OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 5 SEPTEMBER 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Corporate Director and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
CROMER - PF/13/0247 - Erection of 145 dwellings with access road, public open
space and associated works; Land west of Roughton Road for Norfolk Homes
Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 04 June 2013
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Use Allocation
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19801105 HR - Residential Development
Refused 21/07/1980
PLA/20041496 PO - Residential Development
Refused 18/11/2004
PLA/20042121 PO - Residential Development
Refused 11/03/2005
THE APPLICATION
The proposed housing development would comprise a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom
properties. These would include a combination of detached, semi-detached and
terraced dwellings, plus some small apartment buildings. The majority of the
development would be traditional two storey height. Three bungalows are proposed
and some of the terraces would be 'two and a half' storey height incorporating
accommodation in the roof space.
As recently amended, 40 of the dwellings are proposed to be affordable, 17 of which
would be affordable rented properties and 23 'shared equity'.
A single area of open space (0.92 ha.) is proposed which is to include two separated
children's play areas.
Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Roughton Road via two unconnected
estate roads. A further small group of dwellings would have separate access onto
Roughton Road from a private driveway. Proposed off-site highway works include
minor widening/alterations to sections of footpaths on Roughton Road; a
footpath/cycleway running from the development (through the area of open space)
Development Committee
1
5 September 2013
across neighbouring land to the west of the site to connect with Hall Road; a new
length of footway along Hall Road to link with the public right of way network; the
upgrading of an existing footpath which runs parallel with Hall Road towards the town
centre, and; the installation of barriers to a pedestrian island opposite Cromer
Academy.
The proposals involve significant re-modelling of the site's topography by means of
'cut and fill' to create a more even gradient across the site.
An excavated drainage basin is proposed on adjoining land to the west of the main
site. The basin would receive surface water from the site which would then discharge
at a restricted rate via a drain to an existing pond several hundred metres to the north,
and finally into an existing Anglian Water sewer. Foul drainage from the site would link
into an existing sewer which runs parallel with the site.
A draft S.106 Obligation is submitted with the application. It covers details regarding
the provision of the affordable housing, financial contributions towards education,
libraries, a commuted sum towards maintenance of the open space, and the transfer
of a 2.35 hectare woodland (Brown's Hill) to the District Council to be used for public
access.
The application is comprehensive in terms of the details included (e.g. building
materials, a full landscaping scheme, engineering infrastructure) and is also supported
by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Landscape and Visual Impact Report
Arboricultural Assessment / Tree Report
Statement of Community Consultation
Transport Assessment
Travel Plan
Flood Risk Assessment
Foul & Surface Water Drainage Strategy
Biodiversity (Protected Species) Report
Geodiversity Report
Land Contamination Report
Sustainable Construction Statement
Energy Consumption Statement
Viability Statement (Confidential)
Amended plans have been submitted which include revisions to highway
specifications, landscaping details, materials, certain dwelling type details and some
elevational changes.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
Strongly objects to the application in its current form and requests deferral pending
discussions with the applicants on the following issues:
Loss of the existing boundary hedgerow along the site frontage with Roughton
Road. The hedgerow is a hunting ground to a colony of bats (protected species)
which nest in the adjoining mature woodland. Overall the landscaping of the site
is very poor and thought needs to be given to access corridors for bats and other
wildlife.
Development Committee
2
5 September 2013
The plans do not meet the Local Development Framework requirements for both
open space and affordable housing.
The design of the proposed buildings is not in keeping with the surrounding area.
Sustainable energy for the site has not been investigated sufficiently and there is
scope for improvement in this area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection and two letters commenting on the application, raising the
following issues:
Roughton Road is inadequate to cater for the additional traffic generated from the
development due to its narrowness and congested junctions.
Blind bend on Roughton Road to the north end of the site.
Query if Roughton Road is to be widened?
Dangerous accesses to serve the site off Roughton Road.
Pedestrian crossing required on Roughton Road to serve the development.
Concern regarding construction traffic.
It would ruin an area of outstanding beauty.
Too many houses proposed for the site.
Poorly designed dwellings / lacking orientation towards sunlight.
Impact upon privacy of neighbouring properties.
There should be serviced plots provided for sale.
Important that the hedging along the frontage of the site is retained and
enhanced.
Lower properties should be located to the southern side of the site where the land
rises.
Objection received from Cromer Preservation Society on the following grounds:
Inadequate provision of affordable housing. Argues that if the developers want to
make a viability case for a reduction in affordable housing then they are clearly
paying too much for the land. Cromer is foregoing a greenfield site and if the
Council's policy requirements are not met, the community will not gain adequate
provision of affordable housing.
The requirement for 1.0 ha. of open space should be met.
Removal of the established hedge along Roughton Road. The hedge attracts
wildlife and should be preserved in its entirety.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires S.106 payments
towards education (£174,660), libraries (£8,700) and 3 fire hydrants (£2,605).
County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to conditions in relation to
highway and related construction works, visibility splays, submission of a travel plan,
and off-site works to include the installation of barriers on the existing traffic island
opposite Cromer Academy.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - Comments that the development
is unlikely to have any impact on the historic environment (i.e. archaeology).
Environment Agency water drainage.
No objection, subject to conditions in respect of surface
Anglian Water - Advises that Anglian Water has assets (sewers) which are close to
or cross the site and the site layout should take these into account and accommodate
them either within adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not possible then
Development Committee
3
5 September 2013
the sewers will need to be diverted at the developer's expense.
There is presently capacity in the sewerage system and at Cromer sewage treatment
works to cater for the development.
Requests a condition requiring the proposed surface water strategy to be implemented
prior to the construction of any hard surfaces on the site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - Considers
that in terms of layout (access points, road arrangement and location of the open
space) the proposals raise no substantive issues.
In terms of the built form of the proposed development, comments as follows:
"Although not particularly rich in terms of architectural innovation, a genuine attempt
has been made to link the house types to the locality. In terms of form and massing,
the buildings are of an appropriate domestic scale and not unduly tall for the
surroundings. With the proportions of the individual buildings also compatible with the
locality, the only regret is that more use has not been made of single storey forms to
create greater variety in built form.
Elevationally, it must be recognised that a good proportion of the units feature fairly
standard detailing which stacks up relatively conventionally on plan. This said, on
some of the more important plots, attractive architectural features have been added
and changes of level exploited to create real visual interest. With some of the designs
having also been purposefully produced for this site, the scheme would have a degree
of local distinctiveness. In this respect, it sits more comfortably alongside the aims and
objectives of the Design Guide than some recent equivalents".
Initial concerns in respect of the elevational treatment to certain dwellings and some of
the proposed materials have now been addressed by the submission of amended
plans.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments that the
position of the open space relates well to the surrounding landscape and reinforces
the informal footpath route to the town. Following the receipt of amended plans, is
satisfied that previous issues raised have now been satisfactorily addressed (e.g. tree
species, new mixed hedgerow along Roughton Road, surface treatments), subject to
conditioning certain details.
Satisfied that there will be no significant adverse effect on ecology as a result of this
development and that the proposed mitigation measures are compliant with Core
Strategy Policy EN9.
Comments that the requirement of Policy C14 for prior approval of a scheme of
mitigation to minimise the potential impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA and
Ramsar sites is a result of an Appropriate Assessment carried out by the District
Council to inform the Local Development Framework process. This is supported by
Core Strategy Policy EN9 which states that ‘development proposals that would cause
a direct or indirect adverse effect to nationally designated sites ….will not be
permitted’. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the Conservation of
Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 amended as set out in Government Guidance
contained in Circular 06/2005. Based on the evidence available, it is imperative that
the local planning authority is assured that the development proposals will not have an
adverse effect on the designated sites in order to comply with national and local policy
and legislation. The Council has sought to achieve this elsewhere by securing a
developer contribution to fund monitoring and possibly mitigation of any potential
adverse effects. Unless this or other viable alternatives are secured the application
could not be supported.
Development Committee
4
5 September 2013
Natural England - Comments that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily
protected sites or landscapes. Advises that there is sufficient information available
regarding bats. From the information available considers that there are suitable
features on, or in the vicinity of the application site for bats to use as roosts; detailed
visual inspections have been carried out; the application is unlikely to affect the
species, through disturbance to individuals, or from damage or destruction of a
breeding site or resting place.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The application indicates that 8460 sqm of public
open space will be provided on site which is somewhat short of the policy requirement
of 11471 sqm (using methodology of the Council's interim open space standards).
However Brownshill Wood is proposed to be transferred to the District Council and this
will increase the available public open space in the area by a further 27,500 sqm to a
level well in excess of the standard.
The on-site play provision caters for older and younger children separately and is quite
acceptable.
Subject to being secured by the S.106 Obligation, it is agreed the open space and
play area would be adopted by the Council (for a commuted sum of £76,372) once an
establishment period of one year had elapsed following practical completion.
If the Council is to adopt Browns Hill Wood it should be brought up to a standard
suitable for public access before handover.
Strategic Housing - This full planning application is for the provision of 145 homes of
which the applicant has proposed that 28% or 40 dwellings are to be affordable
housing. The plans show that the market housing ranges in sizes from 2 bed flats to 4
bed detached houses.
The application proposes that of the 40 affordable dwellings, 17 will be provided via a
Housing Association for rent. The remaining 23 affordable dwellings will be sold as
“shared equity” where a share in the property will be sold and the freehold and unsold
share will be transferred to the Council or a Housing Association. The applicant is
proposing that the shared equity dwellings will be sold with a range of values with
shares of 75% and 85% of open market value being sold.
The affordable dwellings for rent are a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom flats, 2 and 3
bedroom houses and 3 x 2 bedroom wheelchair standard bungalows. The shared
equity dwellings to be provided as a mixture of 1 bedroom flats and houses and 2
bedroom houses. The affordable housing mix as proposed will be 57.5% shared
equity and 42.5% for rent, this is a much lower ratio of rented affordable housing than
has been provided on any other site and the applicant has advised that this mix is
required because of the scheme viability.
The information submitted as part of the application incorrectly showed that the
wheelchair bungalows would consist of 2 x 2 bedroom bungalows and 1 x 3 bedroom
bungalow, but the plans suggested that all the bungalows had 2 bedrooms with 2
accommodating 3 persons and 1 accommodating 4 persons. Subsequently it has
been possible to agree with the applicant a small amendment to the design and layout
which means that 2 x 2 bedroom 4 person and 1 x 2 bedroom 3 person wheelchair
bungalows will be provided on the site. This change is welcomed and will ensure that
the wheelchair bungalows will be able to meet the proven housing need for such
adapted accommodation.
Development Committee
5
5 September 2013
This application originally proposed that 33 dwellings (23%) were affordable and the
submitted viability assessment for this site was considered by an external consultant.
The outcome of the assessment of the viability was that there is viability to provide
more affordable than the 23% originally proposed. The consultant also advised that it
will not be viable to provide the full 45% policy requirement of affordable housing as
there is a viability issue with the site. The consultant‟s conclusions were shared with
the applicant and subsequently a revised offer of 40 affordable dwellings (28%
affordable housing) was proposed by the applicant. This offer, based on the viability
of the site is acceptable.
The original affordable housing offer included 3 shared equity dwellings which were
proposed to be sold for values of £129,625 and £136,000 and there was concern that
these dwellings would not be affordable based on local incomes and local prices. The
revised offer has removed these higher cost shared equity dwellings, however, it is
regrettable that as a consequence, the lower cost shared equity dwellings originally
proposed have been lost.
Discussions regarding the draft Section 106 Agreement for this site have taken place.
The draft agreement did not include any arrangement for the phasing of the delivery of
the affordable housing. Revisions to the draft agreement now provide a phasing
arrangement which will ensure that no more than 50% of the market housing can be
occupied until 50% of the affordable housing has been provided and that the last
market dwelling cannot be occupied until all of the affordable housing has been
provided. The agreement will also require that the affordable housing is provided
without the need for any public subsidy.
As the applicants have submitted a viability assessment on the basis that the site will
not deliver the policy requirement of 45% due to viability issues relating to the
development, an Affordable Housing Uplift clause will form part of the Section 106
Agreement. The Affordable Housing Uplift will enable a financial contribution for
affordable housing to be paid for that element of the affordable housing policy
requirement which the scheme does not deliver on the increase in scheme viability.
The amount of the Affordable Housing Uplift has been agreed reflecting the specific
costs of the scheme. The Section 106 Agreement will contain a fallback clause in
case it is not possible for the applicant to agree terms with a Housing Association to
deliver the affordable dwellings for rent. The agreement will also contain clauses
relating to the eligibility criteria for the shared equity dwellings for initial and
subsequent sales as the applicant proposes to market and sell these.
Whilst Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires that the affordable housing should be
dispersed through the development as a whole and provided in groups of no more
than 8, it is proposed that the affordable housing will be provided in 4 distinct areas
with 1, 10, 12 and 17 dwellings in each group. 15 of the affordable dwellings for rent
are proposed to be provided in one group along with 2 shared equity dwellings (and 3
market dwellings).
Whilst the wheelchair bungalows provide a necessary single
storey buffer between the existing adjacent dwellings and the site as a whole it would
have been preferred if the affordable dwellings for rent had been better integrated into
the scheme as a whole. Overall, however, this is acceptable and the location of the
affordable housing is appropriate within the context of the design of this scheme.
To conclude, this application is supported by Housing Strategy. There is an issue of
viability with this development and therefore 40 affordable dwellings (28% of all
dwellings) represents the viable level of affordable housing. A Section 106 Agreement
will be used to secure the delivery of the affordable housing and will specify the
phasing of the delivery of the affordable dwellings, along with securing them as
Development Committee
6
5 September 2013
affordable in perpetuity (allowing for reinvestment of any receipt received if an owner
of a shared equity dwellings chooses to purchase the retained share) and the eligibility
for the shared equity dwellings for both initial and subsequent sales.
Environmental Health - Recommends a condition requiring further investigation on
the site for possible land contamination, submission of results to the Council and
remediation where necessary.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Comments that the application only partly complies
with Core Strategy policy EN6.
It complies insofar that it is proposed that the dwellings will comply with level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes. A condition is recommended to secure this aspect.
The application fails to comply with the requirement for 20% on-site renewable energy.
No renewable energy is proposed as part of the development. It should also be noted
that, in the absence of any specific figures to show otherwise, it does not appear that
there will be an increase in fabric/energy efficiency to compensate for the lack of
renewables provision. The developer has not proposed to meet this requirement either
fully or partially, citing financial viability concerns. In the absence of a suitable
proposal to meet this aspect of Policy EN6, approval of this application would be a
departure from policy and would need to be justified.
Norfolk Police - Refers to the additional pressures to deliver effective policing and
securing safe and sustainable communities caused by new housing developments
and the need for developer contributions to assist in this delivery. Raises a holding
objection pending further guidance from the District Council as to what information is
required to advance the request for developer contributions.
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 Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy C14 Land West of Roughton Road
Land amounting to 5.17 hectares is allocated for residential development of
approximately 160 dwellings and at least 1 hectare of public open space.
Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies
including on-site provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently
45%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services and other community needs
as required and:
a) Provision of safe access to Roughton Road and highways improvements as
required;
b) improvement of pedestrian links to the town centre and schools;
c) improved access to Roughton Road rail halt and other public transport
improvements as required;
Development Committee
7
5 September 2013
d) provision of at least 1 hectare of public open space within the site, incorporating
suitable play / recreational facilities and elements of biodiversity value;
e) completion of a legal agreement to secure the provision of public access to the
nearby Brown's Hill woodland area in perpetuity;
f) wildlife mitigation and improvement measures;
g) retention and enhancement of boundary hedges and landscape buffering;
h) demonstration that there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works and the
foul sewerage network and that proposals have regard to water quality standards;
and,
i) prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the North
Norfolk Coast SAC / SPA and Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor
pressure, and on-going monitoring of such measures.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (presumption in favour of
sustainable development - development proposals which accord with the development
plan should be approved without delay).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway issues
3. Development layout and design
4. Housing mix / Affordable housing provision
5. Open space / landscaping
6. Sustainability issues
Development Committee
8
5 September 2013
7. Ecological issues
8. Section 106 Obligation
APPRAISAL
The application site (5.2 ha.) is located on the south-western edge of Cromer on land
immediately west of Roughton Road. It is bounded by Cromer Zoo to the north, a
woodland to the south and by a tree belt / open countryside to the west. It comprises
for the most part a single agricultural field but also includes a small rectangular
paddock on its northern side. Existing residential development is located on the
opposite side of Roughton Road and adjoins the northern boundary of the paddock.
