Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
29 March 2016
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 7 April 2016 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 28 April 2016.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P
High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith,
Mrs V Uprichard
Substitutes:, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 25
February and 10 March 2016.
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
BACTON - PF/16/0033 - Erection of front extension; Sunridge, Mill Lane for Mr &
Mrs J Peterson
Page 5
(2)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1540 - Proposed overflow car parking area for Blakeney
Hotel; Blakeney Hotel, The Quay for Blakeney Hotel
Page 7
(3)
BRISTON - PF/15/1746 - Erection of 12 shared ownership dwellings and garages;
Holly House, The Lane for Option for Homes Limited
Page 18
(4)
COLBY - PF/16/0037 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0042 to permit flat roof to pitch, insertion of velux windows to facilitate
accommodation in roofspace and revised window and door design; Colby
Wesleyan Reform Chapel, Long Lane for Mr N Andrews
Page 29
(5)
COLBY - PF/16/0165 - Widening of vehicle access and parking area; Bracora,
Colby Road, Banningham for Mrs L Grice
Page 34
(6)
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1587 - Erection of 10 dwellings and garages with access off
Eagle Road; Land to the south of, Eagle Road for Mr Alston
Page 37
(7)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1529 - Conversion of unused tennis court area to staff carparking area (retrospective); Fakenham Connect, Oak Street for North Norfolk
District Council
Page 51
(8)
FAKENHAM - PF/16/0104 - Variation of condition 2 of 06/0738 to allow alterations
to roof, rooflights and windows including installation of 2 gable end windows to
second floor; Land to rear of 16 Queens Road for Mr Rockett
Page 54
(9)
MORSTON - PF/15/1312 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road for Mr & Mrs M Goff
Page 57
(Appendix 1 – page 80)
(10) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1819 - Removal of condition 1 of planning permission
reference PF/13/1335 to allow use of land for hand car wash and valeting
services, including retention of canopy and two containers on a permanent
basis; Land at 29 New Road for Mr M Meizeraitis
Page 61
(Appendix 2 – page 121)
(11) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1761 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Seal Cottage, 55 High Street for Mr J Rhodes
Page 66
(12)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 69
(13)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Pages 70
(14)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 77
(15)
NEW APPEALS
Page 77
(16)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 78
(17)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 78
(18)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 78
(Appendix 3 – page 124)
(19)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 79
(Appendix 4 – page 126)
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 7 APRIL 2016
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
BACTON - PF/16/0033 - Erection of front extension; Sunridge, Mill Lane for Mr &
Mrs J Peterson
- Target Date: 15 March 2016
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
As originally submitted the application was for the erection of a single storey front
extension and front and rear gable dormers to form two bedrooms and a shower room in
the newly created roof space. Amended plans replaced the doors & Juliet balconies of
the then proposed front and rear dormers with windows.
The dormers and balconies have been withdrawn from the scheme as together they
were considered poor design and contrary to the aims of the Policy EN 4. Though it
should be noted that the rear dormer would be permitted development. It is anticipated
that amended plans showing these changes will be submitted prior to the meeting.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a member of staff.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Bacton Parish Council - No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
None
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.
Development Committee
5
7 April 2016
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle
Design and Appearance
Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle
The application site is located within the development boundary for Bacton where
domestic extensions are in principle acceptable subject to design considerations and
there being no adverse impact upon neighbours.
Design and Appearance.
The single storey front extension is a modest extension that extends 4.6m out from the
front of the bungalow. It is simple in design and appearance following a conventional
layout and hipped roof form that is sympathetic to the host building. Providing any
planning permission is conditioned for the materials to match those of the existing
bungalow the extension may be considered an enhancement.
Residential Amenity
The property is at a slight angle within the plot so the extension is between 2m and 2.5m
from the side boundary with no windows in the side elevation so it would not create any
overlooking of the neighbouring property. It is not considered that the neighbouring
property would suffer any significant overshadowing from the proposed development
because of the low ridge height of the extension, its hipped roof and southerly
orientation on the shared boundary.
Conclusion
It is considered that the application in terms of scale and design and avoidance of
adverse impact on neighbouring amenity the proposal complies with Policy EN 4 of the
Core Strategy; subject to the conditions outlined below.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the receipt of amended plans showing
the dormers removed.
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Development Committee
6
7 April 2016
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number(s) to be completed) received by the Local Planning Authority on (to be
completed).
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
Materials to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily with
its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
(2)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1540 - Proposed overflow car parking area for Blakeney
Hotel; Blakeney Hotel, The Quay for Blakeney Hotel
Minor Development
- Target Date: 21 December 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
The site is within the following:
 Blakeney Conservation Area
 Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
 The Blakeney Settlement Boundary and a residential area as defined on the
proposals map.
 It also forms part of a designated Open Land Area, which also includes The
Pastures as a whole.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
An application (ref CL/15/0317) for a Certificate of Lawfulness for existing development
in respect of the application site, asserting continuous use for the parking of vehicles by
the Blakeney Hotel staff, visitors and tradesmen for a period of at least 10 years prior to
the date of the application was refused on 12 May 2015. This was because on the
basis of the evidence provided and representations, it was considered that, on the
balance of probabilities, the asserted lawful use was not proven.
Amongst other things, the notice of refusal refers to the consensus view that the
application site was used for parking on an exceptional or occasional basis until
2011/2012 since when it has been used more intensively allegedly as a result of the
Development Committee
7
7 April 2016
Hotel encouraging staff, guests and visitors to use the site as a car park.
The application followed a number of complaints made to the Planning Enforcement
Team in January and February 2015.
With regard to the Blakeney Hotel itself, there have been no applications for additional
accommodation or facilities since 2006 when an application (ref 20051873) for first floor
staff accommodation was approved.
THE APPLICATION
As first submitted
The application is for the change of use the land to an overflow car park for the exclusive
use of the Blakeney Hotel. The existing entrance to the land from the access road that
runs through The Pastures would be retained. An electric entry barrier across it is
proposed. The application plans show the car park would provide 43 car parking
spaces based on an indicative layout, as the spaces would not be demarcated. An
area at the access into the site would have a 'Grasscrete' or similar grass reinforcement
mesh system as it would be most prone to wear and rutting, which could otherwise
become muddy and likely to become incapable of withstanding vehicular or pedestrian
traffic. The vast majority of the site would however, remain as grassland as at present.
A grass covered rounded bund about 2m wide and rising up to 0.375m in height is
proposed along the west boundary. There would be a group of three trees at the north
end of the west boundary along with two other additional trees near the southwest
corner of the site. Additional shrub planting is proposed in two areas next to the north
boundary. The existing group of trees at the north end of the site would be retained
with parking directly under them prevented by signage, shrub planting, bunding and/or
un-maintained grass.
Supporting documents: Planning Statement, Conservation Area Statement, Proposed
Landscaping Scheme.
Amended proposals
Parking would be restricted to the southeast part of the site adjacent to the road. As a
consequence the number of spaces would be reduced to 15, again based on an
indicative layout, as they would not be demarcated. An additional grass bund is
proposed along the rear of the parking area. Other than a small gap to be left for
maintenance purposes, the bund would run across the full width of the site to prevent
cars parking in the northwest segment. The car parking area would remain as
grassland, with a reinforcing mesh system to the access area only. The existing
access off the roadway would be used, with an electric barrier across as originally
proposed to ensure access is strictly controlled using a pass/code system linking
directly to the hotel reception. Additional landscaping comprising selective tree
planting and an area of shrub planting next to part of the northeast boundary is
proposed as previously.
The applicants have also indicated they would accept a condition restricting the use of
the car park to April - December inclusive, plus school holidays, weekends and times
when tides are high. They also emphasise the fact that it would be used for overspill
parking only when there is no space in the hotel's main parking areas, as originally
proposed. Motorhomes would be prohibited.
Development Committee
8
7 April 2016
The amended proposals are supported by an assessment of the 3 public car parks
available in Blakeney and the advantages/disadvantages of each as alternative options
to meet the hotel's additional parking needs. A supporting letter responding to issues
raised in objections to the original proposals is also included.
SITE
The Pastures is an area of open space, parkland in appearance being grassland and
generally open, particularly the eastern half. It is slightly undulating rising west to east
and slightly to the north. A tarmac surfaced road runs roughly through the middle of
The Pastures. It runs from New Road (A149) through to The Quay, providing access to
a number of dwellings, time-share properties and the Blakeney Hotel. The hotel's main
parking areas are located off it.
The application site is at the north end of The Pastures. Other than a temporary fence
along the west boundary, there is no physical division between the site and the rest of
The Pastures. It has a grass surface, patches of which are worn where cars have been
parked and there is a short rough surfaced access running from the road. Other than a
group of small trees on the north end of the site, it is generally open. It slopes gently
down north and northwestwards. The south boundary adjoins the access road and has
a narrow embankment/bund along the majority of it. A dwelling (22 The Pastures)
adjoins part of the staggered north boundary and there is a low wall along the boundary
between. The remainder adjoins an access serving 22 and a group of other dwellings
slightly further to the north. These dwellings sit at slightly lower ground level relative to
the site. To the northeast there is a dwelling (24 The Pastures), and hedge about 2m
high runs along the common boundary.
Members of the Development Committee visited the site on 7 January 2016.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Requested by Cllr Andrew Wells who shares the Parish Council's objections in relation
to Core Strategy policies.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Application as first submitted.
Blakeney PC: object for the following reasons:





This area of open space is highly valued by residents and visitors. Turning it into a
permanent car park would be detrimental. High priority should be given to its
protection, conservation and enhancement. It sits at the heart of the AONB within
Blakeney;
Proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN 2 as it would not protect, conserve
or enhance the special qualities and distinctiveness of the Open Space;
Proposal would have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of
nearby occupiers as they have referred to;
Proposal would be contrary to policy CT 1, as it would result in the partial loss of
open space, which contributes to the character of the settlement and is not surplus
to requirements.
