR25 7PG for Blakeney Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PM/14/0773 - Erection of detached annexe associated with 132
High Street, Blakeney; Flinders, 132 High Street, Blakeney for Mr N Garioch
(Reserved Matters)
BODHAM - PF/14/0743 - Retention of 1.8m high boundary fence; 6 Rose Acre,
Bodham, Holt, NR25 6NU for Mr & Mrs I Iverson
(Householder application)
Development Committee
35
4 September 2014
BRININGHAM - PF/14/0688 - Removal of condition 2 or planning permission
reference 02/1309 to permit full residential occupation; 5 Belle Vue Farm Barns,
Dereham Road, Briningham, Melton Constable, NR24 2QN for Mr Davis
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/14/0718 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide
detached annexe; 36 Reepham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JL for
Mrs R Graves
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/14/0748 - Use of land for siting additional residential caravan; 1
Romany Rest, Thurning Road, Briston, MELTON CONSTABLE, NR24 2JW for
Mrs T Kidd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRUMSTEAD - PF/14/0816 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 14/0336 to permit revised anaerobic digester, gas store and silage
clamps; Land at Home Farm, Brunstead, Norfolk, NR12 9ES for J E & E M E
Ames
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/14/0903 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference SM11329 to permit full residential occupation; Hastings Farm
Bungalow, Wood Street, Catfield, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5DF for Mr C H Wilkins
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0237 - Demolition of garage and erection of
single-storey side extension with attached garage; Stone Cutters Cottage, The
Fairstead, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RL for Mr S Young
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0765 - Erection of single-storey rear extension
and rendering of external rear walls; 5 Beau Rivage, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt,
NR25 7RW for Ms C Harvey
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/0704 - Removal of attached garage and
erection of detached garage; Lime Kiln Farm, Holt Road, Heydon, Norwich,
NR11 6RD for Mrs B Rounce
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/0605 - Conversion of barn to residential
dwelling; Castle Barn, The Street, Saxthorpe, Norwich, NR11 7BJ for Mr M Mace
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0678 - Conversion and extension of guest house and
manager's accommodation to provide eight flats; 10 Macdonald Road, Cromer,
NR27 9AP for Mr M Bullen
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA2/05/0527 - Non material amendment request to permit south
elevation existing first floor balconies to be enclosed with white Upvc
windows, columns to be rendered and panels below to be finished in buttermilk
colour; Former Fletcher Hospital, Roughton Road, Cromer for J A Investments
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
36
4 September 2014
CROMER - HN/14/0819 - Notification of intention to erect an extension which
would project from the rear wall by 5.6m and which would have a maximum
height of 2.6m; 6 Marrams Avenue, Cromer, NR27 9BB for Miss A Pearce
(Householder Prior Notification)
CROMER - PF/14/0585 - Erection of single-storey link extension and conversion
of garage to habitable accommodation; 195 Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JN for
Mr & Mrs R Mortimer
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0778 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 1 St Martins
Close, Cromer, NR27 0BN for Mr R Hawkes
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0543 - Conversion of A1 (retail shops) to five residential flats;
9 and 11 Church Street, Cromer, NR27 9ER for Mr & Mrs D Greenwood
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - NMA2/13/0604 - Non material amendment request to permit widening
of rear extension; 5 Canal View, The Street, Dilham, North Walsham, NR28 9PT
for Mr C Bailey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/0818 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/0310 to permit full residential occupation; The Old Forge, Church
Road, East Ruston, NORWICH, NR12 9HL for Mr M Blackburn
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/0686 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extension;
The Pightles, Rectory Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2RJ for Ms S
Allsopp
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/14/0350 - Conversion and extension of redundant forge and
carpenters shop into two residential dwellings and construction of new access
road; The Forge, The Street, Calthorpe, Norwich, NR11 7QR for Mrs J Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/10/0965 - Non material amendment request to permit
change to fibre cement simulated timber cladding to north and south
elevations above windows; 3 Southgates Drive, Fakenham, NR21 8AQ for Mr C
Rockett
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/11/0702 - Non material amendment request to permit