The main part of the site generally slopes down from Roughton Road to the western
boundary, with a difference of approximately 11 metres from the highest to lowest
points. The site also rises from the north towards the south with undulations in
between. The paddock area is relatively flat but is below the level of Roughton Road
(varying between approximately 1-2m).
Principle of Development
The application site includes the whole of the area of land allocated for residential
development by Policy C14 of the adopted Site Allocations DPD. Accordingly the
principle to develop the site for housing is established. However the application raises
a number of detailed planning issues and policy considerations which are addressed
below.
Highway issues
Policy C14 requires safe access onto Roughton Road together with any necessary
highway improvements. The proposal is to serve the development from two main
access points off Roughton Road. One would be at the existing exit point from the
neighbouring zoo which would serve 37 dwellings. The second, located centrally along
the frontage with Roughton Road would serve the majority of the development (101
dwellings). A third pair of accesses would serve 7 dwellings at the southern end of the
Roughton Road frontage. Within the development there would be a hierarchy of road
types; estate roads with formalised footpaths, shared surfaces and private drives.
Off-site highway works proposed involve the creation of new, and enhancement of
existing, pedestrian and cycle facilities in the area, including the installation of traffic
island barriers on Norwich Road (opposite Cromer Academy).
It will be noted above that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the
application, subject to a number of conditions and additional off-site works. The
Authority has waived the normal requirement for the payment of a travel plan bond at
the applicant's request and in acknowledgement that there are development viability
issues associated with the application.
Housing layout, scale and design
One notable feature of the proposed development is to alter the existing undulating
land profile, by means of 'cut and fill', in order to create a more level site. It is
understood that the reasons for this are to make construction easier and to meet
disabled access standards. In some ways this is unfortunate as it would result in less
variation of roof heights which can add to the visual interest of a development. The
groundworks would result in significant lengths of 'crib' retaining walls around parts of
the southern and western site boundaries. These 'crib' walls would allow vegetation to
grow within them, and once the development is complete they are unlikely to be visible
other than from their immediate surroundings.
Development Committee
9
5 September 2013
The general layout of the site (which has been the subject of considerable discussions
with Officers prior to and following the application being submitted) is considered
acceptable. It has been designed to incorporate different character areas, ('The
Square', 'The Triangle', 'The Crescent' and 'The Dell') which would assist in creating
some variety and interest through the development. The layout would also allow
several parts of the development, including the principal entrance, to benefit from
views into the area of open space.
The overall scale of the buildings (mainly two storey) is considered acceptable. The
applicants have attempted to provide a variation of house styles across the site
describing them in terms of 'Victorian', 'Edwardian', 'Modern' and 'Transition'. The
house types and the materials to be used in their construction are now considered
acceptable following the submission of amended plans.
The relationship with neighbouring properties is considered acceptable.
Housing mix / Affordable housing provision
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. The proposal falls
marginally below this requirement (36.5%). However this shortfall is not considered to
be significant enough on its own to justify refusal of permission.
For developments of 10 or more dwellings Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires not less
than 45% of the total number of dwellings to be affordable 'where it is viable to do so'.
Initially the application proposed a total of 33 affordable dwellings (23%) which
represented a significant shortfall in terms of Policy HO2. This was considered
particularly relevant in the case of Cromer which has been recorded to have the
highest need for affordable housing of all the towns in the District.
A Viability Statement (confidential) was submitted with the application. Such
statements firstly predict the gross development value (GDV) of a completed
development. This is the total amount the developer will accrue from selling the
completed dwellings. The more affordable dwellings on a scheme the less the GDV.
This is then compared with the costs to develop the site (e.g. build costs, infrastructure
costs and S.106 requirements). A further significant cost is the purchase price for the
land.
Two particular circumstances need to prevail to enable a development to be viable
and to proceed. Firstly the land price has to be set at a level which provides the
landowner with sufficient incentive to sell. Secondly the GDV needs to exceed the total
costs by a sufficient amount in order to provide the developer with a reasonable profit
margin. The submitted viability statement sought to demonstrate by means of the
above analysis that 23% was the maximum level of affordable housing possible in
order to make the development viable.
In order to assess whether the submitted viability statement was both robust in its
analysis and reasonable in its conclusions, the Council commissioned an independent
review by a firm of consultants who specialise in development viability. The essential
conclusions of the report were as follows:
the sale values put forward were realistic.
the development costs were accepted as being appropriate.
the developer's profit margin was not disputed.
the land purchase price was too high (and is not fully reflective of the Council's
Development Committee
10
5 September 2013
current planning policies).
there was scope to deliver a higher amount of affordable housing, but not the full
45% requirement.
The fundamental issue for consideration therefore related to the land purchase price
referred to in the applicants' viability statement. (The applicants are not the current
owners of the site, although it is understood that some form of contract to purchase
has been reached with the landowners).
The issue of development viability is referred to in paragraph 173 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states as follows:
'To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development,
such as requirements for affordable housing standards, infrastructure contributions or
other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development
and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing
developer to enable the development to be deliverable.'
The NPPF does not expand on the reference to 'competitive returns'. However the
clear conclusion from the independent advice the Council received was that the land
purchase price, in this case, was excessive. To quote: "...it would be reasonable to
challenge the land price being assumed by Norfolk Homes in the Viability Statement
as being too high". The implication of this was that the land price represented a barrier
to achieving a more policy compliant amount of affordable housing. (It should also be
noted that the applicants have cited development viability as a reason preventing
compliance with other policy requirements, which are referred to elsewhere in this
report).
The consultant's report was shared with the applicants and in turn with agents acting
for the landowners. As a result a revised offer of affordable housing has recently been
made. This comprises an additional 7 affordable dwellings resulting in a total of 40
(28%).
The Committee will note the comments (above) of the Council's Strategic Housing
Officer with regard to the revised affordable housing offer. It will be noted that on the
basis of this increased offer the application is now supported, notwithstanding some
reservations regarding the ratio between rented and shared equity properties, the loss
of some lower cost shared equity properties, and the concentration of rented
properties in one area of the site.
Open space / landscaping
Policy C14 requires the provision of 'at least' 1.0 ha. of public open space within the
site. The proposal is to provide a single area (0.92ha.). Whilst the area is marginally
less than the policy requirement this to an extent can be balanced with the fact that
the number of dwellings proposed is less than the allocation policy provides for.
Furthermore, the quality of the open space proposed should make up for any deficit in
quantity. The area would be well integrated within the development, overlooked by the
housing, landscaped and well equipped (two equipped play areas and a youth
shelter). The route of the proposed footpath / cycle path to Hall Road would pass
through the open space. As part of the submitted S.106 Obligation the applicants have
offered a commuted sum payment of £76,372 to transfer the public open space to the
District Council.
The site benefits from the presence of substantial landscaping around its boundaries
in the form of woodlands, tree belts and hedgerows. A locally controversial element of
the proposal relates to the removal of a hedgerow which currently runs along the
Development Committee
11
5 September 2013
border of the main body of the site with Roughton Road. The reason for its proposed
removal is to allow for a footway to be provided along the road frontage of the
development. It has been suggested that the footway could be set inside the hedge,
but the Highway Authority has advised that it would not adopt the footway in such
circumstances and this would not be acceptable to the developer. Irrespective of the
footway issue the required visibility splays from the various accesses onto Roughton
Road would necessitate removal of sections of the hedgerow. In order to mitigate
against the loss of the existing hedgerow it is proposed to plant a new native
hedgerow along much of the road frontage behind the new footway. In the
circumstances, this aspect of the application is considered acceptable. It should also
be noted that the existing hedgerow which fronts Roughton Road along the northern
section of the site is to be retained (where no footway is proposed or required).
Policy C14 also requires the completion of a legal agreement to secure the provision
of public access to the nearby Browns Hill woodland. This woodland covers an area of
2.35 ha. and is located less than 100 metres from the site. This requirement originates
from a study commissioned by the District Council in preparing the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy, which indicated a shortfall of public open space in this part
of Cromer and which could not all be practically met on the allocated site. The
submitted draft S.106 Obligation includes a clause which would transfer ownership of
the woodland to the District Council at no cost. The applicants have also agreed that
prior to the transfer they will undertake an agreed programme of tree works within the
woodland as well as clearing the area of fly-tipping. Public ownership of this woodland
should provide a long term amenity benefit to the area.
Sustainability issues
Core Strategy Policy EN6 requires that all new dwellings should achieve a minimum
rating of level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, and that for developments of over
100 dwellings (where site conditions are suitable), 20% of the predicted total energy
usage should be from on-site renewable energy.
The applicants have confirmed compliance with Code level 3 and this could be
secured by a planning condition.
A supporting statement with the application demonstrates that photo voltaic panels
could be applied to 49 of the dwellings, which would equate to 13% renewable energy.
However, this is a theoretical evaluation only. The applicants have confirmed that no
forms of renewable energy are being proposed due to reasons of development
viability. Whilst this is regrettable, it is clear that following their concession to provide a
higher proportion of affordable housing than originally proposed, the applicants are
unwilling to bear any further additional cost incurred by this requirement, and thus the
application will need to be considered on this basis.
Ecological issues
Some public concern has been expressed regarding the impact upon bats as a result
of the removal of the hedgerow fronting onto Roughton Road. However the protected
species survey submitted with the application concludes that there is very low bat
activity in the area, plus no evidence of barn owls or reptiles. Proposed mitigation
includes the provision of bat boxes attached to trees around the site as well on some
of the dwellings. On this basis both Natural England and the Council's Landscape
Officer have raised no objection.
Policy C14(i) requires 'prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential
impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SPA / SAC arising as a result of increased visitor
pressure, and on-going monitoring of such measures'. This requirement applies to
Development Committee
12
5 September 2013
most of the major residential allocations in the District as well as to many of the
smaller village allocations.
This policy requirement stems from an Appropriate Assessment which was
undertaken as part of the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD, as required by the
Habitats Regulations (2010). The Council was required to undertake the Assessment
in order to consider the potential impact of significant new development in the District
upon these protected European sites. The conclusions of the Assessment were that
on the basis of the evidence at the time, additional visitor pressures on these sites
could not be ruled out. Consequently a precautionary approach was taken, resulting in
this policy requirement.
The way in which the Council has addressed this policy requirement in granting
planning permission on other sites is by securing, as part of a S.106 Obligation, a
payment amounting to £50 per dwelling. It is accepted that this in itself does not
represent 'a scheme of mitigation' as referred to in the policy. However the intention is
that it can be used to help fund, firstly, research into what if any additional visitor
pressures will arise cumulatively from these developments, and secondly, any projects
which arise from that research. It is acknowledged that work needs to be done on this
issue in order to accord with the Appropriate Assessment (the funds would be repayable to the developer if not used within 5 years); however, there is adequate time
to do this before the impacts of these developments (if any) would occur.
The applicants have declined to include such a payment in their submitted S.106
Planning Obligation. In a letter received from the applicant's solicitor it is argued that
there is no justification as to how the sum of £50 has been calculated and the
requirement does not meet the tests which should be applied to S.106 Obligations. In
addition a letter from the applicants' agent contends that the provision of on-site open
space, the transfer of Browns Hill woodland for public use, and the provision of new
footpaths/cycleways linking with the rural public footpath network, all combine to
offset, in part at least, visitor pressures to designated sites. The letter also states that
the issue of development viability similarly applies to this £50 contribution, as it does
to affordable housing and renewable energy policy requirements.
Section 106 Obligation
At the time of preparing this report a S.106 Obligation is in an advanced stage of
preparation. It includes the following:
Securing the provision of the affordable housing.
Payments towards education and library contributions.
A commuted sum towards future maintenance of the on-site public open space.
The transfer of Browns Hill woodland to the District Council subject to the prior
undertaking of an agreed scheme of treeworks and clearance.
Conclusions
The principle of developing this site for 145 dwellings is acceptable. Furthermore in
physical terms (layout, scale, design, landscaping, provision of open space, access
arrangements and infrastructure) the proposed development is considered to be
acceptable.
The proposal does however fall short in terms of the Core Strategy policy requirement
for 45% affordable housing (subject to viability), as well providing any renewable
energy provision. Independent advice obtained by the Council has confirmed that
Development Committee
13
5 September 2013
development viability is a reason why full compliance with these policies cannot
reasonably be met. As is often the case, the extent to which a development should
comply with such requirements is a matter of judgement for the Council as decision
maker, through a process of negotiation and taking into account all material
considerations. On balance it is considered that the application is now acceptable,
given the increased amount of affordable housing now proposed. Approval of the
application would contribute towards housing growth in the district in accordance with
the adopted Development Plan, the Council's corporate agenda and national planning
policy. The application will, however, need to be readvertised as a departure from
Policy EN6.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection
following readvertisement as a departure, the completion of the S.106 Planning
Obligation and (subject to any minor revisions) the imposition of the following
conditions:
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 as listed on the Document Register and Issue Sheet (ASD
Engineering - dated 15th August 2013), together with the recommendations
specified in paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 of the submitted Protected Species Survey
(Aurum Ecology - January 2013) and the Norfolk Homes 'Proposed Play
Equipment Schedule', unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
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 Policies EN4, EN9 & CT2 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
3
No works shall be carried out on roads, footways, cycleways, foul and surface
water sewers otherwise than in accordance with the specifications of the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are
constructed to a standard suitable for adoption as public highway, in
accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
Before any dwelling is first occupied the roads, footways and cycleways shall
be constructed to binder course surfacing level from the dwelling to the
adjoining County road in accordance with the details approved in writing by the
Development Committee
14
5 September 2013
Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with Policy CT 5
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted visibility
splays measuring 2.4 X 59 metres shall be provided to each side of the two
estate road accesses where they adjoin Roughton Road and the splays shall
thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.225 metres
above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
Prior to the first occupation of plots 69-77 visibility splays measuring 2.0 X 59
metres shall be provided to each side of the two accesses where they adjoin
Roughton Road and the splays shall thereafter be maintained free from any
obstruction exceeding 600mm above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site
highway improvement works shown on drawing numbers: 1055/ENG/001C,
002C, 003C & 1055/HWY/NR/001A, shall be completed to the written
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development
proposed, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
8
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an Interim
Travel Plan has been submitted, approved and signed off by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. (See Note
3).
Reason:
To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce
the impact of travel and transport on the environment, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied prior to
implementation of the Interim Travel Plan referred to in condition number 8
above. During the first year of occupation an Approved Full Travel Plan based
on the Interim Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. The
Approved Full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the
timetable and targets contained therein and shall continue to be implemented
Development Committee
15
5 September 2013
as long as any part of the development is occupied subject to approved
modifications agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority as part of the annual review.