The hotel could manage their current parking provision better and; there is ample
additional free parking just off the Pastures at the Village Hall Car Park which is
within walking distance and ideally located for staff.
Development Committee
9
7 April 2016
Amended scheme
As Blakeney PC had not considered the amendments at the time this report was
drafted, any further comments will be reported verbally to the committee.
REPRESENTATIONS
Application as first submitted
18 representations received. One is in support of the proposal, the others are
objections of which 12 are from residents of The Pastures.
The main grounds of objection relate to the following:
The impact on The Pastures as an open space:
 Anything that diminishes its value as such must be seen as a reversal of the original
intentions of the benefactors.
 Would be contrary to policy CT 1. It is a valuable designated open space in a
conservation area and AONB.
 Proposal would take away an area that is used for leisure and pleasure. What is in
essence a village green would be turned into a car park.
 Proposal is direct conflict with the objective to retain The Pastures as an open,
natural, unspoilt area in the middle of the village and in an AONB.
 It is a precious amenity in an iconic village which attracts tourists which would be
threatened if part of it was converted to a car park.
 Car park would be visible at the top of a slope within a green space. The barrier and
associated equipment would highlight it and it is likely that it would need to be lit.
 Along with the Quay, Blakeney's identity is in many ways the view one takes from
the coast road.
 Would open The Pastures to further development. It is a village amenity used by
local people
The need for additional car parking:
 Case for it has not been made. It is questionable and it could be solved by using
the village hall car park, possibly through a formal arrangement with designated
spaces. Number of cars parked on the site rarely exceeds 20 so the number
proposed suggests the hotel has over-estimated its requirements.
 Why can't staff use the village hall car park and have all other options been
adequately considered? Spaces adjacent to the hotel are more permanently
occupied by contractor's equipment.
 Do not believe the commercial viability of the hotel would be compromised.
 It would be possible for the hotel to rationalise its existing spaces. Casual and
passing trade could park on The Carsner car park where there is normally ample
space. The hotel could manage its existing spaces better. Proposed car park is
unlikely to be attractive to guests being muddy, unlit and uphill from the hotel.
Questionable if casual visitors would expect a space and are more likely to park on
The Carsner car park. No guest would wish to park so far from the hotel, which is
why the area has been used by staff who could park at the village hall car park.
Effect on living conditions:
 The site is higher than nos. 6-22 The Pastures. The majority of these properties
have ground floor bedrooms and have suffered from car lights shining directly into
them and noise from the cars that have parked there. If 50 spaces were permitted,
Development Committee
10
7 April 2016

the nuisance would be exacerbated.
The site has been increasingly used by people showing little respect with issues
such as littering and noise from car radios.
Existence of a restrictive covenant:
 This would prevent the development going ahead. The land is, and has always
been, amenity land for the benefits of residents and other users of the village
Other comments





If car parking is permitted it should be confined to an area adjacent to the road and
only be available to guests and staff and not, as at present, by the general public.
Some objectors understand the hotel's parking problems and indicate they may be
supportive of a 'reasonable' solution.
The need for sufficient dedicated parking for maintaining visitor numbers is
understandable, but could be solved with more robust management to ensure
existing provision is not used by non-guests.
The supporter refers to the fact that the area has long been used as a car park by
staff and guests during very high tides and when large functions are held.
When the land was sold it was on the basis it could be used for occasional overspill
parking
Further publicity following amendments
3 representations received, with objections on the following grounds:





Proposal mitigates its impact on the environment of Blakeney and The Pastures in
particular, but it does not remove the fundamental objection that the proposal is
contrary to the environmental and spiritual benefits of The Pastures, and would set a
precedent leading to further encroachment. The open green space of The
Pastures is an integral part of the charm of the village and has been set up to
preserve that in perpetuity.
The applicant's encouragement of parking on the site in the past does not give
confidence that, if the application was approved, it would be managed any more
responsibly.
The fact that the original application was for 50+ spaces, which were said to be
urgently needed, has now been reduced to 15, shows that the application has been
put forward in an opportunist manner to test the reactions of the Council and
residents.
If there is a need for additional parking, it must be found by moving staff who are the
only ones who have been using the site, as guests would not agree or expect to park
in an area that is often wet, slippery and muddy. Staff could quite safely park in the
village hall car park that is not far from the hotel. Visitors mainly use that car park
and there would be no problem with residents if staff used it, as all are concerned
that the hotel continues to be successful.
Whether 15 or 50 cars would be parked, the proposal would still harm the
uniqueness of the Pastures as a total entity which needs to be retained as open
space. It is contrary to Blakeney Village Design Statement.
CONSULTATIONS
Original proposals
Economic Growth Team: no objection. It would appear that the proposal could form an
Development Committee
11
7 April 2016
integral part of the offering to guests that the business will require in order to meet
customer expectations. It would seem preferable that guests park in an allocated and
controlled area rather than park in areas that would better serve day-trippers and
visitors, who will spend money with other businesses within Blakeney.
It is noted that the hotel is an important business to both Blakeney and the District and,
is a relatively high employer. Should approval not be given it is considered important to
seek alternative solutions. If there are no practical alternatives, the economic benefits
of the current proposal should be strongly weighted against the grounds for objection.
The comments are based on the assumption that the car parking spaces are required
for the long-term sustainability of the business. It is noted that it would be prudent to
ensure that the current parking provision is being efficiently utilised and that any
arrangements have, or could, be made which could ease the situation.
Landscape Officer: the design concept aims to retain the open nature of the site as
much as possible, so that when cars are not occupying the site, the open meadow
character of the Pastures is retained. Screening the area with trees and shrubs to
mask the visual impact is not considered appropriate, as this would permanently alter
the character of this part of the public open space.
Notwithstanding the minimal design to limit visual impact, it does not detract from the
fact that by its very nature, the proposed car park could not be considered to enhance
the open character or recreational use of the land as is required by Policy CT 1. It
would significantly alter the character and use of this part of the designated open space.
The site area is about 11% of the total area of the Pastures, which although not a large
proportion, it is considered it would undoubtedly compromise the composite green
space of the Pastures that is currently framed and defined by the existing residential
development. The proposal is therefore considered to the contrary to Policy CT 1. It
would also be difficult to conclude that the development would either preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area as is required by
Policy EN 8.
Finally, it is noted that the hotel is a key business and plays an important role in the
wider economy of the village. The economic argument for the proposed additional car
parking to support the hotel therefore needs to be carefully considered in order to justify
a departure from Policy CT 1. The issue of whether this would set an undesirable
precedent also needs to be considered.
Highway Authority: no objection, request conditions requiring the car park to be
provided in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter.
Historic England: advise that the application should be determined in accordance with
national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the council's specialist
conservation advice.
Conservation & Design: refer to the comments made by the Landscape Officer in
respect of the likely effect on the Blakeney Conservation Area.
Amended proposal
Landscape Officer: the amended plan clearly reduces the amount of available parking
and would therefore result in a reduction in visual impact, containing the parking area
close to the canopy of the mature trees which would further shield the vehicles. The
proposed low grass to limit access would not be obtrusive. The location of the reduced
Development Committee
12
7 April 2016
scheme still raises issues of non-compliance with policies CT 1 and EN 8. The
reduction in visual impact must be taken into account when re-evaluating the economic
benefits against potential impacts.
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 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 CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss of
open space).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)



Paragraph 14 - has a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 134 - where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
Paragraph 115 - great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic
beauty in, amongst others, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the
highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
Blakeney Village Design Statement (1998):
Under "Guidelines on village structure' it states that the village open spaces should be
protected and managed for the greater enjoyment of residents and visitors. Because
of the age of the document and as it has not been adopted as a supplementary planning
document, whilst there is a need to have regard to it, it has only limited weight.
Development Committee
13
7 April 2016
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION





Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle;
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including
whether or not it would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB; and
the settlement character
Whether there is a need for additional parking
Whether there are economic considerations that would outweigh the loss of part of
an Open Land Area;
The effect on living conditions of nearby residents
APPRAISAL
Principle
The application site forms part of an Open Land Area. These are areas which make an
important contribution to the appearance of an area or to opportunities for informal
recreation. The related Core Strategy policy, CT 1, has a presumption against
development except where it enhances the open character or recreational use of the
land.
The applicants suggest that the proposal would enhance the recreational use of The
Pastures because the current free for all with anyone parking on the site would be
regulated and as such the use of The Pastures would be improved. This is considered
to be tenuous as from comments made in representations, it appears that the use of the
site for parking by the hotel has encouraged the general public to park there as it has
gone unchecked. There would clearly be other suitable options to prevent the site
being used for parking.
As the proposal would neither enhance the open character or recreational use of the
land, it is clearly contrary to the policy in this respect.
Character and appearance
The principle consideration in this case is the effect the proposal would have on the
openness of the Open Land Area as the site cannot be used for recreational purposes
as it is private land to which the public have no rights of access, even though the owners
may have tolerated it for many years. Although the proposal would not enhance the
open character of the land, there needs to be some consideration of the degree of harm,
alongside any benefits, associated with proposals.
In terms of area, the application site area is about 12% of the total area of The Pastures.
Just under 40% of the site would be used for parking which represents about 4.5% of
the area of The Pastures. The proposal would therefore be a relatively minor incursion
into it.
From outside it, the main views into and across The Pastures to the site are from New
Road (A149) that runs to the south. Views across the area are terminated by houses
and trees to the north, providing a backdrop to the open area. In views from the south
generally, because of the rise of the land parked cars would be visible above the hedge
along the roadside boundary.