change to rear garden boundary and revised layout to car parking to front of
proposed two semi-detached dwellings; 85 Holt Road, Fakenham, Norfolk,
NR21 8DZ for Mr M Azuike
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELBRIGG - PF/14/0361 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 13/0034 to permit revised layout and window design and use of
different facing materials; The Old Dairy, Felbrigg Road, Felbrigg, Norwich,
NR11 8PD for S & G Hayward
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
37
4 September 2014
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/0578 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to
provide habitable accommodation and erection of detached annexe; Bluetile
Farmhouse, Holt Road, Field Dalling, Holt, NR25 7AS for Mr & Mrs H
Labouchere
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0706 - Conversion of barns to five residential dwellings;
Barns at Church Farm, Church Street, Gimingham, Norfolk, NR11 8HF for Mr &
Mrs P Hinton
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0611 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/1255 to permit revised parking and window arrangements and
internal layout; 1 & 2 The Granary, Hall Road, Gimingham for Mayes Properties
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE
PF/14/0767 Erection
of
single-storey rear
extension/conservatory and front porch canopy; Briar Cottage, Swanton Road,
Gunthorpe, Melton Constable, NR24 2NS for Mr P King
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/14/0917 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Rectory
Farm House, Fakenham Road, Bale, Fakenham, NR21 0QW for Mr & Mrs P
Mitchell
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0661 - Erection of detached classroom with storage
above; Happisburgh Vc First School, The Street, Happisburgh, Norwich, NR12
0AB for Diocese of Norwich
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/0759 - Erection of first floor side extension; 10 The Knoll,
Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6TJ for Ms C Layford and Ms L Birnie
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/13/1373 - Non material amendment request to permit
change from French door and balcony to insertion of dormer window to first
floor east elevation; Heathfield, Vale Road, High Kelling, Holt, NR25 6RA for Mr
T Bailey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/12/0278 - Non material amendment request to permit
additional cladding to first floor north elevation, revised fenestration details to
west, south and east elevations and change colour of first floor east elevation
frame box to black; Blackwater House, Vale Road, High Kelling, Holt, NR25 6RA
for Ms G Carratu Elwood
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/0838 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions and front porch; Kiln Lodge, 15B Wells Road, Hindringham,
Fakenham, NR21 0PN for Mr & Mrs G Dolton
(Householder application)
Development Committee
38
4 September 2014
HOLT - LA/14/0737 - Internal alterations to ground floor to provide WC; 17 New
Street, Holt, NR25 6JJ for Mrs S Clayden
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/14/0745 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 53 Cromer Road,
Holt, NR25 6EX for Mr & Mrs R O'Sullivan
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/14/0747 - Erection of rear orangery; Caston Cottage, 13 Shirehall
Plain, Holt, NR25 6HT for Mr & Mrs Wright
(Householder application)
HONING - PF/14/0408 - Conversion of redundant agricultural barns to three
residential dwellings; River Farm, North Walsham Road, Honing for Mr & Mrs
Barringer
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/14/0702 - Erection of front extension, link extension to garage
and change flat roof to pitched over garage; 1 James Road, Horning, Norwich,
NR12 8PL for Mr M Charles
(Householder application)
HORNING - NMA1/14/0040 - Non material amendment request to permit to omit
door in north/east elevation and insert French doors to south elevation of
proposed extension; Church Farm, Upper Street, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8NL
for Mr J Thurlow
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOVETON - PF/14/0539 - Erection of an attached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive, Hoveton for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - PF/14/0768 - Conversion of cart shed to studio and garage
(retrospective); South Barn, Sea Palling Road, Ingham, Norwich, NR12 0TW for
Dr C Reynolds
(Householder application)
INGHAM - LA/14/0769 - Alterations to cart shed to provide studio and garage
(retrospective); South Barn, Sea Palling Road, Ingham, Norwich, NR12 0TW for
Dr C Reynolds
(Listed Building Alterations)
INGWORTH - PF/14/0684 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
verandah and side balcony; West End Cottage, West End, Ingworth, NORWICH,
NR11 6PH for Mr & Mrs M Farrow
(Householder application)
INGWORTH - NMA1/10/0309 - Non material amendment request to permit
revision to rear elevation window and doors, insertion of roof lights and