Reason:
To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce
the impact of travel and transport on the environment, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
Surface water drainage from the site, incorporating sustainable drainage
principals, shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk
Assessment and appendices (ref: 1055/NMT/FRA/12-12 dated December
2012 by ASD Engineering) as revised by the subsequent amendment letters
and calculation and drawing attachments (refs:1055/190413/EA/001 dated 19
April 2013, 1055/160513/EA/002 dated 16 May 2013, and the email dated 18
June 2013). No dwellings or hardstandings shall be constructed upstream of
the drainage scheme until that part of the scheme has been completed in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface
water from the site for the lifetime of the development. in accordance with
Policy EN10 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
The landscaping scheme as indicated on the approved plan (drawing number
1055/10 Rev B - dated 21st June 2013) shall be carried out no later than the
next available planting season following the commencement of development or
such further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
12
Any new tree or shrub which within a period of five years from the date of
planting dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced during the next planting season with another of a similar size and
species to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written
approval is given to any variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13
Prior to the construction of the first dwelling, contaminated land remediation
works shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the agreed remediation
strategy (Ref-NHOM0058) and evidence shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the made-ground associated
with the area of the in-filled pit has been fully delineated and effectively
removed from the site. Furthermore in accordance with sections 3.2 & 4.0 of
the remediation strategy, areas of filled ground shall be excavated and
analysis at the base and sides of the excavation shall be undertaken. In the
event of further contamination being identified additional proposals for
remediation shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency before proceeding
Development Committee
16
5 September 2013
further with the approved development. Prior to occupation of any dwelling,
and following completion of the remediation, a full verification report should be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of protecting human health and controlled waters in
accordance with Policy EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
14
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no
construction works on the dwellings hereby approved shall commence until
details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority to demonstrate that the proposed dwellings will achieve a minimum
Code Level 3 rating in accordance with the requirements of the "Code for
Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide" or the equivalent standard in any
replacement guidance. The agreed details shall thereafter be implemented
within the construction of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. A Final Code Certificate for each dwelling
certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved for that dwelling shall
be issued and submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of
completion of the last dwelling.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2.
CROMER - LA/13/0823 - Installation of
(retrospective); 7 The Gangway for Mr R Price
replacement
garage
doors
- Target Date: 17 September 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Listed Building Alterations
CONSTRAINTS
Public Realm
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Archaeological Site
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
LA/10/1484 LA - Renovation of rear elevation including removal of render
Approved 28/04/2011
DE20/11/0205 ENQ -Erection of shed
10/08/2011
PF/13/0768
HOU - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension and
installation of two rear dormer windows
LA/13/0769
LA - Demolition of rear extension and erection of replacement
extension, installation of two rear dormer windows and internal alterations
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application for the replacement of steel up and over garage doors
with a pair of painted timber doors constructed with frame and vertical tongue and
grooved panels.
Development Committee
17
5 September 2013
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is an elected Member.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design did not require consultation
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the character and appearance of the Listed Building
APPRAISAL
The garage is located within the curtilage of the Grade II Listed Building known as
Newstead House and can be seen set back from Surrey Street.
The garage is a converted outbuilding that has a mono pitched pantiled roof with brick
and flint wall construction. The application states that the pair of yellow painted timber
doors have replaced a steel up and over door which was both damaged and insecure.
It is considered that the proposed replacement doors are appropriate in both style and
materials and would enhance the character and appearance of the heritage assets
(Listed Building and wider Conservation Area). The proposal is therefore considered
to comply with Policy EN8 of the Local Development Framework.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
Development Committee
18
5 September 2013
3.
EAST BECKHAM - PF/13/0772 - Installation of a 10.15mw solar development;
Land at Hall Farm for TGC Renewables Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 26 September 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Unclassified Road
Public Rights of Way Footpath
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19931350 PF - Erection and operation of fifteen wind turbines
Refused 06/05/1994 WD 05/01/1995
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of 10.15MW set across
approximately 25 hectares of grade 3b, 4 and 5 agricultural land to the south of the
A148 at East Beckham. A 10.15MW solar farm equates to approximately 43,200
individual solar panels to be installed on site. The panels would be sited within two
distinct groups occupying three existing fields and which would be divided by existing
agricultural land and connected via proposed tracks.
The panels would be ground mounted on angled racks with the highest point of the
panels rising to approximately 3.0 metres above ground level. The site would be
enclosed by 2.4m high green coloured security/deer fencing. Within the fenced sites
the applicant proposes to house 9 inverter units in total which convert the direct
current generated by the solar panels into alternating current to feed into the electricity
grid. Each inverter unit would measure approximately 9.8m in length x 3.1m wide with
a maximum height of approximately 3.6m. A Comms building is also proposed within
the larger field which would have a length of 7.2m, width of 3m and a height of 2.4m. A
switchgear building with a length of 4m, width of 2.6m and a maximum height of 3.1m
together with a 33kV substation building measuring 6.7m long x 5m wide and with a
maximum height of 3.9m are proposed to the south of the two areas of solar panels. A
temporary construction compound is also proposed. In addition a CCTV system is
proposed.
The agent has provided further clarification and details in respect of access, CCTV,
landscaping and ecology. The application is supported by a Landscape Visual Impact
Assessment.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To comply with Committee requests for all solar farms to be determined by the
Development Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
East & West Beckham - No objection to the application for the solar development but
do object to the proposed access for construction traffic and propose further
investigation of a possible access from the A148 or from Gibbet Lane.
Upper Sheringham - Object - it would be inappropriate for the area, not a good use of
land and would be an eyesore for tourists visiting the area.
Development Committee
19
5 September 2013
REPRESENTATIONS
Six representations have been received - 1 in support and 5 objecting.
Summary of comments objecting:
1. The sites are adjacent to public footpaths used extensively by tourists and locals
and will have a negative impact on those using these paths;
2. Agricultural land should be used for the production of food and to protect the
natural environment of wildlife and fauna;
3. We cannot live without food production;
4. The solar panels would be readily visible from the A148;
5. Will industrialise the landscape;
6. The proposal is of inappropriate scale;
7. Will be impossible to screen satisfactorily;
8. Noise impacts are not clearly explained;
9. Glint and glare risks need to be assessed;
10. The cumulative effect of this proposal and the wind turbine at Bodham should be
assessed;
11. Visual impacts are unacceptable;
12. The AONB is just to the north of this site and the landscape impacts are
unacceptable;
13. Solar panels should be on existing buildings only
Summary of comments in support:
1. Can understand and see the requirement for renewable energy schemes;
2. Would much prefer to have low level solar panels than huge wind turbines that are
visible over a huge area of Norfolk;
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Whilst there is no
objection in principle to a solar farm, further information/clarification is required in
respect of:
the agricultural land classification to confirm the land is 3b;
design, location and number of proposed security cameras;
inclusion of fencing to improving the site for biodiversity;
Landscape and Ecological mitigation;
access tracks; and
tree protection and footpaths. (See full copy of comments at Appendix 1).
Further comments on additional information submitted, no objection subject to
conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Of the
opinion that the proposed solar farm would not harm the setting of the Grade II Listed
entity that is East Beckham Hall.
Although the solar farm would be visible from the Hall, views in this direction would be
intermittent and distant. This separation distance, allied to the changes in topography,
the intervening hedge lines and the existing farm buildings, would all ensure that the
development would not affect the appreciation of the heritage asset within its rural
setting.
In the reverse direction, the solar panels would not impinge upon any of the existing
views of the Hall complex from the public footpath to the north. Whilst they would form
the backdrop to these views, this co-existence would not in itself result in
demonstrable harm being caused to the setting of the heritage asset.
Development Committee
20
5 September 2013
For these reasons, Conservation & Design can have no sustainable objections to this
application.
County Council Highways - Original Comments - Raised questions/concerns about the
suitability of 'Turn 1' close to Hall Cottages to cater for the delivery vehicles. Further
information was requested from the applicant explaining how the applicant intends to
address this issues. In addition, given the likely wear and tear upon the access route,
the Highway Authority requests that the applicant enters into a 'wear and tear'
agreement under Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980.
Comments on amended proposals - Comments awaited
Environment Agency - No objections subject to the imposition of conditions relating to
surface water management.
Environmental Health - No adverse comments
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection - The proposed site is close to the boundary
of the Norfolk Coast AONB (approximately 200 metres at its nearest point). However,
the land falls gently away to the south from the A148, which marks the AONB
boundary to the north, and existing hedgerows and planting provide significant
screening from the AONB to the north and east, with potential views from the west
also interrupted by dwellings on Sheringham Road. I'm not aware of any significant
viewpoints in the AONB from which this development might be prominent.
Overall, I agree with the LVIA that there may be some glimpses of the development
from the A148, and there may also be glimpses to the east of the site, for example
from the bridleway through Field Barn, but I would not expect these to be such as to
have a significant impact on the landscape setting of the AONB, so I have no objection
to the proposed development on these grounds.
I would point out, though, that the northern part of the proposed development overlaps
with a current application to Norfolk County Council for the development of a sand and
gravel quarry and processing plant. Neither application appears to reference or
recognise the other, so it should be clarified how the two applications are to be
determined and this apparent conflict resolved.
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service - Comments awaited.
Norfolk County Council – Footpaths – Comments awaited
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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
21
5 September 2013
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy 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 EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Environmental Impact Assessment
2. National Policy
3. Local Policy
4. Principle of the development
5. Landscape
6. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
7. Impact on Biodiversity
8. Impact on Residential Amenity
9. Light Pollution
10. Highway Safety
11. Impact on Footpaths
12. Flood Risk
13. Contamination
14. Archaeology & Impact on Listed Buildings and other Historic Assets
15. Renewable Energy benefits
16. Cumulative Impact Issues
APPRAISAL
Consideration of the application follows a Committee visit to the site and surrounding
area.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. Screening Opinions were produced at pre-application stage which advised the
applicant that the solar proposal was not considered to be EIA development and the
potential impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed through the standard
planning process. Officers remain of the opinion that the proposed solar farm is not
EIA development.
Development Committee
22
5 September 2013
National Policy Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements, circulars
and guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy, Planning
Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning Policy
Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of the
previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework, the
wording is more condensed. However, some of the supporting guidance has been
retained for the time being including the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for
Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The CS was
adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the Framework
and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the determination
of this application.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:
have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily,
including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
Development Committee
23
5 September 2013
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need
for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale
projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;
and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if
its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for
renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning
authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale
projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets
the criteria used in identifying suitable areas’.
In considering this proposal, officers have taken account of the advice set out within
paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted’.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 sets out the guiding
principles in planning for renewable energy and the bigger picture facing the UK and
at paragraph 2.1 states:
‘Global climate change is a recognised phenomenon of international significance. The
continuing production of ‘greenhouse gases’, and carbon dioxide in particular, is
contributing to the increasing rate of climate warming. This runs counter to the aims of
sustainable development as the effects, including sea level rise and the increased
frequency of extreme weather events, have human, environmental and economic
costs which can be very great. Tackling climate change is a necessary condition for
sustainable development, so the UK has signed up to a number of international
agreements in an attempt to address this situation’.
Paragraph 2.5 goes on to state:
‘The successful introduction of renewables in all parts of England will involve the
installation of different kinds of schemes in different contexts, from rural areas to
densely populated areas, market towns to suburban streets. Every local authority has
something to offer in terms of renewable resources, and opportunities to encourage
more efficient use of existing energy. The Government expects each authority to
contribute to meeting the targets and reducing overall demand for energy’.
Local Plan Policy - North Norfolk Core Strategy
Development Committee
24
5 September 2013
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS 2
would support the principle of renewable energy projects, subject to compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Policy SS4 states that renewable energy will be supported where impacts on amenity,
wildlife and landscape are acceptable.
Policy EN 7 states:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on;
the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not be
permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are not
compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures and
meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
When considering landscape and visual impact, officers have taken account of advice
not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also advice within Policy EN 2
(Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character) which states:
‘Proposals for development should 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 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
Development Committee
25
5 September 2013
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a sequential approach to
site selection and therefore the key factors influencing location choice for the type of
development proposed include, amongst other things, availability of land to
accommodate the development and availability of and distance from electrical grid
connection. The principle of the proposed development in this location is considered
acceptable subject to compliance with Core Strategy policies and relevant material
considerations such as Government advice.
LANDSCAPE
The site is located within landscape characterised within the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment as Tributary Farmland (TF3). In respect of landscape impact, a
key consideration is the effect of a relatively large area of solar panels and associated
infrastructure on the character and appearance of this character type and also the
wider landscape. The proposed development would occupy approximately 25
hectares (approximately 62 acres) of arable land.
The proposed solar farm would be barely perceptible in the landscape when viewed
from the east due to the topography of the land and the presence of existing relatively
mature landscaping. From the south, the panels would be more readily visible in
certain locations near to West Beckham village (Church Road/The Street) but such
views would generally see the solar farm set below the skyline and within a wider
wooded setting beyond.
From the west along Sheringham Road, the solar farm would be visible in a small
number of locations where there are gaps or openings in the field boundaries. The
solar farm would however be visible to a number of residents from the west from the
upper floors of properties with two or more storeys.
From the north, the solar farm would be visible from a number of locations along the
A148 between the junction with Holway Road and the crossroads at the vehicular
entrance to Sheringham Park. The proposal would also be visible from a number of
residential properties on the south side of the A148.
Wider and longer distant views of the solar farm from further afield would be generally
limited through the topography of the area and through the presence of existing
landscaping.
Some landscape mitigation is proposed including new hedge and tree planting and
landscape reinforcement but these will take time to establish and mature. The
perceived scale and visual impact of the proposed solar farm are generally considered
to be acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions to secure ecological and
landscape mitigation.
In respect of loss of agricultural land, the applicant originally indicated that the land is
designated as grade 3 agricultural land. He has subsequently advised that it is a
combination of grade 3b, 4 and 5. This is relevant because guidance at paragraph 112
of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is material to the
determination of the application, advises that 'Where significant development of
Development Committee
26
5 September 2013
agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should
seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.'
Whilst the loss of farming land for crop growing is regrettable, this ultimately has to be
balanced against the potential environmental and biodiversity benefits of reduced
nitrogen use on the land for the duration of the solar farm and the potential for
biodiversity enhancement together with consideration of any renewable energy
benefits. Whilst commercial crop growing would be prevented for the duration of the
development, the loss is only temporary and would be reversible. In any event the
applicant has indicated that sheep grazing would take place under panels to manage
the grassland and therefore could be seen as a form of farm diversification.
Officers consider that the temporary loss of some grade 3b agricultural land for crop
production would not be sufficient to justify refusal.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate mitigation
planting, it is considered that the landscape impact of the proposal would be broadly
compliant with relevant Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
The site lies approximately 230m east and 270m south of the southern boundary of
the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a designated
landscape. The AONB was designated in 1968 in recognition of its scenic beauty,
remarkable landscape and cultural diversity and unique and special wildlife.
The Norfolk Coast Partnership have been consulted and they agree with the
conclusions of the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted by the
applicant that there may be some glimpses of the development from the A148, and
there may also be glimpses to the east of the site, for example from the bridleway
through Field Barn. However the Norfolk Coast Partnership would not expect these
views of the solar farm to be such as to have a significant impact on the landscape
setting of the AONB. As such, The Norfolk Coast Partnership have no objection to the
proposed development.
Officers consider that, although resulting in a change in land use from arable to
industrial, the impact of the proposal on the „special qualities‟ of the AONB could not
be assessed as significant.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, particularly those conditions required to secure
proposed landscape mitigation, Officers consider that the proposal would accord with
Core Strategy Policy EN 1.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
An extended Phase One Habitat Survey undertaken in February 2013 by Adonis
Ecology Ltd has been submitted with the application and which officers understand
has been carried out in accordance with recognised standards.
Amongst other things, the report suggests that the land subject of the proposal is of
low ecological value for wildlife at a local level and that the proposal development
would have minimal risk of impact on protected or rare wildlife or local wildlife sites. A
number of biodiversity enhancements are proposed including a seed mix to create
species rich grassland and the applicant considers there to be a real possibility to
significantly enhance the biodiversity value of the site.
Development Committee
27
5 September 2013
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) has noted the
recommendations contained within the Ecological Assessment and the Landscape
and Visual Impact Assessment and had raised some concerns regarding the
coherence between the different suggested mitigation strategies and that, without
proper coherence, it may not be possible to realise all of the stated enhancements.