From the opposite the junction of the A149 with Little Lane, views into the site would be
restricted by a taller hedge. Some glimpsed views of parked cars would be possible
Development Committee
14
7 April 2016
across the junction with Westgate Street. From within The Pastures itself, the cars
would be more visible with some filtering by trees. Overall, in all views the amended
scheme would mean that parked cars would be contained within a relatively narrow
portion of the wider view. They would be located at the edge of the area close to the
roadway and trees.
Parking would not take place throughout the year, which can be controlled by condition,
which the applicants would accept. They have also stated that it would only be used for
overflow purposes when the main car park was full, which could not be controlled,
although it is reasonable to assume guests would be directed to the closer, main car
parking if there was space. The grass surface would be retained.
On balance, it is considered the overall effect on the openness, visual integrity,
character and appearance of the area would be less than significant and that the
incursion into the open area both physically and visually, would be acceptable. On this
basis it is considered that the proposal complies with policies EN 2 and EN 8.
AONB
There is a general duty for authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving or
enhancing the natural beauty of AONBs when coming to any decisions relating to land
within them. They have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and
scenic beauty. In terms of that duty, it is considered whilst the proposal would not
enhance the natural beauty of the AONB, it would conserve that of the wider area in
longer views across it. As the site is within the settlement with an immediate backdrop
of buildings, there is very limited visual connection with the coastal area beyond. The
proposal is considered acceptable in terms of policy EN 1.
Economic considerations
The hotel is an important business to both Blakeney and the District. According to the
Planning Statement it employs 80-100 people on a permanent basis; has had more than
30,000 guests staying in the financial year to March 2015 (an average of 82 per night);
has had continuous investment over the last 10 years; draws visitors to the area and
supports local business. Figures have been provided showing spending on goods and
services locally. It is argued that as a result of the hotel's success, more people come
to Blakeney, making an already difficult parking situation worse. Increased parking
provision is considered fundamental to the hotel's continuing success and if this cannot
be delivered the business could be affected, which in turn could have knock-on effect on
the local economy.
Although there are no Core Strategy policies that are directly relevant to this type of
proposal, being related to new tourist accommodation and attractions, Core Strategy
policy SS 5 indicates the tourist industry will be supported where related proposals
would not have a significant detrimental effect on the environment and tourism is
acknowledged as a key part of the economy of the District.
It is considered likely that most people come to Blakeney for its own sake because of
the natural beauty of the coastal area in particular, rather than because there is a
particular hotel there, but it is acknowledged the availability of good quality
accommodation forms part of the overall tourism offer. Whether or not the hotel would
suffer without the proposed additional car parking cannot realistically be assessed,
particularly as on the basis of the information supplied, it is very successful as it stands.
Customer expectations do however change, which the hotel is seeking to meet, and
there are currently no other realistic alternatives to provide additional parking.
Development Committee
15
7 April 2016
Need for parking
The hotel has 64 guest bedrooms (8 single and 56 double) along with 21 staff rooms
and conferencing and banqueting facilities for up to 100 people. Based on the
planning history for the hotel, it has not been extended and no additional
accommodation has been created for many years. It is open all year. Application of
the car parking standard for Class C1 hotels in appendix C of the Core Strategy, which
is 1 space per bedroom (guest or staff), would require 85 spaces if a new build scheme
were being considered. Plans submitted with the application of the existing car parking
layout show 70 car parking spaces. The dimensions of some of the car parking spaces
would not comply with the current dimensions for a non-residential parking space which
is 5m x 2.5m and a further plan shows a layout that would comply resulting in 54 spaces.
It is therefore accepted that there is a shortfall in car parking based on current standards
which a new development would normally be expected to comply with, to avoid overspill
parking.
The applicants consider the provision of sufficient and dedicated car parking is essential
if it is to maintain its visitor numbers and retain its reputation as a leading hotel in the
area. It is argued that the availability of visitor parking has proved insufficient leading
to complaints and potential damage to the hotel's reputation. This however, is not
borne out by reviews of the hotel found on Trip Advisor for example, of which there are
around 544. Of these, around 10 refer to the parking being a problem, limited or
awkward. Similarly there are 10 reviews on Google, however none mention parking as
an issue.
In response to comments about the management of the hotel's existing parking
provision, it is suggested that this would require 3 additional members of staff to cover
all the shifts, which would be an additional cost. It is however, acknowledged that the
installation of barriers on the road could help. The applicants have confirmed that
there are no suitable alternative sites available that could be used to provide additional
parking.
Some objections suggest the hotel's parking requirements, particularly for staff, could
be met by using the village hall car park. The applicants have considered the
advantages and disadvantages of using this alternative location, along with the two
other car parks (High Street and The Carsner) in the village. In summary, two of the
car parks are felt to be too far away for guests to use, with no street lighting, raising
safety concerns. Guests would not want to leave their cars unattended in car parks
with no security or lighting. Additionally, the High Street car park is pay and display
which would mean guests would need to remember to renew their tickets and as part is
for permit holders only, space is limited in busy periods. Whilst The Carsner car park is
conveniently located, it is subject to tidal flooding as are some of the hotel's existing
spaces, meaning they are sometimes unusable. It is suggested that local residents
would see using public car parking negatively as the hotel and its guests would be using
a public amenity for its own benefits.
Finally, consideration has been given to the possibility of the development of a Travel
Plan for staff, which could help to reduce staff parking demands through car sharing or
use of alternative transport. It is however accepted that given the location, the lack of
public transport, working patterns and this dispersed rural area from which staff travel,
that this is not a viable option.
Whilst public car parking could potentially meet the hotel's needs, it would reduce the
amount of parking available for visitors and day trippers, and the hotel does not consider
Development Committee
16
7 April 2016
it to be a viable option. At peak times, guests would need to compete for spaces in the
public car parks and it is understandable that the hotel would want to be able to
guarantee guests can park and guests are likely to expect this. It is considered more
could be done to better manage the hotel's existing provision, but the fact remains there
would still be a shortfall based on current parking standards in a location which most
people have to travel to by car.
Living conditions
The amended scheme would mean cars would now park well away from the closest
houses at 21 and 22 The Pastures that adjoin the north boundary and sit at a lower level
such that it is considered concerns about noise and disturbance and headlights raised
in some of the original objections have been satisfactorily addressed. It is considered
that the proposal complies with policies EN 4 and EN 13 in this respect.
Other considerations
Precedent - each application must be considered on its own particular merits. In this
case, it is considered that the degree of harm alongside the benefits accruing from the
proposal, would outweigh the limited harm to the Open Land area and conflict with
policy EN 1, (which a proposal for a private dwelling for example, would not). Any
proposals to develop parts of other Open Land areas would need to be determined in
accordance with the development unless material considerations indicated otherwise.
As such approval of this application would not 'open the floodgates'. It is also noted in
respect of the remainder of the Pastures that it is controlled by the Parish Council, which
provides additional safeguards.
Highways - There are no material issues in respect of road safety and traffic movements
at junctions, with the Highway Authority having no objections to the proposals.
Restrictive covenants - any relating to the land which may or may not restrict its use are
not planning considerations.
Conclusion
The proposals are clearly controversial and the issues finely balanced. Whilst the
proposal is contrary to policy EN 1, it has to be considered against other relevant
policies as a whole, with weight attached to any other material considerations.
Following the revisions to the scheme reducing the area of the site to be used for
parking, the harm to the open nature and character of The Pastures as a designated
open land area as a whole, would not be significant. This along with the lack of any
suitable alternative parking provision and the desirability of enabling the hotel to meet
customer expectations, weigh marginally in favour of the proposal and approval is
therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions to cover the following:




Time limit for implementation
Landscaping scheme including the provision of bunds before use commences
Parking limited to the area shown on approved plans
Removal of permitted development rights for erection of enclosure to site
Development Committee
17
7 April 2016


boundaries
No external lighting
Seasonal use of car park
Final details of conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning.
(3)
BRISTON - PF/15/1746 - Erection of 12 shared ownership dwellings and garages;
Holly House, The Lane for Option for Homes Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 15 March 2016
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Countryside
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
14/0992 PF - Erection of twelve shared ownership dwellings and garages
Withdrawn by Applicant 03/11/2014
DE21/15/0011
Garages
11/03/2015
ENQ
- Erection of Twelve shared Ownership Dwellings and
15/0352 PF - Erection of twelve shared ownership dwellings with garages
Refused 09/07/2015
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for the erection of 12 dwellings with garages on 0.42 hectares of
land adjoining the northern edge of the settlement boundary of Briston towards the west
end of the village. The site forms part of site allocation BRI24, land rear of Holly House,
and consists of a long narrow plot of overgrown grassland measuring some 150 metres
in length by 30 metres in width. A substantial hedge along the southern boundary
separates the site from Orchard Close. The site would be served by a private road from
a new single point of vehicular access off Bure Road immediately to the south at the
junction with Orchard Close.
The dwellings would be provided as co-ownership properties through a Joint Equity
Scheme which is a form of Intermediate affordable housing and would consist of:




4 x three-bed, 4 person semi-detached houses,
2 x two-bed, 4 person semi-detached houses,
2 x three-bed, 5 Person detached houses, and
4 x two-bed, 4 Person semi-detached chalet bungalows.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Design and Access Statement
 Energy Statement
Further details have been received in respect of the Joint Equity Scheme and flood risk.
Development Committee
18
7 April 2016
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Local Member Councillor English in light of the concerns raised by
Briston Parish Council and local residents.
PARISH COUNCIL - Object.
 The access road through Orchard Close is unsuitable to take any additional traffic,
possibly up to 24 vehicles.
 More dwellings have been applied for than allocated in the LDF Policy BR124.
 The infrastructure and services in the village will be unable to cope with more
dwellings.
 There appear to be no safeguards to ensure that the existing hedge is maintained
at a sensible height in the future and not replaced with a fence.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The proposed number of dwellings is too many for the area of land.