omission of dormer window to side elevation of proposed extension, use of
glazing for the Juliet balcony, and insertion of window to east elevation of
detached garage; St Petroc, 2 Cromer Road, Ingworth, Norwich, NR11 6PJ for
Mr R Northey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
39
4 September 2014
ITTERINGHAM - PF/14/0504 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 95/0488 to permit full residential occupation; The Old Chapel,
Wolterton Road, Itteringham, Norwich, NR11 7AF for Mrs S Chamberlain
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - NMA2/11/0890 - Non material amendment request to permit
reduction to length of the dwelling by 100mm; Land adjacent Rowan Cottage,
Hollow Lane, Langham for Ms P Booden
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LANGHAM - NMA1/14/0002 - Non material amendment request to permit
re-positioning ground mounted photovoltaic solar arrays to disused concrete
runway to north west site and to follow existing hedgeline to south site.;
Bernard Matthews Ltd, Cockthorpe Road, Langham, NR25 7BP for Ren Energy
Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/0724 - Demolition of conservatory and erection of
single-storey rear extension and two-storey side extension; 3 Star Hill,
Lessingham, Norwich, NR12 0DL for Mr A Grimbleby
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/0723 - Removal of Condition 3 of
planning permission reference 04/2025 to permit permanent residential
occupation; Glebe Room, Church Lane, Letheringsett, HOLT, NR25 7YA for Mr
& Mrs D Panton
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/14/0696 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Yew Tree
Cottage, Staithe Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5NP for Mr V Enever
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0741 - Conversion of barn to residential
dwelling; Barn 3, Burgh Hall Barns, Holt Road, Melton Constable for Mr & Mrs G
Carvell
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/14/0742 - Alterations to barn to facilitate
conversion to residential dwelling; Barn 3, Burgh Hall Barns, Holt Road, Melton
Constable for Mr & Mrs G Carvell
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0735 - Erection of extension to provide training
room facilities; North Walsham Hospital, Yarmouth Road, North Walsham,
NR28 9AP for Norfolk Community Health & Care
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0670 - Removal of Condition 5 of planning
permission ref: 14/0220 to delete Code Level 3 requirement; Green Leaf, 45A
Bacton Road, North Walsham, NR28 9DS for Mr & Mrs R Kent
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PM/14/0770 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and
workshop; Jeremys Place, Marshgate, North Walsham, NR28 9LG for Mr J
Cushion
(Reserved Matters)
Development Committee
40
4 September 2014
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0906 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 10
Grange Court, North Walsham, NR28 9AZ for Mr and Mrs Barnes
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/0832 - Relaxation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 12/1372 to allow completion of dwelling without complying with level
3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Daisy Cottage, 2 Bulls Row, Northrepps,
Cromer, NR27 0LF for Mr A Breeze
(Full Planning Permission)
PLUMSTEAD - LA/14/0714 - Installation of replacement windows to rear
elevation; Walnut Farm, Church Street, Plumstead, Norwich, NR11 7LG for Mrs
I Ramsbotham
(Listed Building Alterations)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/14/0787 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Robarte, Chapel Lane, Potter Heigham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5LS for Mr & Mrs
N High
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/14/0815 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
replacement garage; The Den, School Road, Potter Heigham, Great Yarmouth,
NR29 5LW for Mr A Battley
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/14/0744 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The
Bungalow, Swaffham Road, South Raynham, Fakenham, NR21 7HP for Mr R
Silver
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/14/0750 - Erection of extension to provide additional
toilet/shower facilities; Seacroft Camping Park, Cromer Road, East Runton,
Cromer, NR27 9NH for The Caravan Club Site
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/14/0794 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Saxonholme,
Home Close, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QF for Mr M Hogan
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/14/0732 - Erection of rear conservatory; Braybrooke, 3 Cross
Street, Salthouse, Holt, NR25 7XH for Mr J Cooke
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/14/0761 - Erection of single-storey/one and a half storey rear
extension; Scrib Bungalow, Market Lane, Salthouse, HOLT, NR25 7XN for Mr
JR Wright
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0710 - Alterations to rear extension; 11 The Driftway,