The applicant was been made aware of these concerns and has subsequently
indicated that they would be happy with appropriate conditions to be imposed in the
event of permission being granted.
Officers conclude that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not
have a significant detrimental impact on biodiversity interests in the area and would
comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
In respect of impact on residential amenity, the nearest properties to the site are
located approximately 230m due north on the southern side of the A148 (six
properties). Approximately 500m to the east is the Grade II listed Abbey Farm with a
further nine properties due east of this.
To the south of the site lie approximately 40 residential properties along Church Road
and The Street. These properties are in excess of 600m from the application site.
To the west of the site lie approximately 50 residential properties along Sheringham
Road and Back Lane. These properties are in excess of 500m from the application
site.
The Committee has had the opportunity to view the development site from various
locations and therefore will be able to appreciate the relationship between residential
properties and the application site.
Whilst the proposed solar farm may be visible from some properties, given the
distance between residential properties and the application site and having regard to
the height of the panels, it is not considered that the proposal solar farm would in any
way result in overbearing impacts of loss of daylight or sunlight. The panels are
designed to absorb sunlight and therefore glare is not likely to occur from the panels
themselves.
In respect of the CCTV system, whilst they are generally required for insurance
purposes, the applicant has provided basic details setting out the type of cameras to
be used and the number and intended location of cameras on site. Having learned
from the experience of systems on other sites within the District, Officers consider that
because of the distance from properties (in excess of 200m), cameras would not be
likely to pose a risk to the amenity of residents. Nonetheless, it is recommended that a
condition be imposed requiring approval of the details of the CCTV system prior to its
installation.
Officers are of the understanding that no loudspeaker system is proposed and
conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would
give rise to unacceptable impacts.
Officers consider that the proposal would not likely result in any significant adverse
impacts to residential amenity and the proposal would comply with the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy EN 4. Nonetheless it is recommended that conditions be
Development Committee
28
5 September 2013
imposed to ensure that noise impacts remain acceptable and to ensure that the CCTV
to be installed is first approved by the Local Planning Authority.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of any concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants are
not proposing to erect external lighting. In any event, were the Committee minded to
approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent external
lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
It is considered that the proposed development would not pose a highway safety risk
during its operational life with very few vehicle movements associated with
maintenance and repair of the panels once constructed and few vehicles movements
associated with the maintenance of the grassland. It is only during the construction
phase when a significant number of vehicle movements will be generated and it is
delivery of the 43,200 panels to site that would be likely to create the most number of
vehicle movements. The Highway Authority have raised concerns about the suitability
of the proposed access route along Church Road (accessed from the A148 at 'Pretty
Corner'). The primary access issue relates to the limited space available for larger
vehicles to turn off from Church Road and up along the private access track to the
site. The applicant has responded to the concerns raised by the Highway Authority by
proposing the use of smaller vehicles. This will increase the number of vehicle
movements. Further comments from the Highway Authority are awaited.
Subject to no further objections from the Highway Authority, it is considered that the
proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
IMPACT ON FOOTPATHS
In relation to the impact of the development on footpath users, East Beckham
Footpath 2 runs around part the southern boundary of the site (Fields 1 and 2). The
proposal would have no direct impact on the route of the footpath itself, although users
of the footpath would experience a different view when walking along the footpath
once the solar panels and fencing are installed and also once proposed landscaping
matures. Therefore whilst the views of slow moving receptors such as walkers would
be affected by the proposal, the use of the footpath itself would not be impeded by the
proposal. The Public Rights of Way Officer has been consulted at Norfolk County
Council and Committee will be updated in respect of any response received.
FLOOD RISK
Whilst the application site area is above 1 hectare in size and therefore the applicant
needs to consider surface water flooding issues, the Environment Agency has
indicated that it would not expect the nature of the development to increase
significantly the surface water run-off and does not consider the application to pose
any additional flood risk, subject to the imposition of conditions.
The proposal would therefore accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the proposed development is not considered to pose any
significant risks nor are there any previous land-uses on site which would require
consideration in relation to contamination.
The proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
Development Committee
29
5 September 2013
ARCHAEOLOGY & IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS AND OTHER HISTORIC
ASSETS
The site is not located within an area of known archaeological remains. The applicant
has submitted a desk-based assessment produced by On Site Archaeology Ltd which
suggests that there are 'no scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings or any
other known remains of national importance within, or close to, the boundary of the
site that might prevent development'. However the report‟s authors have
acknowledged that little in the way of modern archaeological investigation has been
carried out in the vicinity of the area and therefore it is not possible to ascertain the full
impact of the proposed development on the historic environment.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services have noted the conclusions of the desk-based
assessment submitted by the applicant and have recommended that a geo-physical
survey be undertaken to ascertain whether there are likely to be any deposits on site
which would require further investigation. The applicant has indicated that a survey will
be carried out and, at the time of writing this report, the results of a geo-physical
survey are awaited. Committee will be updated orally in respect of this matter.
In respect of impact on other heritage assets in the area, the closest designated
heritage asset is Hall Farmhouse (formerly known as East Beckham Hall), a Grade II
listed building located approximately 350 south of the proposed solar farm. The
building is owned by landowners who also have an interest in the solar application
land. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
has confirmed he has no objections.
Other historic assets include the Grade II listed remains of the Parish church of St
Helen located approximately 500m south east of the site and Grade II listed Abbey
House located approximately 525m south east of the site. To the south west is the
Grade II listed Chestnut Farmhouse, The Street, West Beckham (approximately 980m
away) and the Grade II listed Ivy Lodge, Lodge Hill, Upper Sheringham is located
650m away to the north west.
In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a
listed building or its setting, Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the local planning authority shall have
special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features
of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Having regard to these
requirements, it is not considered that the proposed solar farm would adversely affect
the setting of the above identified listed buildings or any features of special
architectural or historic interest which they possess.
Whilst the solar farm would be visible from a number of designated historic assets,
where any impacts do occur, the impacts are considered to result in less than
substantial harm to the setting of historic assets and, as such, it is a matter of planning
judgment for the Committee as to whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the
identified adverse impacts.
Nonetheless it is considered that the proposal would accord with general aims of
Policy EN 8.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Policy EN 7 requires that large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area.
Development Committee
30
5 September 2013
The applicants have commented as to how the proposal would comply with this
element of Policy EN 7 in their design and access statement and that the benefits are
primarily related to renewable energy generation.
The applicants have indicated that the proposed solar farm would generate
approximately 7.8GWh (7,881,840KWh) of electricity per annum based on a stated
capacity of the solar farm of approximately 9.84MW. Putting the predicted electricity
generation into context and using the latest Department for Environment and Climate
Change (DECC) figures (approximately 4715.5 kWh of electricity were used per
consumer (household) annually in North Norfolk). Using this figure the proposed solar
farm would generate enough electricity to power approximately 1,671 homes annually.
This would make a significant contribution towards meeting national renewable energy
targets, to which significant weight can be attached.
It is considered that the proposal would broadly comply with the requirements of Policy
EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND PROJECTS
IN THE AREA
A number of representations have been received in relation to concerns about the
cumulative impact of proposed renewable development in and around Bodham and
East Beckham. In addition to the proposed solar farm, concerns have been expressed
about the cumulative impact of this scheme together with the 86.5m high wind turbine
approved at Bodham by the Planning Inspectorate under planning ref: PF/11/0983.
Whilst the Local Planning Authority are currently seeking to challenge the Planning
Inspectorate's decision regarding the Bodham turbine, until such time as the Courts
decide otherwise, permission is granted for the turbine and therefore cumulative
impact considerations should be taken into account, where appropriate and relevant to
do so.
Whilst the proposed Bodham wind turbine would be visible on the skyline from certain
locations and also visible with the proposed solar farm, this relationship in itself is not
considered to be significantly detrimental to the wider landscape setting, particularly
as there will only be limited views of the solar farm development with the turbine.
Refusal based on cumulative impacts of the Bodham turbine could not therefore be
justified.
In respect of adjacent land, to the north of Field 3, a gravel quarry is proposed and
which is currently being determined by the County Council as the minerals and waste
authority (ref: C/1/2013/1012 East Beckham Gresham Gravel Ltd). The proposed
gravel extraction site and the northern tip of the solar farm overlap and questions have
arisen as to the timing of how the two sites would be developed. The applicant has
responded confirming that the solar farm has priority over the later phase of proposed
the gravel extraction operations and therefore mitigation screening along the northern
boundary of field 3 would remain in place for the lifetime of the solar farm (expected to
be in the region of 25 years). Therefore, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to secure the retention of the boundary screen hedges, the proposal is
considered to be acceptable and refusal based cumulative impacts with the proposed
gravel quarry could not be justified.
Based on the available evidence there is no reason to suggest that the Committee is
unable to determine this solar farm application, particularly if the Committee has taken
account of other developments in the area.
Development Committee
31
5 September 2013
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of a 10.15MW solar farm would, amongst other things, have
some adverse visual impacts on the surrounding landscape, it is considered that these
impacts can be made acceptable. It is considered that the proposal would not have a
significant adverse impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
policies.
In addition, the public benefit of the proposal in terms of renewable energy generation
is a material consideration to which significant weight should be afforded in
accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
outstanding consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
including those relating to landscape mitigation, landscape management and
biodiversity enhancement.
4.
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0553 - Erection of first floor side extension; 2 Mission Lane
for Mr P Joy
- Target Date: 03 July 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a first-floor side extension measuring approximately 4.2m wide by
5.75m deep by 6.6m high (total height from ground floor level).
Application amended to set the proposed first floor extension circa 1m in from the
northern boundary, reduce the size of the east facing window (the window would also
now serve bedroom 2 rather than the Master Bedroom) and the proposed hardie plank
finish has been changed to a lighter green finish rather than midnight black.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The Ward Members know the objector and have declared an interest in the
application; consideration of the representations under delegated powers is therefore
considered to be inappropriate.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection/comment
REPRESENTATIONS
2 representations received from 1 member of the public.
Development Committee
32
5 September 2013
Objections (summarised):
Proximity and height of proposed extension;
Loss of light to rear garden, greenhouse and main bedroom;
Overshadowing;
Overlooking to garden room and bedroom;
Loss of privacy;
Impact upon quality of life.
CONSULTATIONS
None
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development;
2. Design;
3. Impact upon neighbouring amenities.
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within the Fakenham Settlement Boundary, where proposals for
extensions to existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject
to compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies.
The property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling, fronting Mission Lane.
Design
The design of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable. It is not
considered that the scale of the proposed extension would dominate the original
dwelling, nor harm its architectural character. At 6.6m, the proposed extension would
have a ridge-height lower than the existing property and would be set-back from the
front building line.
Materials proposed are considered to be acceptable; HardiePlank, green finish and
red clay tiles to match existing.
Development Committee
33
5 September 2013
Impact upon neighbouring amenities
2 Mission Lane is built hard-up to the northern boundary. The proposed first-floor
extension would sit approximately 0.9m from the boundary. At its closest, the
proposed extension would sit some 5m away from the closest neighbouring property
(2A Mission Lane).
In terms of impact on the neighbour to the north, it is recognised that the first-floor side
extension would be sited close to the boundary and the neighbouring single-storey
property with a facing bedroom window. The Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC)
recommends a distance of 8.5m between a secondary window and blank elevation.
An east-facing first-floor window would serve bedroom 2.
Whilst there would be a potential shortfall with the Basic Amenity Criteria
recommendation in terms of the relationship with 2A Mission Lane and their bedroom
window, and whilst it is recognised that the proposed east-facing bedroom window
would, to some degree, increase the incidence of overlooking to the garden room and
bedroom, given the existing relationships and given that the proposed east-facing
window would be fairly modest in size, it is not considered that the proposed
development would have a significantly detrimental impact in terms of overlooking to
2A Mission Lane.
In terms of loss of light/overbearing impact, given that the extension would be set in
from the existing building-line with a hipped-roof sloping away from the adjacent
neighbour and given existing close relationships between the properties, it is not
considered that refusal of permission would be justified in respect of increased loss of
light or overbearing impact.
In summary, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the
below:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plan (drawing
number 2065.01 Rev A) received by the Local Planning Authority on 28 June
2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no window or rooflight shall be
inserted in the northern elevation or roofslope of the first-floor side extension
hereby permitted unless planning permission has been first granted by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
Development Committee
34
5 September 2013
4
Tiles to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge
satisfactorily with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5.
FELBRIGG - PF/13/0896 - Erection of conservatory (revised scheme); Driftway
Farm, The Driftway for Mrs J Oliver
- Target Date: 16 September 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761559 PF - Front extension of lounge and porch over front door
Approved 26/11/1976
PF/13/0587 HOU - Erection of single-storey rear/side extension
Approved 08/07/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a conservatory as a revision of the previously approved single
storey rear/side extension (PF/13/0587). The previously approved development was
for a two stage development of rear extension with a side element capable of being
provided at a later stage to provide a music room, study and other additional
accommodation for domestic purposes. This application requires consideration of a
conservatory to the side elevation of the approved rear extension.
The conservatory would project approximately 4.5m from the side elevation of the rear
extension and be approximately 3.5m in width with the highest part of the roof at a
height of approximately 3m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Development Manager as the applicant is related to the Deputy
Leader of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response received at the time of writing this report.
REPRESENTATIONS
None.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
35
5 September 2013
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
2. Design
3. Impact on the countryside
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated countryside (where the principle of an extension is
acceptable under Policy SS2) and AONB where proposals to extend existing dwellings
are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant Core Strategy
policies.
The proposal seeks to erect a white Upvc conservatory on a rendered plinth to the
south western elevation of the previously approved rear extension as a revision to the
side extension previously approved with the rear extension.
The scale of the proposal ensures that the architectural character of the original
building is not harmed. The proposal would be smaller in scale than the side element
that was previously approved. It is considered that the position of the dwelling in
relation to neighbouring properties means that the proposal would not introduce any
detrimental impacts on the amenities of those properties. It is further considered that
the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the AONB nor would it increase the
impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The
proposal is therefore acceptable under policies EN1, EN4 and HO8.
The proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan and is
therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to no objection from the Parish Council.
Development Committee
36
5 September 2013
6.
HORNING - PO/13/0741 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent 2
Cloverhill, Letheringtons Lane for Mr R Kalynuk
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 August 2013
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20031290 PF - Erection of bungalow and double garage
Refused 23/09/2003
PLA/20021539 PF - Erection of bungalow and garage
Refused 29/11/2002
PLA/20041343 PF - Erection of bungalow and double garage
Refused 01/10/2004
THE APPLICATION
Seeks outline planning permission to erect a single storey dwelling, with all matters
reserved.
The site is part of the garden serving the applicant's dwelling, 2 Cloverhill.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barbara McGoun having regard to the personal
circumstances of the applicants, in particular Mrs Kalynuk's health and their current
situation with their bank. See Appendix 2 for Councillor McGoun's letter of support.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response received from Horning Parish Council
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter in support of the application submitted by the applicants providing information in
respect of personal need issue and their financial situation (see exempt Appendix 4).
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - no objection. Although any proposal which would
significantly increase the vehicular use of the single-track Letherington's Lane would
be likely to attract an objection, in this instance it is not reasonable to extend this
objection to a further single dwelling proposed at this particular location.
Accordingly, subject to an appropriate condition and informative note being appended
to any consent notice issued, I would not wish to object to the granting of permission.
The condition would request full details of the visibility splays, access and
parking/turning provision.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - no objection, with a condition ensuring compliance with
Code Level 3.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - no objection, however any
subsequent reserved matters application should be supported by an Arboricultural
Implications Assessment, Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan (all to BS5837) to
ensure that the trees on and adjacent to the site are adequately protected.