2. The site allocation document states that the total area of land, which amounts to 0.5
hectares, is suitable for approximately 10 dwellings, yet the application is for 12
dwellings on an area of 0.42 hectares.
3. Major increase in noise and traffic through the small estate.
4. Proximity of new access road to existing bungalow would result in loss of privacy
and noise and disturbance.
5. The proposed houses will overlook the existing bungalows within the current
estate.
6. The extension in the length of Bure Close will increase traffic speeds.
7. Parked cars on The Lanes impede visibility when exiting the Bure Road junction.
8. Why is the access coming through Bure Road when Holly House has sufficient land
for the road to pass directly onto The Lanes.
9. The latest proposals do not provide sufficient parking spaces and there is likely to
be an overflow onto Bure Road causing traffic flow problems and lack of privacy.
10. There are ongoing problems surrounding sewage and flooding in Briston.
11. There is no provision for open space within the development and as these are
family dwellings where will children play.
12. The loss of part of the hedge to the southern boundary will affect both privacy and
result in loss of habitat for wildlife.
13. Safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that the hedgerow to the southern
boundary which is now shown to be retained is maintained at a minimum height of 3
metres.
14. The Design and Access Statement states that 60 metres of the hedge to the
southern boundary will be removed.
15. The plans show heat recovery ventilation units however the air source heat pumps,
which can be noisy, are not shown.
16. There is no capacity at the Melton Constable Medical Practice with long wait for
appointments.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Seeks further amendments to site layout to include an
increase in the width of estate road to the same as Bure Road and for slight
modifications in the dimensions the Type 3 turning head with the site. Also slight
modifications to the dimensions of the turning heads at the extreme eastern and
western ends of the site served off the private driveways in order to accommodate fire
tenders.
Development Committee
19
7 April 2016
Natural England - No comment.
County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority) - No response.
Housing Strategy – No objection - Whilst the planning application refers to the
dwellings as shared ownership dwellings, all the dwellings including the affordable
housing are proposed to be provided as co-ownership dwellings using a model
developed by a company called Joint Equity.
The Joint Equity model operates in the following way:
A purchaser buys a share of a property which they will occupy as their home, they are
called the Resident Partner (RP). As the RP cannot afford to buy all of the property, they
buy it jointly with an investor (in this case the applicant Options for Homes Ltd) who is
called the Non Resident Partner (NRP). The NRP owns the remaining share of the
value of the property, the NRP has no right to live in the property. The RP then pays
the NRP a return on the NRP’s share of the property, this payment is called the Partner
Payment and can be considered to be broadly equivalent to the rent that is paid to a
Registered Provider for a shared ownership property. It should be noted however, that
as the NRP is an investor, the cost of the Partner Payment is higher than the equivalent
amount of rent which would be charged if the property was shared ownership. The
ethos of the Joint Equity model is to help households who cannot afford to buy outright
to buy a home, however, it is an investment model in that the NRP benefits from any
growth in the value of their share (which they can sell to another NRP or to the RP) and
from the monthly Partner Payment which will increase by a set amount (percentage)
every 3 years.
Joint Equity is a legal company which operates the co-ownership scheme, for which it
receives a fee from the NRP. Joint Equity can act as an arbitrator where there are
disputes between the RP and NRP although there is also a separate independent
dispute process when Joint Equity is unable to resolve the dispute. Whilst the RP and
NRP own the property jointly, they also sign a Partner Contract which regulates the
relationship between the RP and NRP and provides Joint Equity with the ability to
resolve disputes. This provides some safeguards in the event that either the RP or
NRP default on any mortgage or loan secured on the property. There is a common
director and owner of the Joint Equity and Option for Homes companies, and the
Council is exploring with the applicant how conflicts of interest in the Partner Contract
can be managed to protect the RP.
As the applicant is proposing that the affordable housing provision on this site will be
provided as co-ownership using the Joint Equity model, the affordable housing
provision will be considered to be intermediate housing and there will therefore be no
rented affordable housing provided on this site. The details of the model have been
discussed with the applicant to ensure that the model can be accepted as a form of
intermediate affordable housing and it has been agreed that subject to the Section 106
Agreement for the site including the Council’s required provisions to ensure the
dwellings are affordable and protected as affordable in perpetuity that the co-ownership
dwellings can be accepted as the affordable housing provision on this site.
There is a need for affordable housing in Briston with 57 households on the Housing
Register and in addition there are a further 49 households on the Transfer Register and
416 households on the Housing Options Register who have stated that they require
housing in Briston.
Development Committee
20
7 April 2016
The applicant has made a Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application, which if
approved and the required construction schedule is met will reduce the affordable
housing requirement on the site from 50% of the total number of dwellings to 20%. The
applicant has not submitted a viability appraisal to demonstrate that the fallback
requirement of 50% affordable housing is not viable. The proposed affordable housing
with therefore be:
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme mix (20%)
2 x 2 Bed 4 Person Houses
Policy Requirement Mix (50%)
2 x 2 Bed 4 Person Houses
4 x 2 Bed 4 Person Chalet Houses
The RP will purchase 50% of the value of the affordable dwellings. On this basis, the
size and type of the affordable housing is agreed.
The arrangements for the initial marketing of the affordable dwellings on the site have
been agreed with the applicant, which will provide for households with a local
connection to Briston to be given initial priority for the dwellings.
The applicant has at the Council’s suggestion designed the 2 bed 4 person houses so
that if required, the second bedroom can be easily subdivided to create a 3 bedroom 4
person house. This change was seen by the applicant as a positive reflection of the
Joint Equity model. It also ensures that the occupiers of the affordable dwellings will be
able to easily change their house to meet their changing needs, which could delay or
prevent a move to another property. The flexibility of this design is welcomed. The
affordable housing provision is well integrated into the scheme.
If this application is approved, a Section 106 Agreement will be required which will
secure the provision of the affordable housing on the site in terms of the specific plots
which will be affordable and the phasing of the completion of these dwellings in relation
to the other dwellings on the site. The S106 Agreement will also ensure that the
affordable dwellings are affordable in terms of local incomes and local house prices
which will include provisions around the maximum income which can be paid on the
total housing costs (mortgage and Partner Payment) of the RP. The S106 Agreement
will also include provisions for another affordable dwelling to be provided if the RP of an
affordable dwelling buys out the NRP so they own 100% of the property.
The Housing Strategy team therefore support the approval of this application subject to
the outstanding issues being satisfactorily resolved and completion of a Section 106
Agreement which includes such provisions which are required in addition to the
Council’s standard affordable housing terms to ensure the affordable dwellings are
affordable based on local incomes and prices, that the total cost of the product is
affordable and to include suitable provisions in relation to perpetuity or recycling where
an affordable dwelling becomes a market dwelling.
Conservation and Design Team Leader - No objection subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions relating to the bricks and tiles to be used in the construction of
the dwellings and enclosure walls.
Landscape Officer – No objection - The indicative landscaping scheme submitted with
the application illustrates the retention of the existing hedgerows to the north, east and
southern boundaries although a section will have to be removed on Orchard Close to
allow the access road to be completed. The retention of the hedgerows is desirable as
they will provide important nesting, foraging and commuting habitat for a variety of
wildlife including priority habitats and species. In addition the hedgerows will help
screen the new development and integrate it into the wider semi-rural setting.
Development Committee
21
7 April 2016
The hedgerows, and any species found within, will require protection during the
development and would also benefit from additional enhancement planting. This could
be achieved through the provision of a Construction Environment Management Plan
(CEMP), which should also include all of the habitats on site, and should be secured via
condition. In addition enhancement opportunities should be indicated in a Landscaping
Scheme, also secured via condition. It would also be advisable to put a condition on
any planning permission granted requiring the retention of the hedgerows. It is
possible that with a sensitive construction methodology and with a thorough
landscaping scheme that incorporates additional tree planting and ecological
enhancement features (such as bat and bird boxes, native planting, mammal access
points in fences) that the development would result in no net loss of biodiversity and
may achieve positive enhancements for biodiversity in accordance with the
requirements of the NPPF and policy EN9.
Environmental Health - No objection, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions relating to the submission of details relating to surface water disposal and
noise odour and dust control from various plant, including Air Source Heat Pumps.
Anglian Water - No objection - The sewage system and Water Recycling Centre has
available capacity for the flows proposed.
Environment Agency - No response
Countryside and Parks Manager - No objection - The methodology set out in the
Council's interim practice guide to open space provision has been applied to this
application in terms of the relationship between additional population generated and
public open space.
The corresponding requirement has been calculated as follows:
Off- site contribution: Parks £12,012, Play £4,800, Green space £4,488 and Allotments
£5,914 (based on population increase of 26 of which 12 are children)
The threshold for developer contributions or on-site provision is 10 dwellings. This
application provides for 12 dwellings. There is no scope for on-site provision of open
space. There is no scope for on-site provision because the site is too small. There is no
demand for allotment provision because the village is already well served. There is
scope to improve parks and play provision on the existing recreation ground. In this
locality it is not considered that a contribution for green space is necessary.
It is therefore proposed that a contribution of £18,812 be sought for improvements to
play and parks provision at the village recreation ground.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
22
7 April 2016
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character
of the area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Development Committee
23
7 April 2016
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and design
 Impact on neighbouring properties
 Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
 Highways issues
 Drainage and flood risk issues
 Other issues
 S.106 requirements
APPRAISAL
Background
The current application follows planning application reference PF/14/0992 which was
withdrawn by the applicant and PF/15/0352 which was refused on the grounds of
highway safety due to the lack of turning heads together with inadequate parking
provision. In addition insufficient information was provided to demonstrate how the
proposal would provide affordable dwellings or how surface water drainage from the
development would not lead to flooding of either the proposed properties or
neighbouring sites. Furthermore, there were concerns regarding the appearance and
proportions of some of the dwelling.