Sheringham, NR26 8LD for Mr S Hunt
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/14/0625 - Demolition of police station and erection of seven
dwellings; Police Station, 4-6 Weybourne Road, Sheringham, NR26 8HF for
Norfolk Constabulary
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Committee
41
4 September 2014
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0666 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 84
Beeston Road, Sheringham, NR26 8EJ for Mr M Sharp
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0753 - Alterations to building to provide D1 (Place of
Worship); Sheringham Social Club, 2 Holway Road, Sheringham, NR26 8HN for
New Wine Church
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0800 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension
and raising of height of roof; 3 The Rise, Sheringham, NR26 8QA for Mr A
Hooker
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0809 - Erection of first floor side extension; Little Lodge,
13 Beeston Common, Sheringham, NR26 8ES for Mrs A Reid
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - PF/14/0847 - Insertion of door and window to ground floor rear
elevation; The Garden House, Cromer Road, Sidestrand, Cromer, NR27 0LT for
Mr S Robinson
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - LA/14/0848 - Insertion of door and window to ground floor rear
elevation; The Garden House, Cromer Road, Sidestrand, Cromer, NR27 0LT for
Mr S Robinson
(Listed Building Alterations)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0796 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and
garage; 26 Chapel Street, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8NW for Mr M Tetlow
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - NMA1/13/1430 - Non material amendment request to permit
omission of dormer windows to rear elevations of plots A1, A2, A3 and A5 and
lift wall plates to rear elevations of proposed dwellings; Land adjacent to Holly
Grove, Yarmouth Road, Stalham for East Anglian Property Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STODY - PF/14/0553 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and single-storey
side extension; The Cottage, The Green, Hunworth, Melton Constable, NR24
2EL for Mr & Mrs M Davies
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/14/0790 - Erection of two-storey side extension, replacement
front porch and detached garage/workshop; 27 Ingham Road, Sutton, Norwich,
NR12 9SD for Mr C Love
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/14/0700 - Erection of attached two-storey side/front extension;
Alderley, The Street, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9AJ for Mr K Lawn
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/14/0757 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Crow Barn, The Hill, Swanton Abbott, NORWICH, NR10 5AT for Mr C Rische
(Householder application)
Development Committee
42
4 September 2014
THORNAGE - PF/14/0556 - Conversion of barns to two residential dwellings;
Mill Farm, Holt Road, Thornage, Holt, NR25 7QN for Mr C Bingham-Newland
(Full Planning Permission)
THORNAGE - LA/14/0557 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
residential dwellings; Mill Farm, Holt Road, Thornage, Holt, NR25 7QN for Mr C
Bingham-Newland
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORNAGE - PF/14/0694 - Erection of single-storey extensions; Thornage Hall,
The Street, Thornage, Holt, NR25 7QH for Trustees to Camphill Community
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/14/0653 - Demolition of detached garage and Nissen hut and
erection of replacement garage with studio above and one and a half storey
unit of serviced holiday accommodation; Holly Lodge, 1 The Street, Thursford,
Fakenham, NR21 0AS for Mr J Bolam
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0717 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 1 Park Farm,
Knapton Road, Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0QE for Mr R Lee
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/14/0782 - Erection of detached garage; Dane End, Ostend Road,
Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0NP for Mrs D Main
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - NMA1/13/0219 - Non material amendment request to permit
re-positioning of rooflights, insertion of French door to east elevation of Unit 1
and door to north elevation of Unit 2.; Land at Walcott Hall, Walcott Green,
Walcott, Norfolk, NR12 0NR for Mr S Woolnough
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/0612 - Demolition of single-storey extension and
erection of two-storey extension to provide two-storey flat and extended
manager's accommodation and installation of dormer windows to south wing;
Black Lion Hotel, Friday Market Place, Walsingham, NR22 6DB for The Black
Lion Hotel Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/14/0613 - Demolition of single-storey extension and
erection of two-storey extension to provide two-storey flat and extended
manager's accommodation, internal alterations and installation of dormer