Development Committee
37
5 September 2013
Anglian Water - awaiting response.
Environmental Health - comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
APPRAISAL
The site lies within an area of Countryside where new residential dwellings are not
normally permitted under Policy SS 2.
The site is currently used as a garden by the applicants and is largely laid to lawn,
with several trees around the edge of the site. Sited north of the A1062, it falls outside
of Horning's residential area and lies close to the border with the Broads Authority. In
addition to the applicant's own bungalow, there is another bungalow sited to the south
of 2 Cloverhill, which sits on the corner of the A1062 and Letherington's Lane.
With all matters reserved this application focuses upon the principle of a new single
storey dwelling at the site.
With both the applicant's and neighbour's dwelling single storey, another single storey
dwelling could prove to be acceptable in terms of design. Partially dependent on the
number of trees to be retained, the new dwelling would not be readily visible from
anywhere except Letherington's Lane, and could be sited to relate well to the existing
bungalows. At approximately 35m by 17m it is anticipated that the plot is large enough
to accommodate a design which would not result in any significantly detrimental
impact upon the immediate neighbour. Policy EN 4 could therefore be complied with.
Development Committee
38
5 September 2013
The additional traffic generated by a new dwelling is considered acceptable, and with
appropriate visibility splays a new access onto Letherington's Lane could also be
acceptable under Policy CT 6. The site appears large enough to be able to provide
sufficient parking, complying with Policy CT 5.
With a suitable condition added, compliance with Policy EN 6 can also be achieved.
The applicants consider that there are good grounds to justify a departure from policy.
One of the applicants is registered disabled and suffers from a variety of health
issues, with her mobility deteriorating. Their current dwelling is not designed to
accommodate her needs, with doors too narrow, rooms too small and many day to
day aspects of the bungalow not wheelchair friendly. A new dwelling could be purpose
built allowing the applicant more independence and to remain within Horning, which
she can currently access using her mobility scooter. See exempt Appendix 4 for the
applicant's supporting letter containing further explanation.
Their situation has been made more difficult as they feel they have been victims of
malpractice at a bank, which is currently being investigated by the Financial
Ombudsman. As a consequence they are likely to be evicted.
Although these issues are material considerations, they do not, in Officer's opinion,
amount to sufficient justification to deviate from policy.
Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy SS 2 and is
recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse, for the following reason, subject to no further reason from Anglian
Water:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside
The site lies within an area designated as Countryside, where there is a general
presumption against residential development. In the opinion of the Local
Planning Authority the case put forward in the applicants' letter accompanying
the application does not provide sufficient justification to permit the erection of
an additional dwelling in the Countryside contrary to Policy SS 2.
7.
LITTLE SNORING - PF/13/0207 - Erection of first floor extension, including
raising height of roof, one and a half storey rear extension, single-storey front
extension and single-storey side/rear extension; 6 Thursford Road for Mrs
Amos
- Target Date: 17 April 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Development Committee
39
5 September 2013
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DEV20/09/052 ENQ
Extension
PLA/19930925 PF - First floor extension
Withdrawn 21/09/1993
PF/12/0475 HOU - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension, two-storey front
extension and first floor extension
Withdrawn 20/02/2013
THE APPLICATION
This is an amended proposal seeking to provide a first floor extension, including
raising the height of the roof, a one and a half storey rear extension, a single storey
front extension and a single storey side/rear extension. The amended proposal follows
the withdrawal of the original proposal under 12/0475 and extensive discussion
regarding the plans first submitted under this application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Green having regard to the following planning matters:
overdevelopment
impact upon neighbouring amenities
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments: The Parish Council objects to this application for the following
reasons: invasion of privacy - it would overlook the neighbouring properties,
particularly those that back on to the garden. Overdevelopment of the site - huge
footprint on a plot intended for a two bedroom bungalow. The extended frontage and
increased height, depth and width are not in keeping with the rest of the properties in
the development (bungalows and chalet bungalows) other extensions, which have
been acceptable are only ground floor extensions.
Following the submission of the amended proposal the Parish Council provided
the following response:
Objects - recommends the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. the overall footprint is too big for the plot
2. The extension of the first floor at the rear means that the neighbours would be
overlooked and their privacy compromised. It was suggested that the rear
extension should only be at ground level.
Although some changes have been made to the original proposal, the amended plans
are still not suitable for the location. The estate of dwellings is one of bungalows and
chalet bungalows. Small ground level extensions that overlook neighbouring
properties are not.
REPRESENTATIONS
3 x objections received in respect of the original proposal on the following grounds:
being directly behind the proposal we feel it will directly impinge on our privacy.
The large upstairs window will be straight in line with our kitchen windows and the
roof lights would overlook fully our conservatory and garden (No.5 Manor Close &
No 4 No 6)
proposal too large
not in keeping with the area (bungalows)
all properties in the Close are bungalows, none have been allowed to build up.
Development Committee
40
5 September 2013
2 x objections received following advertisement of amended proposal (one is
from an original objector and the other is a new objection)
any elevated addition to a bungalow in this situation is bound to be an intrusion
on the surrounding dwellings as the gardens are somewhat small
loss of privacy
a caravan repair service appears to be operating at the front of the dwelling
rear upstairs bedroom window would look directly into our kitchen as their garden
overlaps ours by some 3 metres (No. 6 Manor Close)
amended plans make situation worse as the rear extension would be even closer
to our property (No. 6 Manor Close)
One of the things that attracted us to the Close was that all the properties were
bungalows and therefore no overlooking
development out of place with existing properties
possibly open the floodgates for further over development of the village
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Suitability of design
2. Impact upon neighbouring amenities
APPRAISAL
The site lies in the designated residential area of Little Snoring where the principle of
extending an existing dwelling is acceptable subject to compliance with other Core
Strategy policies which in this case includes policy EN4.
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. In addition
proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity
of nearby occupiers.
This amended proposal seeks to provide a first floor extension, including raising the
height of the roof, a one and a half storey rear extension, a single storey front
extension and a single storey side/rear extension. The amended proposal follows the
withdrawal of the original proposal under 12/0475 and extensive discussion regarding
Development Committee
41
5 September 2013
the plans first submitted under this application. In particular Officers were concerned
with the raising of the eaves and the height and scale of the proposed front extension.
The applicant has significantly amended his proposal such that the application has
addressed Officer's concerns.
The proposal seeks to raise the roof of the bungalow to provide first floor
accommodation. The height of the eaves is to remain as existing, with the ridge height
increased by approx. 1.1m to approx. 6.2m. The adjacent dwelling to the north has a
ridge height of approx 6.8m it is therefore considered that the proposal is in keeping
with the form and character of the area, there already being a mix of single storey and
one and a half storey dwellings. A previously proposed one and half storey front
extension has been deleted and replaced with a single storey front facing gable
extension in the position of the existing porch and would project approx. 2.3m from the
front elevation. The scale and form of this part of the proposal is now considered to be
acceptable and in keeping with the character of the area.
To the side and rear it is proposed to erect a single storey extension which
incorporates the existing flat roof garage which runs along the southern boundary.
This extension would at the side have a gable facing the neighbour approx 3.7m to the
ridge with a width of approx. 4.3m, followed by a dual pitched roof with the gable rear
facing so that the majority of the roof line along this boundary would be sloping away
from the neighbour with the eaves at a height of approx. 2.3m (the existing flat roof
garage height is 2.5m). This would provide a home office space and utility/wc area,
with an open storage area beyond. The site would still be able to accommodate
sufficient parking space at the frontage which is considered in keeping with
neighbouring properties. The side extension is considered acceptable in relation to the
neighbouring property which has a garage also along this boundary and the
application site currently has further outbuildings existing along this boundary. Whilst it
would result in a relatively long and narrow rear extension it is not considered to be
harmful to the character and appearance of the original dwelling.
Also at the rear two roof lights are proposed on the raised roof slope to serve a
bedroom and shower room. The distance from these windows is considerably greater
than the recommended distances for protection of neighbours privacy and therefore
this element raises no cause for concern. A further gabled extension is proposed at
the rear which would be approx. 6.5m in width with the ridge sitting slightly below that
of the raised ridge level. This extension would extend approx 3.3m from the original
rear wall. A first floor window is proposed.
In terms of recommended distances (Basic Amenity Criteria) for retaining an
acceptable degree of privacy between properties the greatest distance required to be
achieved by the Council‟s Design Guide would be between primary windows and
primary windows; a distance of 21m. In this instance the window of concern is a
secondary window (where recommended distances are less than for primary) but
nonetheless the distance between the proposed and the neighbouring properties to
the rear is, for No. 6 Manor Close some 31m to windows at an oblique angle (there
are some trees along No. 6 Manor Close's rear boundary which would further obscure
any view in that direction); 28m for No.5 Manor Close and, at very oblique angle if at
all possible, some 37m to No.4 Manor Close. Distances from the proposed
development to the boundaries of the neighbouring properties to the rear range from
some 14m to 23m.
In addition whilst the proposed first floor window to the rear extension could introduce
some overlooking of part of the rear garden of the neighbour to the north (No. 5
Thursford Road) it is considered that this would not be significantly detrimental given
Development Committee
42
5 September 2013
that some overlooking of this garden is already present from the first floor rear window
of no. 4 Thursford Road.
It is considered that the amended proposal has addressed the concerns previously
raised by officer's and the Parish Council and public representations. The Parish
Council has objected to the amended proposal and two objections have also been
received on the grounds of overdevelopment and loss of privacy and the development
being out of character with the area. However, Officers consider that the amended
proposal complies with the Council's amenity criteria and that the scale and form of
the development is acceptable at this location.
The development therefore accords with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve with appropriate conditions.
8.
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0838 - Change of use of land (part retrospective) to
gypsy/traveller site for a maximum of four caravans and erection of two sheds;
The Works, Church Road for Mr R Leveridge
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 September 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Contaminated Land
Archaeological Site
Flood Zone 2
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the continued use of land at a former sewage treatment plant as a site for
Gypsy/Travellers.
It is proposed that a maximum of four caravans would be pitched on the site, two of
which would be mobile homes and the other two touring caravans, which would be
occupied by two local Gypsy/Travellers.
An amended plan has been received which indicates the location of two sheds as well
as the mobile homes and touring caravans.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting for a Committee site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Sea Palling Parish Council - No comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
24 letters of objection from local residents which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. Site is totally unsuitable as it has no toilets, showers or waste collection facilities.
Development Committee
43
5 September 2013
2. There is no water supply on the site.
3. As there is no electricity on the site does this mean there will noisy generators
disturbing the peace and quiet?
4. It is difficult to see how the refuse vehicles will access the site.
5. Church Road is unsuitable for caravans and larger towing vehicles.
6. There are no passing points on Church Road.
7. The proposed use of the site would have a detrimental impact on the local
community, tourism and businesses.
8. The use of the site could escalate as has happen elsewhere in the country.
9. What type of business will be carried out on the site, especially as one of the
applicants is a car dealer/haulier?
10. The proposed use would adversely affect the quiet and peaceful atmosphere of
the churchyard at St Margaret's Church.
11. Proposed use could affect property values.
12. If permission is granted this should be limited to the named persons, purely for
residential use with no business being undertaken on site.
36 letters of support, 5 from residents of Sea Palling, 25 from elsewhere in Norfolk and
the remainder from other locations in East Anglia, which make the following comments
(summarised):1. Applicant has long associations with Sea Palling and it is good to have him back in
the village.
2. The applicants are an asset to the community and have long established links with
the area.
3. The applicants are polite, respectful, courteous and friendly.
4. The proposed gypsy/travellers site would not have a detrimental impact on the
village or existing residents.
5. I have known one of the applicants for 10 years as a very close friend of the family
and he is a very friendly and generous man who will go out of his way to help
anybody.
6. An ideal site, I know they will keep the area and surroundings in a good clean and
tidy condition as it needs to be suitable living conditions for children.
7. In my experience the applicant has proven to be a valuable member of the
community.
8. The applicant is a great businessman and excellent father and I feel that he
deserves a chance to have a stable environment to bring up his two children.
Further information has been received from the applicant‟s agent which indicates that
the site is only to be used to meet the accommodation needs of Mr Rueben Leveridge
and Mr Nigel Cutting. Mr Leveridge and his family are Romany Gypsies who still lead
a nomadic way of life. The family are local to the North Norfolk area and attend the
traditional gypsy fairs. The other applicant Mr Cutting is also a Romany Gypsy who
also still leads a nomadic way of life. He has recently been forced to move from land
designated as part of the Pathfinder project for which North Norfolk District Council
was the managing agent. It is suggested that Mr Cutting has been unable to follow his
nomadic way of life whilst living on the cliffs at Happisburgh due to his need to be in
attendance to move his possessions in the event of a cliff fall. He intends to resume
his lifestyle now that he has a settled base.
The agent also points to the fact that the applicants have been unable to identify other
land within the District that could be used by Gypsy/Travellers and that the Council
has failed to make a five year supply of land available despite having a sizable
Gypsy/Traveller population.
Development Committee
44
5 September 2013
The applicant‟s agent has also indicated that his clients would be prepared to accept a
personal permission, which meant that the site would only be occupied by Mr
Leveridge and Mr Cutting and their dependents. Also that the applicant would be
prepared to construction of a Package Treatment Plant in order to address this
Council‟s Environmental Protection Team concerns regarding sewage disposal.
A letter has also been received from local architect who represents the owner of the
land adjoining the site to the west which suggests that the applicants have no right of
way over the land known as the “Driftway”, which forms the access to the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health –
Contaminated land - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Refuse collection - Occupants will need to pay Council Tax in order to initiate
wheelie bin collection.
Foul/Surface water drainage – No objection to the installation of a Package
Treatment Plant, subject to a contaminated land survey and limiting the time for
implementation.
Planning Policy Manager - Comments awaited.
Environment Agency - No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection subject to
the planting of a hedgerow to the southern and eastern boundaries of the site and the
retention of the hedges to the northern and western boundaries.
County Council (Highways) – Considers that Church Road, which is a single track
road is inadequate to serve the needs of the development, due to its poor alignment,
restricted width, lack of passing provision and pedestrian facilities. In addition, the
junction of Church Road and the C643 is positioned on an S bend with traffic requiring
to turn right into Church Road from the west encountering severely restricted forward
visibility. It is therefore the opinion of the Highways Authority that given the restricted
access and severely substandard nature of Church Road that the proposal if
permitted, which based on two dwellings, could amount to 16 -20 daily traffic
movements, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
The Highways Officer also points to the fact that an appeal for the erection of four
dwellings with access off Church Road was dismissed at appeal in November 2004,
one of the grounds being the highway safety hazards, due to the sub-standard nature
of Church Road coupled with increased traffic movements.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
45
5 September 2013
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 4: Sites for Gypsies and Travellers and travelling showpeople (specifies the
criteria to be met for the provision of sites).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposal should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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. Landscape impact
3. Impact on the setting of St Margaret's Church
4. Impact on neighbouring properties
5. Access and highway safety
6. Flood risk
7. Sewage and waste disposal
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting of the Development Committee
in order to allow Members to visit the site.
The site is situated in the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies SS2, HO4, EN2, EN3,
EN4, EN10 and CT5 and CT6 are applicable.
The development is a type that is identified that could be acceptable in the
Countryside Policy Area under SS2.
Policy HO4 states that development to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and
of Travelling Showpeople will be permitted provided it is of an appropriate scale and
nature and the following criteria are met:
the intended occupants meet the definition of Gypsies and Travellers, or the
description of travelling showpeople; and
development minimises impact on the surrounding landscape; and
safe vehicular access to the public highway can be provided; and
the movement of vehicles to and from the site will not cause significant
disturbance; and
there is adequate space for parking, turning and servicing on site; and
the site is on the outskirts of, or within a reasonable distance of, a settlement
which offers local services and community facilities; and
suitable landscaping and boundary enclosures are provided to give privacy,
minimise impact on the surrounding area and provide a safe and acceptable
Development Committee
46
5 September 2013
living environment.