Principle of development
Although situated within the ‘countryside’ policy area, Policy BRI24 of the Site
Allocations Development Plan Document for residential development, published in
2011 allocates the land, which amounts to approximately 0.5 hectares, for residential
development of approximately 10 dwellings, with the access derived from Orchard
Close. In addition it states that suitable provision of affordable housing would be
expected (currently 50%), together with any suitable contributions towards
infrastructure, services and other community needs. Whilst in terms of constraints the
only identified constraint is that there are no surface water sewers in the vicinity of the
site.
The applicant has submitted a Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme (HDIS) application,
whereby if the application is approved the affordable housing requirement would be
reduced from 50% of the total number of dwellings to 20%.
The proposed affordable housing will therefore be 2 x 2 Bed 4 Person Houses which
have been designed to allow the second bedroom to be divided to create a 3 bedroom
house if necessary. The Council’s Housing Strategy team has confirmed that the size,
type and tenure of the affordable housing is acceptable, however they would need to be
secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement so that in the event of the approved HDIS
not being met, the policy requirement that 50% of the total number of dwellings should
be affordable housing will apply.
It is proposed that all the dwellings including the affordable housing would be provided
as co-ownership dwellings using a model developed by a company called Joint Equity.
Development Committee
24
7 April 2016
This model is explained in more detail in the response received from Housing Strategy
and Community Development Manager reproduced above. However in order to protect
the affordable housing in perpetuity a further requirement would be that in the event of a
Resident Partner Occupier) purchasing 100% of the property the Non Resident Partner,
(the applicant Options for Homes Ltd) to use the monies received to provide a
comparable affordable dwelling elsewhere in the district within a defined period.
The principle of development is therefore considered to be acceptable subject to the
applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement which includes such provisions which
are required in addition to the Council’s standard affordable housing terms to ensure the
affordable dwellings are provided in perpetuity and compliance with other Core Strategy
policies.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning
authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local
circumstances.
In this instance, Policy BRI24 suggests a density of approximately 10 dwellings on a
land area of 0.50 hectares, which equates to 20 dwellings per hectare. In contrast as
the proposed development only involves 0.42 hectares of the land allocation 12
dwellings represents a housing density of 28 dwellings per hectare. Whilst it is
accepted that this is in excess of the suggested site allocation on what is a slightly
smaller land area it is considered that given the context of the site and surrounding
densities and its edge of countryside location, the density proposed would be
acceptable and makes the best and most efficient use of land. Furthermore, the
garden area to each dwelling would meet the guidance contained in Section 3 3.3.10 of
the North Norfolk Design Guide which recommends that the area of the plot given over
to private amenity space should normally be no less than the footprint of the dwelling on
that site.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace not more
than 70sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing imbalance of
larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 50% (6 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and have floor space of
between 79 and 80sqm. Furthermore 33% (4 units) would have a ground floor
bedroom which is suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or
disabled. Therefore, although the scheme falls slightly short when considering the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy HO1 in terms of floorspace Officers consider that
this non-compliance with Policy does not, in itself, warrant a refusal of the scheme.
The Committee will note the comments of the Housing Strategy and Community
Development Manager who concludes that the size and type of affordable dwellings
proposed under this scheme reflects the local housing need.
Development Committee
25
7 April 2016
Layout and Design
In terms of the layout of the development it is considered that the latest proposals have
successfully responded to previous concerns raised in respect of the lack of turning
heads and parking provision. Retention of the majority of the established hedgerow to
the southern boundary of the site helps address previous concerns of neighbours
regarding privacy issues and access from the proposed dwellings to Plots 1- 4 directly
onto Orchard Close. Furthermore, the provision of south facing garden with the private
driveway adjacent to the northern boundary would successfully increase the separation
distance between the proposed dwellings and existing properties in Orchard Close and
Baldwin Close.
As far as the scale and massing of the proposed dwellings, whilst the gable width to the
majority of the units is slightly broader than ideal at 10 metres, overall the proportions
and elevational treatment of the dwellings is considered to be acceptable and
compatible with their surroundings. The introduction of porch canopies and square bay
windows to some of the units would contribute to the developments additive form, and
combined with the mix of detached, semi-detached and chalet type bungalows adds to
the overall visual interest of the development. The scheme has raised no objection
from the Council’s Conservation and Design Officer subject to a planning condition
being used to secure appropriate materials for construction.
Impact on neighbouring properties
As referred to above, unlike previous proposals for the site the current scheme seeks to
retain the majority of the established hedgerow to the southern boundary of the site,
thereby providing screening between the proposed dwellings and properties in Orchard
and Baldwin’s Close. Furthermore, the separation distance between the south (rear
elevations) of the proposed dwellings and the southern boundary of the site would be in
the region of 11 metres, with the front north facing windows of Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7
Orchard Close being a further 15 metres to the south, giving an total separation
distance of some 26 metres, which is well in excess of the amenity criteria contained in
the North Norfolk Design Guide. This is also true of dwellings to the corner of Orchard
Close and Bure Road which would have a separation distance of some 20 metres.
However it is acknowledged that this property together with No 6 Orchard Close, which
abuts the site to the east of the proposed new access and which has its front windows
within 4 metres of the roadway, could potentially experience additional noise and
disturbance from vehicles and pedestrians accessing the development.
As far as the impact on No’s 1, 3, 5 and 7 Baldwin’s Close to the east, whilst these
properties have their rear gardens facing the site, given the separation distances
involved and the fact that the proposed semi-detached chalet bungalows would only
have first floor bathroom window facing these dwellings again there would be no privacy
issues.
It is therefore consider that the relationship with neighbouring properties is acceptable
and would not result in any privacy or overshadowing issues. However it is accepted
that those properties close to the site access could experience addition noise and
disturbance. Notwithstanding this given that the site allocation document indicates the
access being derived from Orchard Close it is considered that refusal of the application
on this ground alone could not be justified.
Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
Formerly a managed small holding with orchard, allotments and trees the site which lies
to the south of an agricultural field and north of Orchard Close consists predominantly of
improved grassland and scrub. Since the previous refusal 15/0352, the layout of the
scheme has been changed so that the dwellings are now orientated to the north with the
Development Committee
26
7 April 2016
rear gardens backing onto Orchard Close and Baldwin's Close to the south. The
indicative landscaping scheme submitted as part of the application indicates the
retention of the existing hedgerows to the north, east and southern boundaries,
although a section of some 20 metres would have to be removed to allow the access
road off Bure Road. Overall the retention of the hedgerows is to be welcomed as they
will provide important nesting, foraging and commuting habitat for a variety of wildlife
including priority habitats and species. In addition they will screen the proposed
development from properties to the south and integrate it into the wider semi-rural
setting.
The Landscape Officer has indicated that the submitted Design and Access Statement
is somewhat dismissive of both the ecological importance of the existing natural
features on the site as well as the intrinsic value of the hedgerows and remaining trees
as features in their own right. However it is considered that with a sensitive construction
methodology and a detailed landscaping scheme that incorporates additional tree
planting and ecological enhancement features (such as bat and bird boxes, native
planting, mammal access points in fences) there would be no net loss of biodiversity
and could in fact achieve positive enhancements for biodiversity in accordance with the
requirements of the NPPF and policy EN9. The Landscape Officer therefore raises no
object to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the retention of
the hedgerows at an agreed height, the submission of a Construction Environment
Management Plan (CEMP), which includes all of the habitats on site, together with a
comprehensive landscaping scheme.
Highways Issues
It is proposed that the site would be served by a new single point of access off the
junction with Bure Road and Orchard Close which would terminate in a Type 3 turning
head adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. To the east and west of the turning
heads properties would be served by a private driveway finished in permeable block
paving. The layout of the scheme accommodates parking for the twelve dwellings
through on-plot parking on the basis of two spaces per dwelling, which includes the use
of garages as parking spaces. As proposed each garage would have internal
dimensions of 3 metres in width x 6 metres in length, which is one metre less than the
recommendations contained in the Council’s parking standards. As part of their
response to the previous planning application PF/15/0352 the Highway Authority
indicated that the provision of garages with the internal dimension proposed were
acceptable subject to the garages being set back at least 6 metres from the adjacent
shared private drive, which is now the case.
The Committee will note the concerns raised by Briston Parish Council and local
residents that the access road through Orchard Close is unsuitable to take any
additional traffic. Furthermore, the latest proposals do not provide sufficient parking
spaces and there is likely to be an overflow onto Bure Road causing traffic flow
problems and lack of privacy.
In response to the latest application the Highway Authority has indicated that further
minor amendments are required in respect of the width of the access road into the
estate together with the dimensions of the turning heads. Specifically they have
suggested that the turning head off the private driveway at the extreme eastern end of
the site should be a Type 3 head as required by fire tenders, which could be difficult to
accommodate within the proposed layout. Having consulted this Council’s Building
Control Section they have confirmed that the Fire Service only requires a Type 5 head,
the dimensions of which are less and could satisfactory be accommodated within the
proposed layout.
Development Committee
27
7 April 2016
Given the Site Allocations Document indicates the access being derived from Orchard
Close, and previously the Highway Authority raised no objection in principle, it is
considered that following receipt of an amended layout plan and subject to no new
grounds of objection from highways that refusal of the application on highway safety
grounds or level of on-site parking provision could not be justified.
Drainage and flood risk issues
The site is situated in Flood Risk Zone 1 as identified on the Environment Agency flood
risk maps which is the lowest category of risk, where flooding from rivers and sea is very
unlikely.
Policy EN10 and the NPPF requires the provision of appropriate surface water drainage
arrangements for dealing with surface water run-off from new developments in order to
prevent on and off site flooding. More specifically on all major developments the Local
Planning Authority expects sustainable drainage systems to be implemented in order
for surface water from the development to be disposed of on site, unless soil conditions
and or engineering feasibility dictates otherwise.