windows to south wing; Black Lion Hotel, Friday Market Place, Walsingham,
NR22 6DB for The Black Lion Hotel Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0808 - Internal alterations to first floor; Hardy
Cottage, The Buttlands, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EU for Mrs J Hodges
(Listed Building Alterations)
WIGHTON - PF/14/0866 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear
extensions; School Farm Cottage, 10 High Street, Wighton, Wells-next-the-Sea,
NR23 1AL for Three New Square Interlectual Property
(Householder application)
Development Committee
43
4 September 2014
WOOD NORTON - NP/14/0883 - Prior notification of intention to erect
agricultural building; Land at Lyng Hall Farm, Lyng Hall Lane, Rectory Road,
Wood Norton for K J Bell & Son
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WORSTEAD - PF/14/0749 - Erection of garage/store; Brambles, Tucks Road,
Bengate, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9LU for Mr M Horne
(Householder application)
8.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - PO/14/0736 - Erection of dwelling and garage and garage to serve 27
Shipden Avenue; 27 Shipden Avenue, Cromer, NR27 9BD for Mr T Peart
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PO/14/0693 - Erection of dwelling; 20 Highfield Road, Fakenham,
NR21 9DJ for Trustees to the Estate of Mrs C M Smith (dec'd)
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/14/0584 - Raising height to provide second floor accommodation
and erection of three storey side extension; 2 Bull Close, Bull Street, Holt,
NR25 6HP for Mr & Mrs A Murray
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0208 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling;
Munbeck, 19 Marina Road, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8BJ for Mr R Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8JU for Mr & Mrs J Bonham
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
9.
NEW APPEALS
No items
10.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
HICKLING - PO/14/0250 - Erection of detached farm manager's dwelling; Land at
Poplar Farm, Sutton Road, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0AS for Norman Farming
Partnership
INFORMAL HEARING 09 October 2014
11.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one
two-storey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills, Cromer,
NR27 9LW for PP3
Development Committee
44
4 September 2014
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SA for Mr R Banester
12.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
HICKLING - PF/13/1456 - Variation of Condition 13 of planning permission ref:
12/1397 to permit revised access/visibility details; Bay Cottage, The Green,
Hickling for Anne Thorne Architects LLP
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
An appeal was made against the Council‟s refusal to grant permission under
Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for development without
complying with conditions imposed on a previous permission. Planning
application PF/12/1397 for a new dwelling was approved in February 2013,
subject to a condition requiring off-site highway works comprising provision of a
frontage footway. Rather than providing a footway, the Appellant proposed
that the roadside hedge be reduced in height and sought to remove the relevant
condition.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be
 highway safety
 effect of frontage footway on the character and appearance of Bay Cottage and the
surrounding area.
On the first issue the Inspector undertook an assessment of the roads in the immediate
vicinity of the appeal building and considered that cases put forward by the appellant
and on behalf of the Highway Authority. He concluded that the footway would be both
reasonable and necessary, whereas the appeal proposal would fail to make adequate
provision for pedestrians and be detrimental to highway safety.
On the second issue the Inspector concluded that the provision of the proposed
footway would not be harmful to the character and appearance of Bay Cottage or the
surrounding area.
The Inspector’s overall conclusion was that the disputed condition is necessary and
also meets the tests (for planning conditions) set out in paragraph 206 of the NPPF.
He therefore dismissed the appeal.
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for alterations and
extensions to the above property; the appeal was allowed and permission granted
subject to conditions.
The Inspector identified the main issue as the effect of the proposed extension on the
living conditions of the occupants of 6A Morris Street. In the decision letter the
Inspector assessed the relationship between the two dwellings and the impact of the
proposed extension. He concluded that there would not be a dominating or
overbearing impact and that the development therefore complies with Core Strategy
Development Committee
45
4 September 2014
Policy EN4.
The Inspector also concluded that the development would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and took into account submissions made by a
neighbour relating to Human Rights issues.