Policy EN2 requires that 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.
Policy EN3 states that in the Undeveloped Coast only development that can be
demonstrated to require a coastal location and that will not be significantly detrimental
to the open coastal character will be permitted. Community facilities, commercial,
business and residential development that is considered important to the well-being of
the coastal community will be permitted where it replaces that which is threatened by
coastal erosion.
Policy EN4 requires that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect
on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide
acceptable residential amenity.
Policy EN10 states that in Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3a development will be restricted to
the following categories:
water compatible uses
minor development
changes of use (to an equal or lower risk category in the flood risk vulnerability
classification) where there is no operational development; and
„Less vulnerable‟ uses where the sequential test has been passed.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) vulnerability classification identifies
caravans, mobile homes, or park homes sites intended for permanent residential use
as highly vulnerable. In such instances Paragraphs 101 - 103 of the NPPF indicate
that Local Planning Authorities should apply the Sequential and Exceptions Tests. The
aim of the Sequential Test being to steer development to areas with the lowest
probability of flooding, whilst the Exceptions Test can be applied if following the
application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainably
objectives, for development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that development be designed to reduce the need to
travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its
particular location. In addition, proposals should provide for safe and convenient
access on foot, cycle, public and private transport addressing the needs of all,
including those with a disability and be capable of being served by safe access to the
highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality.
Furthermore there should be adequate parking to serve the needs of the development.
The acceptability of this proposal hinges on Policy HO4 and the various criteria which
should be met, together with other relevant Core Strategy Policies.
Circular 01/2006 defines Gypsies and Travellers as „Persons of nomadic habit of life
whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own
or their family‟s or dependents‟ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to
travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of
travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such‟.
Development Committee
47
5 September 2013
For the purpose of planning policy “gypsies and travellers” means: 'Members of an
organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people (whether or not travelling
together as such). They include such persons who on the grounds of their own or their
family‟s or dependants‟ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs
or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding Gypsies
and Travellers'.
Information submitted as part of the application indicates that both applicants are
Romany Gypsies who still lead a nomadic way of life. Whilst Mr Cutting has been
unable to follow his nomadic way of life whilst living on the cliffs at Happisburgh he
intends to resume his lifestyle now that he has a settled base. Officers are therefore
satisfied that based on the information provided that the intended occupants meet the
definition of Gypsies and Travellers. In addition, it is considered that the site is well
related to the village of Sea Palling, which is accessible without the need for transport
and which offers local services, including two public houses, a Post Office and general
store, together with community facilities.
In respect of the landscape impact of the development, due to the enclosed nature of
the site, having established hedgerows to the western and northern boundaries, the
site is not readily visible from properties in Church Road or from the churchyard at St
Margaret's Church, a Grade II* Listed Building. Whilst from the south and east views
are across open fields. The Council‟s Landscape Officer has indicated that subject to
a condition requiring the planting of a mixed hedge to the southern and eastern
boundaries together with the retention of the existing hedges there is no landscape
objection to the proposal which would not have a significant impact on the surrounding
landscape or local distinctiveness of the area. Furthermore, although access to the
site follows the southern boundary of the churchyard, given that the boundary of the
churchyard is formed by a number of trees and the northern boundary of the site has
an established hedge it is not considered that the development would have a
significantly harmful impact on the heritage asset.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties is concerned access to the site is via
Church Road which is a single track carriageway which joins The Street, main coast
road C643. The roadway is split into two legs and serves in the region of twenty seven
dwellings, plus providing access to St Margaret's Church. The nearest dwelling to the
site which fronts Church Road and is immediately to the south of St Margaret's Church
is situated some 70 metres to the west of the site, whilst the rear boundaries of a
further six properties are a similar distance from the site. Given the separation
distance from these properties and the relatively low key use it is not considered that
the proposal would have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of
nearby occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance.
However given that the use of the site as a sewage treatment plant ceased in 1979, it
is accepted that the proposed development could result in increased traffic
movements when compared to recent years.
In terms of vehicular access and traffic movements the applicant‟s agent has indicated
that the number of movements is unlikely to be no more than six a day. In addition, in
order to minimise vehicular movements the occupiers have left a bicycle at The Old
Hall Inn, public house, at the junction of the C643 and Church Road with the intention
that it would be used by visitors to the site. Furthermore, there would be no extensive
movement of caravans onto or off the site. In addition, the agent points to the fact that
the authorised use of the site is a sewage treatment plant, which in the past could
have generated considerable traffic, including larger vehicles.
Development Committee
48
5 September 2013
Notwithstanding this the Highways Authority has raised concerns that Church Road,
which is a single track road, is inadequate to serve the needs of the development, due
to its poor alignment, restricted width lack of passing provision and pedestrian
facilities. In addition, the junction of Church Road and the C643 is positioned on an S
bend with traffic requiring turning right into Church Road from the west encountering
severely restricted forward visibility. It is therefore the opinion of the Highways
Authority that given the restricted access and severely substandard nature of Church
Road that the proposal if permitted, which based on two dwellings, could amount to 16
-20 daily traffic movements, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to
highway safety.
As far as the concerns raised by one of the objectors in respect of rights of way over
the access the (Driftway) the applicant‟s agent has confirmed that the applicants have
a right of way and that this is registered with the Land Registry.
Turning to the issue of flood risk the site is within Flood Zone 2 where the risk of
flooding is regarded as moderate by the Environment Agency, with the land being
about 5 metres AOD. The risk of flooding is mainly due to potential breaches of the
Sea Palling sea defences and the Environment Agency has made a commitment to
maintain the defences for the next 50 years.
In terms of the Sequential Test there have been no private Gypsy/Traveller sites
granted planning permission in North Norfolk and Mr Cutting has been living on the
cliffs at Happisburgh, which has been deemed unsafe by the District Council. Whilst
Mr Leveridge has been living unlawfully on land designated as Flood Zone 3 within the
District. Given that the Council has no identified land that can be used by
Gypsy/Travellers and the applicants have been unable to identify alternative land it is
considered that the proposal passes the Sequential Test. Whilst in terms of the
Exceptions Test although a comprehensive site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
has not been prepared the assessment accompanying the application indicates that
the site will not be prone to flood risk until after 2115 taking into account climate
change and in the event of a breach event the depth at the site would be 0.09 metres.
Furthermore, it is intended that permeable surfaces are to be used where possible to
reduce any risk of flooding. In addition, the agent has indicated that the occupiers
have signed up to the Environment Agency Flood Warning scheme.
Having consulted the Environment Agency, whilst not objecting to the application they
point to the fact that although at the present time the site is within Flood Zone 2 and
that in the event of a 1:200 year breach the depth of flood water would be 0.09 metres,
which is considered to be safe, when applying the 100 years of climate change the
site would be in Flood Zone 3a, with a residential risk of flooding in the event of a
breach of the flood defences in a 1 in 200 flood in 2115. They therefore suggest that
depending on the weight given to this, it might be appropriate to apply a time limiting
condition in the event of permission being granted.
The applicants agent has confirmed that it is his clients intention that sewage disposal
would be via a Package Treatment Plant. Whilst in terms of refuse collection it is
suggested that the only waste to be generated would be household, and it is expected
that Council bins will be provided for use in association with the caravans, these will
be walked down (weekly/fortnightly to the bin collection point. The Council‟s
Environmental Protection team has confirmed that these arrangements are
acceptable, but would seek the imposition of a condition requiring the installation of
the Package Treatment Plant within an agreed timescale, following the completion of
the contaminated land survey.
Development Committee
49
5 September 2013
In summary, it is considered that the intended occupants meet the definition of
Gypsies and Travellers, as required by the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework Core Strategy. Furthermore, the proposed use of the site would not result
in significant amenity issues for the occupiers of neighbouring properties, would have
a minimal landscape impact or adversely affect the setting of the Parish Church. In
addition, although not complying strictly with the requirement, of the Exceptions Test
in respect of flood risk, given the lack of alternative Gypsy/Traveller site within the
district and the relatively low key use proposed and the fact that the Environment
Agency has raised no objection, the issue of flood risk is not considered justification to
refuse the application. However, due to the concerns raised by the Highways Authority
in respect of the restricted access and severely substandard nature of Church Road
together with the potential increase in traffic movements, it is considered that the
proposal would give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policy CT5.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the grounds that due to the restricted access and severely
substandard nature of Church Road together with the potential increase in
traffic movements, the proposal would give rise to conditions detrimental to
highway safety, contrary to Development Plan policy CT5.
9.
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road for Mr M Goss
Minor Development
- Target Date: 30 July 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/12/0315 ENQ - Demolition of Existing Buildings and Erection of Dwelling 22/11/2012
THE APPLICATION
The scheme as envisaged would involve the demolition of the remains of a cottage
and its replacement with a two bedroom cottage style dwelling, having a habitable
floor area in the region of 130 sq. metres, which would be orientated east west. The
dwelling would be a mix of red brick and flint under a clay pantile roof and would have
a single storey hipped roof extension to the southern gable end which would provide
for a garden room whilst to the northern gable end would be an attached single
garage.
Access would be via the existing entrance off Chapel Road with parking and turning
for up to three vehicles.
An amended plan has been received which increases the width of the gable by 200
millimetres, the width of the access by approximately 2 metres and provides details of
the foul drainage system.
Development Committee
50
5 September 2013
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold due to the fact that although contrary to policy,
historically the building was a cottage and the construction of a replacement dwelling
would tidy up what could be considered as an infill site within the Conservation Area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Southrepps Parish Council - Strongly object on the grounds that due to its design the
dwelling would detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Also that the road network and site access is inadequate to serve the dwelling and
would result in issues of overlooking of neighbouring properties.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection which raise the following concerns (summarised):1. Adverse impact on wildlife interests.
2. Loss of privacy.
3. Highway safety/increased traffic movements.
4. Foul drainage disposal.
Two letters of support which make the following comments (summarised):1. Design in keeping with its surroundings.
2. Would bring a derelict site back into use.
3. Would not adversely affect traffic in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Objection on the grounds of substandard access and
restricted frontage visibility.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection.
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service - Requires further information to
make an assessment,
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Development Committee
51
5 September 2013
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 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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring properties
3. Design/impact on Conservation Area.
4. Highway safety
5. Drainage
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy and is also within the Lower Southrepps
Conservation Area where Core Strategy Policies HO8, EN2, EN4, EN8, CT5 and CT6
are considered to be relevant. 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.
Policy EN2 requires that proposals demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and
local distinctiveness of the landscape character of the area, including visually sensitive
skylines. In addition, proposals should not have a significantly detrimental impact on
the open coastal character of the undeveloped coast.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are
set. In addition, the scale and massing of buildings should relate sympathetically to
the surrounding area and innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve
or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The policy also
requires that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets, in this case the Lower Southrepps
Conservation Area. In addition, where a building makes little contribution to the area,
consent for demolition will be given provided that, in appropriate cases, there are
acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment or after-use.
Policies CT5 and CT6 requires that there is safe access to the highway network and
that there is adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development.
Development Committee
52
5 September 2013
Whilst unused as a residence for some considerable time the application asserts as a
starting point that the building is a dwelling. As such the issue of abandonment needs
to be considered.
The three tests of abandonment relate to:1. The physical condition of the property;
2. Whether there have been any intervening uses or not; and
3. The intention of the owners to abandon the use or not.
With regard to the physical condition of the property, the building is in a derelict state
with no roof over much of the property and several walls collapsed. Furthermore, there
has been no maintenance for a considerable number of years, and no evidence has
been provided as to when the cottage was last occupied.
As far as the second and third issues are concerned there is no evidence to suggest
that there has been an intervening use since it was last occupied as a dwelling. Prior
to the purchase of the site by the applicant, which is understood to have been within
the last two years, the site was overgrown and the building infested with ivy, to the
extent that it was hardly recognisable as a structure. As such it is considered that it
was the intention of previous owners of the site to abandon the use. Whilst there does
not appear to have been an intervening use since its last occupation as a dwelling,
clearly it has not been occupied for a considerable number of years and that no efforts
have been made to maintain the integrity of the structure. Furthermore the structure of
the building is such that it is beyond salvage. As such it is the view of officers that the
use has been abandoned and as such there is no lawful use as a dwelling house.
The current application therefore fails to accord with the requirements of Policy HO8
as Officers consider there is no existing dwelling to replace and the proposal needs to
be considered against Policy SS2 Countryside, where there is a presumption against
new independent dwellings, unless for one of the uses outlined in the policy. In this
particular instance none of the criteria are relevant and as such the principle of
development is contrary to policy.
As far as the relationship to neighbouring properties, the separation distance from the
blank north gable of the proposed dwelling to properties to the north side of Chapel
Road would be in the region of 30 metres. As such it is considered that the proposal
would have no impact on these dwellings. Whilst in terms of the relationship with
Hillside to the east although this property has a first floor window facing the site the
separation distance of some 17 metres would comply with the amenity criteria
contained in the North Norfolk Design Guide. Whilst there might be scope for some
overlooking of the garden area of Hillside from the east facing first floor window of the
master bedroom, this is not considered to be so significant to warrant refusal on this
ground.
In terms of the landscape impact of the proposed development given the location of
the site amongst other residential properties there would be no significant impact and
the Council‟s Landscape Officer has raised on objection. Furthermore although
concerns have been raised by local residents in respect of the impact on wildlife the
Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the wildlife survey which was submitted
as part of the application.
Whilst in respect of the design of the proposed dwelling the Council‟s Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that there is no objection to the design
Development Committee
53
5 September 2013
of the replacement dwelling and that the demolition of the existing building would not
result in demonstrable harm to the Conservation Area.
In terms of the access and car parking the Highways Authority has indicated that
whilst the parking and turning provision are acceptable at the present time the access
arrangements are substandard and that visibility splays would be required in order to
improve the situation.
Whilst in terms of the concerns raised by objectors in respect of foul drainage the
amended plan indicates that this would be pumped via a domestic pumping station to
the public sewer.
In conclusion, although the design of the dwelling is considered to be generally
acceptable and would be compatible with other development in the vicinity of the site
and there would be no significant amenity or landscape issues, the principle of
development is unacceptable in this location and would result in the creation of a new
dwelling in the Countryside Policy Area. Furthermore at the present time the access
arrangements are considered to be unacceptable due to restricted visibility.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed fails to accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal on the following grounds
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the residential use of the existing
building on the site has been abandoned and the erection of a residential dwelling
would be contrary to spatial planning Policy SS2 and there are no material
considerations which would outweigh this conflict with adopted policy.
In addition, the proposed access arrangements are considered to unacceptable due to
restricted visibility at the site entrance which could give rise to issues of highway
safety.
The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Development Plan policies.
10.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0730 - Removal of Condition 20 (sustainable
construction - code level 3 requirement) and variation of Condition 21 (to
provide 10% renewable energy in lieu of 20% requirement) of planning
permission ref: 13/0007 (123 dwellings and public open space); Land off Two
Furlong Hill and Market Lane for Hopkins Homes Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 19 September 2013
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Use Allocation
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Section 106 Planning Obligations
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0007 PF
Erection of 123 dwellings with public park and open space and associated
Development Committee
54
5 September 2013
landscaping, drainage and highway infrastructure
Approved 23/04/2013
THE APPLICATION
The application (as recently amended) now proposes to remove one condition and
vary another imposed on planning permission reference PF 13/0007. Previously it was
proposed to remove both conditions. The two conditions currently require compliance
with Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and the provision of at least
20% of its energy requirements from on-site renewable energy sources. The
application has been readvertised and reconsulted upon. The full text of the two
conditions are as follows:
20)
No development shall commence until details have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the proposed dwellings will
achieve a minimum Code Level 3 rating in accordance with the requirements of the
"Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide" or the equivalent standard in any
replacement guidance. The agreed details shall thereafter be implemented within the
construction of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. A Final Code Certificate for each dwelling certifying that Code
Level 3 or above has been achieved for that dwelling shall be issued and submitted to
the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of completion of the last dwelling.