In this particular case a site investigation undertaken in January 2014 found that the
underground soils are 90% sand and the permeability is very high. Furthermore at a
depth of 3.7 metres the water table was not encountered and there were no signs of
ground water ingress at any depth. It is therefore proposed that soakaways/Sustainable
Urban Drainage System (SUDS) would be used throughout the site, including the use
permeable paving of private drives for the dwellings and highway soakaways for the
estate road. Although Norfolk County Council as Lead Flood Authority was consulted,
at the present time they are only providing advice in respect of developments involving
250 dwellings or more. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer, whilst not
objecting to the scheme has indicated that further details of the surface water drainage
system will be required and can be secured by way of an appropriately worded planning
condition.
It is proposed that foul water drainage will connect into existing public foul sewer and
Anglian Water have confirmed that there is existing capacity to allow the development to
take place.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer
applicable as government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing
the Code for Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer
require compliance with these standards. However Policy EN6 requires 10% of the
predicted total energy usage of the development to be provided by on-site renewable
energy technology.
The Energy Statement and Design and Access Statement submitted as part of the
application indicates that the dwellings will achieve CSH Level 3 and that in order to
comply with Policy EN6 on-site renewable technologies will include the use of air source
heat pumps and heat recovery systems, together with triple glazing and thermal
insulation.
Having consulted the Council’s Environmental Protection Team they initially raised
concerns regarding the proposed use of air source heat pumps and the potential for
noise and disturbance to the occupiers neighbouring properties. However the
Environmental Protection Officer has subsequently indicated that precise details of the
air source heat pumps, including their location could be secured by planning condition,
Development Committee
28
7 April 2016
to ensure a full assessment of noise impacts is taken into account before agreeing to
their installation.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing based on the Housing Delivery Incentive
Scheme (HDIS) and a fallback position in the event of the approved HDIS not
being met, that the policy requirement that 50% of the total number of dwellings
should be affordable housing will apply.
 As it is proposed the dwellings would be provided on a co-ownership basis
through the Joint Equity Scheme in order to protect the affordable housing in
perpetuity a further requirement would be that in the event of a Resident Partner
purchasing 100% of the property the Non Resident Partner use the monies
received to provide a comparable affordable dwelling elsewhere in the district
within a defined period.
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to the village
play and parks provision.
Summary
The site forms part of the site allocation BRI24, and whilst it is accepted that the
proposed density is in excess of the suggested allocation it is considered that given the
context of the site and surrounding densities and its edge of countryside location, this is
acceptable and makes the best and most efficient use of land. Furthermore, the
provision of two affordable dwellings which will be provided as co-ownership dwellings
using the Joint Equity model, would comply with the Council’s Housing Delivery
Incentive scheme. In addition the mix, design and layout of the development are also
considered to be acceptable. Whilst concerns have been raised by the Parish Council
and local residents, as this is an allocated site and statutory consultees have raised no
objection it is considered that the development would accord with Development Plan
policy, subject to the provisions of a Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of
appropriate conditions,
RECOMMENDATION: DELEGATED APPROVE subject to no new grounds of
objection from the Highways Authority following receipt of an amended plan
showing modifications to the access road and turning head, and
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the
terms set out in the report.
(ii)
Appropriate conditions relating to; hard and soft landscaping
(including retentions of existing hedgerows), surface water drainage
and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
(4) COLBY - PF/16/0037 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref: 14/0042
to permit flat roof to pitch, insertion of velux windows to facilitate
accommodation in roofspace and revised window and door design; Colby
Wesleyan Reform Chapel, Long Lane for Mr N Andrews
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 March 2016
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
29
7 April 2016
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20001117 PF
Erection of single-storey rear extension and formation of car park
Approved 11/10/2000
PF/14/0042 PF
Conversion of former chapel to single-storey dwelling
Approved 07/03/2014
THE APPLICATION
The application proposes the variation of condition 2 of the previously approved
planning application (PF/14/0042) to alter the existing flat roof addition to the rear of the
chapel to a pitched roof, the insertion of roof lights to allow for first floor accommodation
and revised fenestration details.
Condition 2 of application PF/14/0042 required the development to be carried out in
accordance with the approved plans except where further details were required by other
conditions. The reason given for the condition was to ensure the satisfactory
development of the site, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
The current application, as originally submitted, proposed dormer windows within the
roof space of the Chapel. Amended plans have been submitted which remove the
dormer windows and replaced them with roof lights which are considered to be a more
sympathetic design solution for the Chapel building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Smith as it is considered that the application should have been a
new application as opposed to a variation of the existing.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Colby Parish Council: Object on the grounds of insufficient headroom to first floor,
small size window in dormers to allow for sufficient light gain, concern that the
application should not have been treated as a variation due to the changes proposed
and the plans on the web relate to the previously approved application.
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired on the 24 February 2016 and no representations have been
made to date.
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.
Development Committee
30
7 April 2016
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for
new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Background and Principle of Development
 Design
 Neighbouring Amenity
 Parking and Highways Safety
APPRAISAL
Background and Principle of Development
The principle of the conversion of the former Colby Wesleyan Reform Chapel to a
dwelling has been previously established though the granting of planning permission
under reference PF/14/0042.
The current application proposes to vary the development which has been previously
approved to allow for the following:
 Changing of the existing flat roof addition to the rear of the chapel to a pitched
roof and the insertion of roof lights to allow for first floor accommodation.
 Fenestration changes which include double doors to the rear (north elevation) of
the chapel, insertion of a first floor window to the rear (north elevation) and the
insertion of a door and larger window to the east elevation.
In terms of the application process, an application can be made under section 73 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary conditions associated with a planning
permission. One of the uses of a section 73 application is to seek a minor material
amendment, where there is a relevant condition that can be varied. There are no set
criteria to determine what constitutes a “minor material amendment”. However, the
Government has defined this type of change as being “one whose scale and nature
results in a development which is not substantially different from that which has been
approved”. It is therefore considered that the application procedure is appropriate in
this instance given the nature of the proposed changes to the Chapel.
Where an application under section 73 is granted, the effect is the issue of a new
planning permission, sitting alongside the original permission, which remains intact and
unamended. A decision notice describing the new permission will be issued, setting
out all of the conditions related to it. Decision notices for the grant of planning
Development Committee
31
7 April 2016
permission under section 73 should also repeat the relevant conditions from the original
planning permission, unless they have already been discharged. In this regard, Code
Level 3 has now been incorporated in to the Building Regulations. As a result,
Condition 3 of Planning Application 14/0042 is now not relevant and there is no
requirement to re-impose this condition upon any planning approval granted.
The application proposes to change the flat roof to a pitched roof at the rear where it is
considered that this would not result in ‘substantial rebuilding or extension’ to be
considered as a departure from Policy HO9. The footprint of the building would
remain unchanged and the alterations proposed are considered to be relatively minimal.
The application is therefore still considered to comply with Policy HO 9 of the adopted
Core Strategy.
Design
With regards to the overall design, amended plans were submitted which replaced the
dormer windows with conservation roof lights which are considered to be a more
appropriate design solution for the Chapel building. The provision of a pitch to an
existing flat roof which will match the ridge of the existing is considered to be a visual
improvement to the building, and given its modest scale is considered acceptable. The
changes to the fenestration, which include the insertion of a double door within the
ground floor to the rear (north) elevation, single door within the side (east) elevation and
the enlargement of the window opening are proposed within the later addition to the
building and are not considered to compromise the overall integrity of the Chapel. In
respect to the latter, the enlarged window is considered to be an improvement as this
would reflect the proportions of the existing openings to this east elevation.
In respect to comments in relation to adequate provision of light gain and internal head
height within the Chapel to allow first floor accommodation. The internal headroom
ranges from 0.9 metres to 2.8 metres which is sufficient to allow for first floor
accommodation. Additionally, 6 roof lights are proposed and a window within the north
first floor gable which is considered sufficient to allow for adequate lighting for first floor
accommodation.
Therefore, given the modest scale of the proposed amendments which are not
considered to compromise the overall integrity of the Chapel, the scheme is considered
to be acceptable and would not be significantly detrimental to the appearance and
character of the wider area, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN4.
Neighbouring Amenity
In respect of the potential impact upon neighbouring properties, the property is
detached and is situated on the north east side of Long Lane where the closest
neighbour is located on the opposite side of the road. The proposed rooflights and
insertion of the existing first floor rear window to the gable of the proposed pitched roof
is not considered to give rise to loss of light, overshadowing, privacy or disturbance. It
is therefore considered that the scheme would adequately protect residential amenity,
and would accord with the requirements of Policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Parking and Highways Safety
Parking and turning arrangements remain unchanged to that which has been previously
approved through application PF/14/0042 where the relevant highway condition will be
re-imposed upon any subsequent planning approval granted.
Development Committee
32
7 April 2016
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of design,
scale, materials, and would not have a significantly harmful impact on either the
character or appearance of surrounding area or on the residential amenities of the
occupants of adjacent properties in respect of loss of light, privacy, noise or
disturbance. Furthermore, the scheme is not considered to be a departure from Policy
HO9 or have any implications in respect of highway safety. The application accords
with adopted Development Plan Policy and is recommended for approval subject to the
imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to 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 of 7 March 2014.
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.
This permission is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the
application (drawing number(s) site plan - 1 of 8, existing north east and north
west elevation - 2 of 8, existing south east and south west elevation - 4 of 8,
existing floor plan - 5 of 8, existing section - 7 of 8) received by the Local
Planning Authority on the 14 January 2016 and the amended plan (drawing
number N15235/002/E) received by the Local Planning Authority on 22
February 2016.
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
Materials to be used on the permitted roof shall match those of the existing
building, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The rooflights on the development hereby approved shall be of the 'conservation
type' with a frame flush with the outer face of the roof slope, unless otherwise
agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing,
Reason:
To ensure the windows are complementary to the appearance of the building, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5.