In allowing the appeal the Inspector imposed conditions including a restriction on the
extension
to holiday use only and that the remainder of 8 Morris Street, Sheringham shall revert
back to use as a single dwelling only.
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road, Southrepps for Mr M Goss
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of
existing buildings and erection of a new dwelling and attached garage. The Inspector
noted that the existing cottage had originally comprised two properties and is now
derelict. He identified two main issues for consideration
 whether the development would be consistent with the principles of sustainable
development, having regard to local and national planning policy
 highway safety
On the first issue the Inspector referred to the derelict condition of the existing building
and concluded that the proposal amounts to the provision of a new dwelling rather than
the replacement of an existing one. As such the proposal conflicts with Core Strategy
Policy SS2.
The Inspector then went on to assess the development against national planning
policy in the NPPF. He noted that although the site is designated as “countryside” it is
within Lower Street and surrounded by other housing, and close to local facilities.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would not result in isolated
development in the countryside and would be consistent with the NPPF principle that
rural housing should be located where it will maintain or enhance the vitality of rural
communities. The Inspector also concluded that there would be no adverse impact
on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
On highway safety the Inspector took into account the views of the Highway Authority
and also noted that visibility from the access is severely restricted in both directions by
roadside hedging. In light of the substandard access the inspector concluded that
there would be an increased risk of accidents and that highway safety would be
compromised. This would conflict with Core Strategy Policy CT5.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, but on highway grounds only.
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0791 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning
permission reference: 12/1032 to permit permanent residential occupation; The
White Lady, Front Street, Worstead for Mr D Gilligan
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of an application made under Section 73 of the Act
to carry out development without complying with a condition imposed on an earlier
permission (PF/12/1032). This earlier permission was for conversion of outbuildings
at the “White Lady” to one unit of holiday accommodation and a micro-brewery. The
Development Committee
46
4 September 2014
Council had imposed conditions to restrict use of this converted building to holiday use
only. The appellant sought removal of the conditions to enable the unit to be used as
a permanent residential dwelling.
The Inspector identified the main issue as whether the property would provide
adequate living conditions for future residents in terms of noise, outdoor amenity space
and odour (the building is close to the public house kitchen). The Inspector concluded
that future occupants would be likely to suffer significant disturbance due to the
proximity of the public house and also noted that the property would lack private
outdoor space. He also noted that further work is to be undertaken to the extraction
system in the public house kitchen and concluded that future occupiers should not be
unduly affected by odour.
The Inspector‟s overall conclusions were that the appeal building is not suitable for
permanent residential occupation, due to its proximity to the public house. He
therefore dismissed the appeal.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager ext 6016)
13.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (1) and David Mack (2) (Bodham Turbine)
Planning application PF/11/0983 for the proposed erection of a wind turbine at Pond
Farm, Bodham was refused by the District Council in August 2012. That decision was
the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State and the Inspector, Mr Alan Novitzky,
allowed the appeal and granted permission for the proposed turbine. The appeal
decision letter was issued on 8 April 2013 (reference APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043).
The Council initiated a legal challenge against the Inspector‟s decision under Section
288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the case was determined in the
High Court in the Council‟s favour. Mr Mack then applied to the Court of Appeal,
seeking leave to appeal against the High Court judgment. Permission was refused by
way of an order made by Lord Justice Sullivan. That order was issued on 2 June 2014
and Lord Justice Sullivan stated that “the sole ground of appeal does not have a real
prospect of success.”
The decision of Lord Justice Sullivan was made “on the papers”, that is without an oral
hearing. The Civil Procedure Rules provide that where the appeal court, without a
hearing, refuses permission to appeal that decision may be reconsidered at a hearing
provided that the request for such a hearing is filed within a stated time limit. A
request was made and the application had been listed for 16 October. However, it is
understood that the application will be withdrawn.
Subject to the Court‟s confirmation that the application has indeed been withdrawn, the
order of the High Court will stand and the appeal against the refusal of planning
permission will be remitted to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.
(Source: Roger Howe (Planning Legal Manager) Ext. 6016)
Development Committee
47
4 September 2014