21)
At least 20% of the energy required by the development shall be secured from
decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources, using the measures listed
in table 8.1 of the Energy Assessment submitted with the application. Prior to the
commencement of construction, full details of how this is to be achieved, including
details of physical works on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in the
construction unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The application is to remove Condition 20 and to vary the requirement of Condition 21
to 10% in lieu of the current 20% requirement.
The application is supported by a development viability report, of which a nonconfidential executive summary is attached in Appendix 3. (It should be noted that
this document refers to the removal of both conditions, but subsequently the
applicants have amended their application to vary Condition 21).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Terrington having regard to the following planning
issue(s):
Development viability and local concerns regarding non-compliance with adopted
planning policy.
TOWN COUNCIL
Strongly objects to the original proposal for following reasons:
Unbelievable that in such a short space of time (since planning approval) the
original detailed proposals put forward are now not achievable.
Removal of the conditions contradicts original statements by both the landowners
(Holkham Estates) and the developers (Hopkins Homes) in terms of sustainable
construction and compliance with Core Strategy Policy EN6.
The Town Council has never been against the development, despite concerns
Development Committee
55
5 September 2013
about access and drainage, and has welcomed the additional affordable housing.
It is important that the homes are built to the most sustainable and
environmentally friendly standards as possible. If affordable and sustainable
housing cannot be delivered the Town does not need the development.
Requests that the application is refused.
(See full response in Appendix 3).
The Town Council has been reconsulted on the amended application.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seven letters of objection received to the original proposal on the following grounds:
Planning requirements were known on submission of the original proposals and it
would be fundamentally wrong to change now for reasons of profit.
Houses should meet Code 3 requirement as a minimum.
These houses are the future of Wells.
Policy EN6 should not be ignored.
Granting permission would act as a precedent.
It should be the strategy of the Council to ensure new development is as
environmentally friendly as possible.
Granting permission would seriously compromise the integrity and credibility of
the Council.
Profit levels should be compromised not the quality of houses.
Removal of the conditions would make the affordable dwellings more expensive
to heat and result in fuel poverty in an area where average incomes are low.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Comments on the original proposal. Fails to see how
market conditions have changed significantly enough since the planning application
was submitted in January of this year, when the application included proposed
measures to ensure full compliance with Policy EN6. Nevertheless appreciates that
viability should be considered in relation to such conditions as advised in the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Whilst the developer has provided total costs
applicable to the two conditions, no information has been provided showing the source
of these costs, nor a breakdown or summary of the costs to back up the figures
provided. It is not possible therefore to confirm whether these costs are accurate.
In terms of condition 20 (code level) the quoted costs are significantly higher than
those estimated by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
in their most recent cost assessment of the Code for Sustainable Homes (August
2011).
In terms of condition 21 (renewable energy) whilst the cost per dwelling quoted may
well be representative of a typical installation, the applicant has provided no sources
or iterative breakdown of the costs quoted, so it is impossible to judge whether these
costs are accurate and therefore whether they are actual costs affecting the viability of
the development in the way claimed. The applicant has provided an „average‟ figure
for each dwelling, however the applicant had previously stated and agreed that, in
order to meet the renewables requirement, only 108 of the 123 dwellings would be
fitted with solar thermal panels, with 77 having Waste Water Heat Recovery (a form of
heat pump) fitted, and 32 being fitted with wood burners. With such a variation of
equipment provided to the dwellings it is expected there would be a corresponding
variation in costs quoted for each of the dwellings, and therefore it is uncertain that
these „average‟ figures are indicative of the actual cost of renewable energy provision.
Development Committee
56
5 September 2013
The removal of conditions 20 and 21 has the potential to reduce the quality of the
resulting development, expose the potential occupants to a number of risks, and result
in negative environmental impacts. A summary of the benefits resulting from the
conditions, which would be lost if the conditions were removed, is below:
Condition 20 has the potential to improve the energy and water efficiency of the
properties, therefore benefitting the occupants in terms of reduced utility bills.
Although level 3 of the Code requires the same Dwelling Emission Rate (DER)
improvement as the current (2010) building regulations, it allows for additional points
to be gained for improvements over and above building regulations, as well as
securing energy efficiency improvements in other areas not covered by, or improving
upon, the building regulations – for instance fabric energy efficiency, energy display
devices, provision of drying space, efficient white goods, home user guides, as well as
transport efficiency improvements such as cycle storage and home office space.
These measures aim to reduce the energy costs for the end-user by both reducing the
demand for heating and electricity use, improving the efficiency of energy use, and
facilitating behavioural change. The Code also allows for points to be gained for
improvements under a number of „health & wellbeing‟ issues, such as daylighting,
sound insulation, private space, Lifetime Homes standards, as well as security.
In addition to this, the Code ensures that flood risk is managed and reduced, reducing
the risk of both on-site localised flooding, and greater discharge from the development
increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere.
There are also a number of elements of the Code which reduce the impact of the
development on the immediate and global environment. For instance, ecological
enhancement and protection is covered by the Code, reducing the impact that new
development has on the immediate local environment. The Code also addresses a
number of wider environmental issues including the environmental impact of materials
and insulation, the storage of waste, construction site impacts, and NOx emissions.
The Code also encourages reductions in CO2 emissions from the dwellings.
Condition 21 has the potential to reduce energy costs for the residents of the
dwellings, by reducing the amount of grid electricity and/or gas consumed by the
occupants. In addition the occupants would be able to benefit from the Renewable
Heat Incentive (RHI) for either the solar thermal panels or woodburner technologies.
The RHI is a recently-introduced government incentive similar to the „Feed-in Tariff‟,
providing financial support to owners of heat-generating technologies.
It is recommended that the application is refused as removal of these two conditions
would mean that the development would not meet any of the requirements of Policy
EN6, or Paragraphs 94-96 of the NPPF. The developer has submitted insufficient
evidence to show the actual cost of conditions 20 and 21, where this information has
been sourced, why it is higher than expected, and why the conditions have become
unviable since full compliance was proposed in January 2013.
In the event of the applicant submitting more detailed information in relation to the cost
of these conditions, recommends that further options be considered rather than just
the complete removal of the conditions. For instance, the applicant could explore
options relating to partial relaxation of the conditions, or removal of just one of the two
conditions. This could ensure that some environmental and occupier benefits would
still be secured in line with Policy EN6 and paragraphs 94 and 95 of the National
Planning Policy Framework, while reducing costs in the interests of the developer. In
Development Committee
57
5 September 2013
the event of some form of relaxation being agreed suggests that, of the two conditions,
condition 21 would be more appropriate to relax.
Strategic Housing Officer - Comments on the amended proposal. The application
has been submitted on the basis that it is not viable to meet these two conditions and
provide the full 45% affordable housing provision along with the other section 106
agreement requirements and planning conditions associated with the approved
scheme in the current economic climate. The applicant has advised that the viability
issue is preventing the site from being developed.
The applicant has submitted two viability assessments one which shows the
economics of the development when all the requirements of the approved scheme are
met and a second where there is no code or renewable energy requirement. The
applicant has stated that the site will be viable if the code and renewable energy
requirements are removed.
The submitted viability assessments have been carefully considered, although as the
applicant has used an average per dwelling cost to meet the renewable energy
requirement (which will be met using a number of different technologies) it has not
been possible to consider the appropriateness of the cost to provide 20% on site
renewable energy. However, overall the information submitted shows that the there is
a viability issue associated with the approved scheme. The viability of the scheme did
improve when the costs for code and renewable energy were removed. This
improvement would be slightly reduced if 10% renewable energy provision was made
on the site. It should be noted, however, that there are other costs which could be
reduced to achieve an improvement in viability which would also allow for the
dwellings to be built to code level 3 and benefit from 20% renewable energy whilst
leaving the affordable housing provision at 45%.
To conclude, the viability information submitted does show that the viability of the
development can be improved by removing the requirement that the dwellings meet
Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and by reducing the requirement to
provide renewable energy provision from 20% to 10%. However it would be possible
to achieve an increase in profitability by reducing some of the other scheme costs
allowing the scheme to still deliver 45% affordable housing and be built to Code Level
3 and provide 20% renewable energy.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012):
Development Committee
58
5 September 2013
Para. 95 (when setting any local requirement for a building’s sustainability, do so in a
way consistent with the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and adopt
nationally described standards).
Para. 96 (In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should
expect new development to comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local
requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the
applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is
not feasible or viable).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Relaxation of adopted policies in relation to sustainable construction and energy
requirements.
2. Development viability
APPRAISAL
Full planning permission was granted for 123 dwellings on this site in April this year.
The site is allocated for residential development in the adopted North Norfolk Site
Allocations Development Plan Document (February 2011). Following adoption the site
owners (Holkham Estates) published their own 'vision statement' for the site, in
advance of agreeing terms with a potential developer.
The 'vision' highlighted the importance which the owners placed on the quality of
developing the site and included a section on 'Sustainability' which stated as follows:
"The Estate's commitment to sustainable construction exceeds current legislative
expectations, and we anticipate that the Market Lane project will deliver green
credentials that are both imaginative and realistic. In the areas of energy, waste,
water, materials and climate change, the Estate will demand high standards".
The 'vision' concluded by stating:
"The development of homes at Market Lane is important for the Estate but its top
priority is to ensure that the project is delivered to a standard of which the Estate and
the community can feel proud. We do not accept the ordinary and satisfactory is not
good enough. Employing the best methods available, we want to see a scheme which
people will regard as robust, sustainable and attractive for decades to come".
The subsequent application for planning permission (jointly in the name of Hopkins
Homes Ltd and Holkham Estate) did not contain a development viability report
because full compliance with the Council's affordable housing requirement (45%) was
proposed. The design and access statement submitted with the application stated that
the dwellings would be built in accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy
Policy EN6 with regard to the Code for Sustainable Homes rating and on-site
renewable energy generation sources. Separate sustainability and energy statements
indicated that code level 3 would be achieved as a minimum and included a strategy
for generating 20% of the development's on-site energy demand using renewable
sources. The two conditions subject to this current application were shared and
agreed with the applicants before the formal decision was issued.
However the application has now been submitted on grounds that the development
would not be viable with the continued requirement of these two conditions and
therefore it needs to be considered on this basis taking into account the advice in
paragraph 96 of the NPPF (referred to in the Policies section above).
The submitted viability assessments have been considered (see comments of the
Strategic Housing officer, above). The conclusion is that whilst the methodology used
by the applicants to calculate the additional costs of providing on-site renewable
Development Committee
59
5 September 2013
energy (and code level) can be questioned, there is nevertheless sufficient evidence
on the basis of the information provided to demonstrate that there is a viability issue
associated with the approved scheme. There is however one notable cost (the land
purchase price) which if reduced, would improve the viability position to allow the
dwellings to be built to code level 3 and benefit from 20% renewable energy, whilst still
providing 45% affordable housing.
Of indirect relevance to this application is the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme
which the Council has now agreed to implement as from the 1st September this year
(for a temporary period until the end of 2014). Under the scheme, housing
developments will be exempted from complying with the requirements of Core
Strategy EN6 subject to entering a S.106 Planning Obligation to secure an agreed
amount of development within a limited time period (and if this amount is not met the
exemption would cease in relation to the remainder of the development). However it
should be made clear that the current application is not submitted under this scheme.
Nevertheless by introducing the scheme the Council has accepted the principle of
forgoing these policy requirements in certain circumstances.
Members will also note that in the submitted Executive Summary (Appendix 3) the
applicants have provided a programme for construction, with a commencement on site
in the coming autumn and an approximate three year building period. However if this
application is to be approved, unlike an application under the Incentive Scheme there
would be no safeguard to secure policy compliance in the event of the development
not progressing as stated. The reason being, there is no sanction available to reimpose a condition once it has been removed or varied.
The scenarios in respect of the development of this site, dependent on whether the
application is approved or refused are considered to be as follows:
Approval:
Although not secured in any way, on the information provided by the applicants,
the development is likely to be implemented this year with a completion within
approximately three years.
The development would not be built to code level 3 standard nor would it include
the full policy requirement of renewable energy provision. The dwellings would
however be constructed in accordance with the energy efficiency requirements
of the Building Regulations and it is understood that the housing association
likely to acquire the affordable rented dwellings (40 in total) will require them to
be constructed as energy efficient as possible.
Refusal:
Development of the site could be delayed.
As an alternative the applicants could choose to try and reduce the agreed
amount of affordable housing, based on their viability case.
The applicants could apply under the Council's Housing Incentive Scheme to
construct the development without compliance with code level 3 or renewable
energy requirements. Subject to entering a S.106 Planning Obligation to secure
an agreed initial level of completed dwellings, the likelihood is that this would be
approved.
Conclusion
This application has been submitted on the basis that the development is not viable
with the continued imposition of the two conditions. The submitted viability report
Development Committee
60
5 September 2013
demonstrates this, but if the land price were reduced from its current level, the
additional cost of code compliance and 20% renewable provision could be
accommodated. It would appear however that the land price has now been agreed
and the applicants are not in a position to renegotiate, which is regrettable.
The applicants have however shifted from their original position of seeking removal of
Condition 21, to varying it, to provide 10% renewable energy provision. In view of this
and bearing in mind that if the application were to be refused the applicants could
apply successfully under the Housing Incentive Scheme to remove both conditions,
with some reservation, the application is recommended for approval, pending expiry of
the public consultation period for the amended details.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve the application subject to the expiry of the
current period of re-advertisement, no new grounds of objection being received
following reconsultation and subject to the following amended condition:
1. At least 10% of the energy required by the development shall be secured from
decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources, using the measures listed
in table 8.1 of the Energy Assessment submitted with the application. Prior to the
commencement of construction, full details of how this is to be achieved, including
details of physical works on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in the
construction unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BLAKENEY – PF/13/0828 – Erection of two and half storey replacement
dwelling; Three Owls Farm , Saxlingham Road for Mrs K Cargill
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTTEE
At the request of the Development Manager due to the degree of local concern and
in order to expedite the processing of the application
TRUNCH – PF/13/0600 – Conversion of former garage to one dwelling at Trunch
Garage, 5 Chapel Road, Trunch for Mr G Payne of Trunch Garage.
TRUNCH – PF/13/0602 – Demolition of workshop/stores and erection of B2
(vehicle repair/MOT) workshop on land at Builders Yard, Bradfield Road for Mr
G Payne of Trunch Garage.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Development Manager to enable Members to fully appreciate the
above proposals in order to expedite the processing of the applications.