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access and on-site car parking area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled,
surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
Development Committee
33
7 April 2016
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
6.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other
alteration to the dwelling hereby permitted (including the insertion or any further
windows or rooflights) shall take place unless planning permission has been first
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and
the visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(5)
COLBY - PF/16/0165 - Widening of vehicle access and parking area; Bracora,
Colby Road, Banningham for Mrs L Grice
- Target Date: 06 April 2016
Case Officer: Mrs L Starling
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
C Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
No relevant planning history.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks planning permission to carry out changes to both the existing access and on-site
parking arrangements.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is referred to committee as the applicant is a member of staff.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Colby Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
No letters from the public received to date. A site notice was posted on 16th February
which expired on 8th March 2016.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to the imposition of conditions in
respect of access, visibility, parking provision and installation of gates.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objections or
conditions requested.
Development Committee
34
7 April 2016
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012):
NPPF 7: Ensuring good design
NPPF11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design, landscape impacts and trees
3. Highway safety
4. Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
1. Principle of development
The site lies within the countryside policy area where the principle of carrying out
alterations to an existing vehicular access and parking area serving a residential
property is considered acceptable under Policy SS2, subject to satisfying a range of
other policy criteria.
2. Design, landscape impacts and trees
Whilst the loss of an existing tree and section of hedgerow at the front of the site is
regrettable, the Council's Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the application,
given the property's village location within a group of existing dwellings. The
development would also help to improve the safety of vehicles using the site, as well as
improving safety for other highway users. The scheme would therefore accord with
Policies SS4, EN2 and EN4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
35
7 April 2016
3. Highway safety
The scheme proposes changes to both the existing on-site parking and access
arrangements. The application has been assessed by the Highways Authority who
have raised no objections to the scheme subject to the imposition of conditions. On
this basis, the scheme would adequately safeguard highway safety, and accord with
Policies CT5 and CT6 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4. Residential amenity
Whilst neighbouring properties lie to the east and west of the site, the nature of the
scheme is such that it would not result in any significantly detrimental impacts on the
residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent properties in terms of loss of light,
privacy or disturbance. It is therefore considered that the scheme would accord with
the requirements of Policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant Development plan policies
subject to appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following conditions:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the vehicular
access shall be laid out and retained thereafter in the position shown on the approved
plan in accordance with the highway specification (Dwg.No.TRAD 4) attached.
Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and
disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway
carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material
or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a visibility splay
shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plan.
The splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6
Development Committee
36
7 April 2016
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.
5
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the proposed
on-site car parking area shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plan and
retained thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
(6)
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1587 - Erection of 10 dwellings and garages with access off
Eagle Road; Land to the south of, Eagle Road for Mr Alston
Major Development
- Target Date: 09 February 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None.
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 10 dwellings on approximately 0.65 hectares of land towards
the centre of the village. The site currently forms part of a larger area of agricultural
land. A new point of vehicular access to the site will be created from Eagle Road; also
the dwelling to Plot 1 will be accessed directly from The Street by its own private
driveway. A section of new footway is proposed across the site frontage to connect
with an existing footway further west along Eagle Road and a pedestrian footpath link is
proposed through the site to School Road. A small area of on-site open space is
proposed with a primary function as a drainage feature.
60% of the units (6 dwellings) are proposed to be affordable and 40% (4 dwellings) are
proposed to be for sale on the open market.
The affordable dwellings will consist of 6 dwellings on an affordable rent basis
consisting of;
 2 x one-bed flats,
 2 x two-bed houses,
 1 x two-bed bungalow,
 1 x three-bed house.
The market dwellings mix consists of;
 4 x four-bed houses.
Development Committee
37
7 April 2016
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Planning Statement
 Economic Viability Analysis (Commercially Confidential)
 Design Statement
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Surface Water Drainage/SUDs Strategy
 Anglian Water Services – Drainage Plan
 Tree Report including Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method
Statement
 Ecological Survey
 Archaeological Evaluation
The application is also accompanied by draft S.106 Heads of Terms which allows for
transfer of the affordable housing to a registered provider and to be made available in
accordance with the Council’s local allocation agreement and confirms contributions
relevant to this application site to off-site public open space improvements of £9,800 as
requested by the relevant consultee.
Amended plans have been submitted in response to comments received from
consultees relating to the housing mix, drainage, arboricultural and highways issues.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is contrary to development plan policy.
PARISH COUNCIL
Erpingham with Calthorpe Parish Council – Objects. Concerned that sewer and waste
water provision will not be adequate given the history of flooding in School Road.
Impact of development on properties opposite should be revisited. Details of footway
provision should be included. Want to assert that no contact with the Parish Council
has occurred. Property design and materials are out of keeping with the locality and
more likened to an urban environment.
REPRESENTATIONS
22 letters of objection have been received of which the main issues are summarised
below:
 There is a lack of adequate foul and surface water infrastructure in the village,
 There are ongoing issues with flooding in School Road and additional sewage
from 10 homes will exacerbate the problem,
 Anglian Water refuse to upgrade the system or introduce a proper proactive
regime of maintenance and is purely reactive to incidents,
 In the past there was been sewage running down School Road after heavy rain,
 Gardens to School Road are flooded after heavy rain as they are downhill of the
proposed site (photographs provided),
 The bottom of the field in question rarely fully drains in winter months,
 SUDs will not work as the field has a substantial layer of clay and a high water
table,
 Erpingham is designated as countryside and no further development is
recommended,
 Properties will be overlooked due to the gradient of the land and experience loss
of privacy, noise and disturbance and the development will have an overbearing
visual impact,
 The development will have a detrimental effect on the rural character of the
neighbourhood,
 An application for a marquee and camp site was refused on land between the
Development Committee
38
7 April 2016

























public house and this site due to impact on residential amenity arising from
noise, disturbance and light pollution. A permanent housing development is
larger and more intrusive in terms of pollution, noise and disturbance.
There will be safety issues due to increased traffic, with a dangerous access on
to a narrow road, with blind bends,
The access would be opposite Eagle Close creating a cross roads effect and
causing light pollution and noise to those properties opposite,
The access to one property is adjacent to the entrance to the public house and a
blind bend,
The road has become more hazardous with increase in traffic and large
vehicles,
No highway improvement works are proposed,
No traffic survey has been conducted to assess the impact of the development,
Previous applications have been refused on Eagle Road as it is unsuitable for
increased traffic,
The field is a haven for wildlife (barn owls, tawny owls, cuckoos, buzzards, red
kite skylarks, brown hares and deer) and the loss of this habitat is totally
unacceptable,
Why is additional housing needed when there are hundreds of houses being
built in Aylsham less than 4 miles away in a more suitable location with access to
services,
If allowed to go ahead it will lead to more development on the rest of the field,
especially if the remainder of the field is not viable for farming as a result,
The land is productive, currently farmed agricultural land contributing to giving
us a sustainable food supply,
There could be an impact on tourism that brings much needed revenue to the
village,
This piece of arable land is currently light pollution free we do not want a ‘lighting
strategy’,
The village has very limited transport links, no Post Office or village shop, no
medical facilities and limited school places,
The school is at capacity and not able to accommodate more pupils,
There is no mains gas supply in the village,
How will the doctors surgeries in Aylsham cope?
As the applicant is not a Housing Association can it be ensured that the
affordable housing element will be provided properly, for those on the housing
list,
The Councils Exceptions site policy indicates that all of the housing should be for
social housing, but only 60% of the properties on less than 50% of the site area
are shown for this purpose and therefore contrary to planning policy,
The development will be prominent in the landscape and an intrusion into the
countryside as little development has been experienced to the south side of
Eagle Road,
The character and layout of the properties doesn't relate to existing properties
on School Road,
The landscaping proposed is not sufficient and a robust hedge and tree belt
should be provided to mimic the edge of settlement characteristics of properties
to School Road,
Contrary to the Statement of Community Involvement no formal meeting or
presentation has been held to discuss this site,
Affordable housing should be built in areas that have shops, transport, doctors
and employment,
The majority of letters of support are from those with a conflict of interest,
Development Committee
39
7 April 2016


Views from properties will be lost and associated loss of property value,
Questioning the need for the housing as opposed to a desire to live in the village.
10 letters of support have been received of which the main issues are summarised
below. Members should be aware that a number of these representations have been
received from the applicant and family/business associates;
 The development is small enough to not put too much extra strain on the sewage
system,
 The development is small enough to not put too much extra strain on the primary
school,
 The development provides pedestrian access from Eagle Road to School Road
making the journey to school safer for new and existing residents,
 The development would not be visually intrusive or look out of place,
 The balance in favour of affordable housing is good,
 The site is central to the heart of the village and lends itself to infill,
 The village needs a small development such as this to provide opportunity for
young people in the village to get a foot on the housing ladder,
 The demand for family housing is not being met by current housing stock,
 The access is on to a good road within the existing 30mph speed limit,
 The field is already seriously compromised for agriculture due to its size and
shape and will have no particular impact on productivity of the arable farm that
runs it,
 The development is of a scale in keeping with village life without being
overpowering and attractive for employees for an expanding locally based
manufacturing company whose expansion is jeopardised by the lack of suitable
housing in the locality,
 The cost of housing in the village is out of reach for most people and this may
present me with an opportunity to return to the village to be close to my place of
work in agriculture
1 comment has been received, not raising objection to the development as it is a
manageable small addition to centre of the village. But raises concern about increase
in traffic along Eagle Lane/Road.