Development Committee
61
5 September 2013
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/13/0526 - Erection of single-storey and two-storey rear
extensions, retention of French doors and associated Juliet Balcony, retention
of conservatory as built, and retention of first floor bedroom window; Lark Rise,
Church Road for Mr and Mrs Ashness
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/0476 - Erection of single-storey side/front extension; Old
Cottage, Walcott Road for Mr & Mrs C Harris
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0546 - Erection of cart shed style summerhouse and
retention of garden/tool shed; Puddleduck House, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs R
Jones
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - NMA2/11/0068 - Non material amendment request to demolish
lobby and erect porch; Well House, Burgh Stubbs, Melton Road for Mr D
Loombe
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRINTON - PF/13/0740 - Construction of dormer window; The Old Reading
Room, The Street for Mr A Britten
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/13/0569 - Installation of replacement shop front; Catfield Post
Office, The Street for Mrs J Tims
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0624 - Erection of single-storey extension and
construction of viewing deck; Cley Marshes Visitor Centre, Coast Road for
Norfolk Wildlife Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0626 - Erection of bird hide and viewing shelter
and up-grading of footpath; Land at A149 Salthouse for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0696 - Alterations to wall to provide vehicular access; 4A
Chesterfield Villas, West Street for Mr J Mack
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/13/0697 - Demolition of section of boundary wall; 4A Chesterfield
Villas, West Street for Mr J Mack
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/13/0715 - Erection of front porch; Novo-amor, 66 Norwich Road
for Mr B Spencer
(Householder application)
Development Committee
62
5 September 2013
CROMER - PF/13/0900 - Removal of Condition 8 of planning permission
reference: 11/1025 to delete requirement for car park entrance bollards; Lidl
Foodstore, Holt Road for Lidl
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0175 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached garage;
Hawthorns, 14 Park Road for Mr R Sexton
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0564 - Conversion of garage/store to residential dwelling;
Garage/store adjacent 7 Colne Cottages, The Croft for Mr A Raby
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/11/0251 - Non material amendment request to permit the
omission of rooflight to north roof slope, insertion of two rooflights to front roof
slope, one rooflight with obscured glazing to south roof slope and side light
window to front door; Land between 27 & 30 Norwich Road for Mr W Butcher
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/13/0365 - Erection of one storey and two storey extension to the
south elevation; Blue Galilee, 8 New Street for Mr & Mrs T Hansell
(Householder application)
CROMER - HN/13/0797 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension (4.5m length & 3.9m high); 5 East Grove for Mr & Mrs W De Neve
(Householder Prior Notification)
CROMER - PF/13/0811 - Construction of pitched roof and installation of window
to side extension; Cliff House, 23 Overstrand Road for Mr & Mrs A Edwards
(Householder application)
DILHAM - PF/13/0604 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 5 Canal View, The
Street for Mrs V Bailey
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/0717 - Conversion of home office/gym to holiday
accommodation; Poplar Farm House, Chequers Street for Mr J Stares
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0685 - Erection of rear conservatory; 1 Howland Close for
Mr A Nicoll
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/13/0374 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of dentil course; 11 Caslon Close for Mrs J Lyons
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0640 - Change of use from A4 (Public House) to C3
(residential dwelling); The Star P H, 44 Oak Street for GCMD Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/13/0542 - Retention of open-fronted storage shelter and
portable building; Land at Heath Road for Mrs H Cobbold
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
63
5 September 2013
FIELD DALLING - NMA2/08/0753 - Non-material amendment request for revised
detail to gable end wall; May Cottage, 100 Holt Road for Mr S Collins
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0746 - Erection of first floor rear extension; White House
Farm, Cromer Road for Mr M Harwood
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/13/0723 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Green
Fields, Swanton Road for Mr G Masterman
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0718 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Barron
Lodge Cottage, Grub Street for Mr C Dennis
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - NMA1/11/0268 - Non-material amendment request for erection
of enlarged porch; 34 Coronation Close for Mr Elgie & Miss G Downing
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HAPPISBURGH - HN/13/0844 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey
rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by 5 metres and
which would have a maximum height of 2.75 metres; 19 Coronation Close for Mr
J Turner
(Householder Prior Notification)
HAPPISBURGH - LA/13/0777 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation and internal alterations to kitchen; Holly Farm,
Whimpwell Green for Mr and Mrs J Willoughby
(Listed Building Alterations)
HEMPTON - PF/13/0713 - Erection of porch/w.c.; Pancake Cottage, 11 Oak Row,
The Green for Mrs L Madill
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0631 - Erection of 2.4m high boundary wall; Field House,
Blakeney Road for Mr & Mrs A Hunt
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - LA/13/0632 - Erection of boundary wall; Field House, Blakeney
Road for Mr & Mrs A Hunt
(Listed Building Alterations)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0558 - Use of land for private recreation including remodelling of earth bunds, formation of cricket ground with practice net and
three golf greens; Godfrey's Hall, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0666 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
replacement porch and conversion of barn to two-storey annexe; Dames
Cottage, Bale Road for Mrs R Waters
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
64
5 September 2013
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0728 - Erection of porch and extension of front boundary
wall; 1 Grange Farm Cottages, Harvest Lane for Dr J Billson
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - LA/13/0729 - Erection of front porch, demolition of rear porch,
sub-division of bedroom and modifications to doors and windows, demolition of
section of wall and extension to front boundary wall; 1 Grange Farm Cottages,
Harvest Lane for Dr J Billson
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/13/0818 - Alterations to outbuildings to facilitate conversion to
garden room; 3 Norwich Road for Mr A Turnbull
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/13/0494 - Erection of nine dwellings; Land at Ainsworth Road for
Cripps Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/13/0719 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and insertion of
front dormers.; 1 Greenways for Mr S Dennis
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/13/0720 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 12/0471
to permit change from wood construction of studio to brick; 31 Cromer Road for
Mrs J Elliott
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/13/0657 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 1 Thompson
Avenue for Mr & Mrs P Clarke
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/12/1307 - Retention of replacement windows and internal alterations;
25 New Street for Ms C Williams
(Listed Building Alterations)
HORNING - PF/13/0786 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with balcony
above; 65 Lower Street for Mr R Pilkington
(Householder application)
HORNING - HN/13/0798 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension (4.1m length & 2.65m high); 83 Leeds Way for Mr T Waters & Mrs P
Damji
(Householder Prior Notification)
HOVETON - PF/13/0819 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; St Peters
Cottage, Tunstead Road for Mr S K Kemp
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/13/0735 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Glen Hay
Barn, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M Coe
(Householder application)
Development Committee
65
5 September 2013
LANGHAM - PF/13/0787 - Variation of Conditions 1 of planning permission ref:
12/0721 to permit insertion of arched opening doors to cottages 4 & 7.; 4 & 7
The Langham, North Street for Avada Langham Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - LA/13/0369 - Internal alterations and opening up of blocked
window; The Stable Flat Barningham Hall, Barningham Park, The Street for Mr T
Cortauld
(Listed Building Alterations)
MORSTON - NMA1/12/0020 - Non material amendment request to permit relocation of bridge 2; Morston Marshes, Quay Lane for The National Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/12/1202 - Non material amendment request to permit
omission of proposed side extension, revisions to front and side elevation
fenestration and door and insertion of door to side elevation; Former
Coastguard Station, Beach Road for Mr M Lucas
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/13/0276 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration; Sandbar, 4 Bramble Close for Ms M Mannassi
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NEATISHEAD - PF/13/0651 - Installation of external fire escape stairs and roof
handrails; Air Defence Radar Museum, RAF Neatishead, Irstead Street for RAF
Defence Radar Museum
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0774 - Continued use of site for parking of cars and
HGVs, installation of surface water interceptor and erection of office/staff
facility building; 7 Cornish Way Business Park for HFS Property Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - HN/13/0804 - Notification of intention to erect rear
conservatory which would project from the original rear wall by 6m, would have
a maximum height of 3.45m and eaves height of 2.25m; 5 Happisburgh Road for
Mr & Mrs P Innes
(Householder Prior Notification)
NORTH WALSHAM - HN/13/0805 - Notification of intention to erect rear
conservatory which would project from the original rear wall by 4.9m, would
have a maximum height of 3.5m and an eaves height of 2.25m; 1 Meeting House
Cottages, Mundesley Road for Mr & Mrs R Harmer
(Householder Prior Notification)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/13/0725 - Internal alterations to provide third floor
habitable accommodation and construction of revised rear parapet; 6A Market
Street for Stonefield Estates Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0734 - Erection side extension; 11 Thirlby Road for
Mr & Mrs Kovacs
(Householder application)
Development Committee
66
5 September 2013
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0586 - Erection of front/side extension.; 16 Folgate
Road for Falgate Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0665 - Installation of replacement shop front; 32
Market Place for Mrs W M Fong
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0630 - Erection of kitchen/workshop (retrospective);
Oak Tree, 3 Woodside for Sir Thomas Duggin
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/13/0538 - Installation of replacement shop front; 32
Market Place for Mrs W M Fong
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - HN/13/0795 - Notification of intention to erect rear conservatory
(6m long x 3.8m high); Hungry Hill House, Hungry Hill for Mr J Youngman
(Householder Prior Notification)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0767 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 11/1009 to permit installation of glazed screen; Unit 4, 1 Old Station Yard,
Norwich Road for Miramar Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
PLUMSTEAD - PF/13/0448 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land at
Range Farm, Plumstead Road for Mr R Perry-Warnes
(Reserved Matters)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/13/0593 - Erection of livestock building; Glebe Farm,
Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PO/13/0622 - Formation of access drive in association with
proposed agricultural workers dwelling; Uphouse Farm, South Raynham for
Uphouse Farm Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/13/0537 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Marsh Rise,
Coast Road for Ms E Crookenden
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - LA/13/0855 - Removal of chimney stack and installation of timber
window to ground floor pantry; Salthouse Hall, Purdy Street for Mr R Gayfer
(Listed Building Alterations)
SCULTHORPE - PF/13/0743 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Cranmer Hall Barn, Cranmer Hall, Creake Road, Cranmer for
Mr P Garvin
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
67
5 September 2013
SCULTHORPE - LA/13/0744 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion of barn
to holiday accommodation; Cranmer Hall Barn, Cranmer Hall, Creake Road,
Cranmer for Mr P Garvin
(Listed Building Alterations)
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0518 - Retention of summerhouse; Samphire, Waxham
Road for Mrs B Sweeney
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0648 - Erection of two-storey side extension including
balcony and rear garden room and porch; 18 The Driftway for Mr I Wood
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0739 - Construction of pitched roof to facilitate
conversion of garage to habitable accommodation; 7 Laburnum Grove for Mr R
Carter
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0766 - Erection of two-storey dwelling with attached
garage; Land adjacent 20a Western Terrace for Mr J Bunyan
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0776 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0453 to permit revised access and parking layout and change to
site boundary; 15 Weybourne Road for Miramar Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
SKEYTON - PF/13/0679 - Removal of conditions 6 and 7 of planning permission
reference 12/0938 to permit permanent residential occupation; Willow Farm,
Swanton Abbott Road for Mrs M Peters
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0835 - Erection of first floor rear extension and formation
of balcony; 6 Chapel Road for Mrs C Wooldridge
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - NMA1/12/0889 - Non-material amendment request for revised
internal layout and door and window arrangements; Barn adjacent Honeysuckle
Cottage, Long Lane for Mayes Properties Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STALHAM - PF/13/0726 - Demolition of 18 sheltered housing units and warden's
accommodation and erection of 16 replacement single-storey dwellings; Land at
Portalfield for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/0325 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and double garage;
Millside, Yarmouth Road for Mr C Bracey
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - PF/12/1231 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: PF/10/1317 to permit erection of revised agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clarke
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
68
5 September 2013
SUTTON - HN/13/0821 - Notification of intention to erect side/rear conservatory
which would project from the original wall by 4.8m and which would have a
maximum height of 3.5m and an eaves height of 2.3m; 14 St Michaels for Mr &
Mrs Adair
(Householder Prior Notification)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/13/0483 - Removal of condition 4 of planning
permission reference 98/0069 to permit continued use of former residential
teaching facility as permanent residential dwelling; Oak Tree Barn, Millers Farm,
The Hill for Ms C De Lara
(Full Planning Permission)
THORNAGE - LA/13/0812 - Installation of two conservation roof lights; Town
Farm, The Street for Mr J Pugh-Smith
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/13/0492 - Alterations to annexe to provide habitable
accommodation; Manorwood, Church Road for Mr D Reid
(Householder application)
THURNING - PF/13/0800 - Removal of Conditions 2, 3 & 4 of planning permission
ref: 08/1250 to permit permanent residential occupancy.; Burnt House Farm
Cottage, Craymere Beck Road for Mr & Mrs G Whitehouse
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/0642 - Retention of metal railings and gates and repositioning of wattle screen; Ebenezer Cottage, Scarborough Road for Mr R
Sallis
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0644 - Retention of gates and erection of extension to
metal railings; Ebenezer Cottage, Scarborough Road for Mr R Sallis
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - NP/13/0764 - Formation of reservoir; Land off Edgar Road
Norfolk for Walsingham Estate Farming Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WARHAM - PF/13/0742 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 13 Park Road for
Mr & Mrs Morahan
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1199 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land to
rear of Standard House, Standard Road for Mr J Crook
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0561 - Continued siting of mobile home to
provide ancillary accommodation; Anchors Rest, Northfield Lane for Mr D Wells
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0613 - Siting of container to house bio-mass
boiler and erection of three metre high screen trellis fence; Wells Community
Hospital, Mill Road for Wells Community Hospital
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
69
5 September 2013
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0634 - Erection of basement garage with singlestorey extension above; West End House, 26 Dogger Lane for Mr & Mrs A Dixon
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0707 - Removal of conservatory and shed and
erection of single-storey side/rear extension and detached studio; 16 Dogger
Lane for Mr & Mrs C Thompson
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/12/0469 - Non material amendment request to
permit the top of the south gable to be rebuilt with a brick facing; The
Sackhouse, Jicklings Yard for Wells Maltings Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0799 - Installation of replacement windows and
construction of balcony; Ark Royal, Freeman Street for Mr M Higginson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0810 - Variation of Condition 18 of planning
permission reference: 09/0528 to permit use of black cast iron effect rainwater
goods and variation of Condition 19 to permit formation of pedestrian access to
Market Lane; Manor Farm Barns, Burnt Street for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/13/0702 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
garage; Three Bays, Sheringham Road for Mr and Mrs R Wheeler
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NP/13/0924 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Breck Farm, Weybourne Road for Mr W Amies
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WITTON - PF/13/0399 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions and front
porch; Rookery Cottage, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mrs N Yerrill
(Householder application)
WITTON - HN/13/0849 - Notification of intention to erect garden room which
would project from the original rear wall by 4 metres and which would have a
maximum height of 4 metres and an eaves height of 2.3 metres; The Thatched
Cottage, Stonebridge Road for Mrs T Tonks
(Householder Prior Notification)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0623 - Retention of roof lights; Summer Breeze, Station
Road for Mr & Mrs N Borkin
(Householder application)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0687 - Erection of 0.9m high picket fence; 59 Priory
Close for Mr P Farquharson
(Householder application)
Development Committee
70
5 September 2013
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0171 - Removal of wall to provide vehicular access and
erection of flood defence walls; South Granary, 9 The Quay for Mr Meddle
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/13/0757 - Conversion of former sheds/pens to two-storey
unit of holiday accommodation; Former Sheds and Pens, Cranmer Barn,
Cranmer Hall for Mr P Garvin
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - LA/13/0758 - Alterations to former sheds/pens to facilitate
conversion to holiday accommodation; Former Sheds and Pens, Cranmer Barn,
Cranmer Hall for Mr P Garvin
(Listed Building Alterations)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen; Barn
3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS SHORT PROCEDURE
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
None.
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0377 - Proposed new boathouse together with new and
replacement quay heading; Adjacent to Box End, 2 Grebe Island, Lower Street
for Mr and Mrs N Foster
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
STALHAM - BA/PF/12/0020 - Replacement of existing cottages Utopia and
Arcady with 2 new cottages; Arcady, Mill Road for Mr & Mrs H Leventon
Development Committee
71
5 September 2013
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0062 - Change of use of ground floor from A4
(public house) to residential unit; Red Lion, The Street for Trustees of John
Ashton's Children's Settlement
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0387 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1783 to permit use of chapel of rest/office building for a mixed use
of chapel of rest/office/overnight sleeping accommodation; Abbey Pets
Remembrance Gardens And Crematoria Ltd, Britons Lane for Mr R Edwards
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0164 - Replacement dwelling with erection of new
boathouse and creation of a new lagoon with quay heading and boardwalk;
Broadmead, Ferry View Estate for Horning Pleasurecraft Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0568 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings with
garages; Land adjacent 25 Cremers Drift for Mr S Pigott
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1179 - Installation of five replacement front
windows; 5-7 High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
72
5 September 2013