A further 3 letters of objection have been received to date as a result of reconsultation
on amended plans and the drainage strategy. Further issues raised relate to;
 The footpath to School Road would be dangerous to children as it emerges at a
blind spot and if a child runs out into the road there would be an accident,
 Street lighting would be out of character with the village,
 Further to the grant of consent on the other site on Eagle Road there is no
justified need for another site,
 This site is within 1 km of another permitted under Policy HO3,
 The housing is not affordable and does not comply with Policy HO3 of the LDF,
 The proposed landscaping is not sufficient,
 The development involves construction within the Root Protection Area of a tree
on the site boundary and there is no tree protection plan, contrary to the relevant
British Standard,
 The typical suburban ‘estate type’ cul-de-sac is alien to the context of the site
and the character of the village and its random cottages along a country lane.
 The removal of the hedge across the site frontage causing more loss of privacy
and light pollution to the property opposite the site entrance.
Development Committee
40
7 April 2016
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – No objections, subject to conditions relating to; roads,
footways, foul and surface water drainage construction, provision and maintenance of
the required visibility splay, details of on-site construction worker parking, full details of
off-site highway improvements.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – If permission is granted requests a
condition to secure a programme or archaeological work comprising of monitoring of
works under archaeological supervision and control.
County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority) – No comments as the application falls
below the current threshold for detailed comment.
Anglian Water – Confirm that Aldborough Thwaite Hill Water Recycling Centre will
have available capacity for these flows. The foul sewerage system at present has
available capacity for these flows.
The proposed method of surface water management submitted with the planning
application does not relate to Anglian Water related assets.
Environment Agency – No comment to make.
Internal Drainage Board – The development passes flows into an Anglian Water
system which discharges into an area maintained by the IDB putting additional strains
on the system and requiring consent from the IDB. A one-off Surface Water
Development Charge will need to be paid by the developer.
Housing Strategy – Erpingham is designated as Countryside Area and the proposal is
that the affordable dwellings are provided in accordance with Policy HO3 of the Core
Strategy as an Exception Housing Scheme and the National Planning Policy
Framework – March 2012 section 54, Part 6.
There are currently 44 households on the housing list who have a local connection to
Erpingham and its adjoining parishes of Alby, Aldborough, Colby, Ingworth, Itteringham
and Wickmere. There is therefore a proven local housing for the proposed affordable
dwellings. Another application to provide a mixed tenure Exception Housing Scheme
in Erpingham will provide 12 affordable dwellings; it is considered that based on the
identified local housing need, there is sufficient local housing need for a total of 18
affordable dwellings.
The Housing Strategy Team conditionally supports this application which will provide an
Exceptions Housing Scheme of six affordable dwellings to meet the proven local
housing need of Erpingham and the adjoining parishes, this support is subject to the
assessment of the submitted viability appraisal demonstrating that the four proposed
market dwellings are the minimum number needed to deliver the six affordable
dwellings. A Section 106 Agreement will be required to secure the provision of the
affordable dwellings, the phasing of their delivery and their occupation in accordance
with the Council’s Local Allocations Agreement
Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader (Conservation and Design) –
No objection, subject to conditions agreeing details of materials of construction, joinery
details, hard and soft landscaping (including surfacing and means of enclosure).
Landscape Officer – No objection, subject to conditions relating to ecological
mitigation and enhancement, landscaping and construction in accordance with the
Development Committee
41
7 April 2016
submitted arboricultural information.
Environmental Health – Comments in relation to formal agreement of the final design
and post completion adoption of the surface water strategy, details of sewage disposal
and details of any lighting which can be secured by planning conditions.
Countryside and Parks Manager – There is no on-site open-space proposed as part
of the development and the site is not large enough to accommodate any.
A contribution of £4,800 is sought for improvements to play provision at the village
recreation ground to be implemented by Erpingham Parish Council.
A contribution of £5,000 should be made to North Norfolk District Council for
management and improvement works to the potential local wildlife site adjacent to the
village recreation ground.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service – Planning condition required for provision of one
fire hydrant.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
Development Committee
42
7 April 2016
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 54 - in rural areas, Local Planning Authorities should be responsive to local
circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for
affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local
Planning Authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market
housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet
local needs.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s
conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
Development Committee
43
7 April 2016
the public benefits of the proposal.
Paragraph 173 (Ensuring viability and deliverability) states that development should not
be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be
developed viably is threatened.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
Annexe 2: Glossary a definition of ‘rural exception sites’ as “small sites used for
affordable housing in perpetuity which seek to address the needs of the local
community, where sites would not normally be used for housing. Small numbers of
market homes may be allowed at the local authority’s discretion, for example where
essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding”.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and Design
 Residential Amenity Considerations
 Impact on designated heritage assets
 Landscaping, biodiversity and open space
 Highways issues
 Drainage
 Other issues
 S.106 requirements
 Development Viability
APPRAISAL
The application site is situated towards the centre of the village to the south side of
Eagle Road. The site consists of an area of agricultural land with an existing point of
vehicular access to School Road. Land falls across the site generally to the west,
towards School Road. To the east of the site is the remainder of the agricultural land.
To the north of the site are existing two storey properties to Eagle Road and Eagle
Close and to the west is an open area of grassland and the car park belonging to the
Erpingham Arms public house, with mainly single storey residential dwellings beyond to
School Road. The eastern boundary of the site is open to the remainder of the
agricultural field. The northern boundary with Eagle Road consists of overgrown
scrub. There is post and wire fencing with some sparse vegetation to the western site
boundary and the southern boundary to a residential property consists of a hedgerow
and mature trees.
The Committee visited the site on 18 February 2016.
Principle of the development
The site lies within the ‘countryside’ policy area where under Policy SS2 of the adopted
Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable housing in designated Countryside is
acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies including the Council's rural
exception site policy (HO3).
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:
 The demonstration of a local housing need;
Development Committee
44
7 April 2016



Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
Proposals for ten dwellings or less to adjoin an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under
the policy;
Occupation limited to people with a local connection to the Parish and adjacent
Parishes.
The housing, will in part, provide affordable homes for people with a recognised local
need. The remainder will comprise market accommodation, which in accordance with
national planning policy is required to cross subsidise the development of the affordable
housing.
You will note that this application includes the provision of market dwellings and is
located within 1km of another affordable housing exception scheme in the village which
Development Committee recently resolved to approve subject to conditions and
completion of a Section 106 agreement. The development therefore is not in full
compliance with the provisions of Policy HO3 of the Core Strategy.
However, the more recently published NPPF sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and this document is a
material consideration that is afforded significant weight in determining planning
applications. Paragraph 54 of the NPPF states that in rural areas local planning
authorities are required to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing
development to reflect local needs, including affordable housing through rural exception
sites and allows the inclusion of some market housing to facilitate the provision of
significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
The NPPF goes on to provide in Annexe 2, a definition of a ‘rural exception site’ as a
‘small site used for affordable housing in perpetuity which seeks to address the needs of
the local community’ where ‘small numbers of market homes may be allowed at the
local authority’s discretion, where essential to enable the delivery of affordable units
without grant funding’. A site of this size which proposes ten dwellings is considered to
be a small site which meets with the broad definition quoted in the NPPF.
Therefore, the Council has taken an approach to affordable housing provision that
reflects the requirements of the NPPF through flexibility in respect of the inclusion of
some market housing, where its provision would facilitate the provision of significant
additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
Questions have been raised by a number of local residents as to the local need for the
affordable housing in Erpingham. The Committee will note that the Housing Strategy
team have confirmed that there is a local affordable housing need in the Parish/adjacent
Parishes for the number of affordable dwellings proposed and that this proposal has
been designed to specifically address that local need.
A further consideration when assessing the proposals at this site is the existence of
another full planning application (reference PF/15/1461) for a development of 24
dwellings on the north side of Eagle Road, that has recently been granted resolution to
approve by Development Committee under the same rural exception site policy. The
Councils Housing Strategy team have confirmed that there is an identified local need for
the number of affordable housing units proposed on both application sites within the
village.
To conclude, it is considered that there are sufficient material considerations in this
Development Committee
45
7 April 2016
instance to permit a departure from development plan Policy HO3, due to the identified
local need and justification provided by paragraph 54 of the NPPF which allows the
provision of market housing to subsidise additional affordable housing to meet local
needs.
Further, whilst the site is not in a selected village and the sustainability of the location
therefore may need to be questioned, the location of the site is clearly not in such an
unsustainable location to be considered contrary to the general provisions of the NPPF
regarding sustainable development. The village of Erpingham is not without certain
facilities, including a primary school, public house and village hall and recreation ground
and development of this site would help to support these existing facilities and enhance
the vitality of the village as paragraph 55 of the NPPF promotes.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning
authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local
circumstances.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
site of 15 dwellings per hectare. With consideration given to the context of the site, its
countryside location and surrounding densities, it is considered that the low density
proposed would be acceptable and represents the most efficient use of land in this
location.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (4 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70 sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 50% (5 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 40% (4 units) have
floorspace of 70sqm or less.
The affordable housing element of the scheme consists of a variety of one to three
bedroomed properties, including a one bedroom bungalow and two, one bedroom flats
each with their own private amenity space. Although located together at the south of
the site this is considered an appropriate arrangement of tenure mix given the limited
size of the development and the number of dwellings in question.
The Committee will note that comments from the Council's Housing Strategy team,
conclude that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
reflects the local housing need.
Layout and Design
The development proposes a simple cul-de-sac form of development, similar to other
developments in the vicinity. Dwellings to the north of the site provide a street frontage
with Eagle Road, whereas heading further south into the site the dwellings are arranged
to address the access road and the central open area of the site. The architectural
form of the dwellings follows design principles of dwellings in the area while using a
limited palette of materials.
Development Committee
46
7 April 2016
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader has commented that the layout
raises no substantive concerns in terms of the proposed access, the infrastructure or
the siting of the individual properties. Similarly, the elevations provide for buildings
which would display acceptable proportions and detailing and which would not be out of
scale with their surroundings and the development would not be readily visible in the
wider landscape. The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Team Leader has no objection to the scheme, subject to recommended
conditions to secure appropriate materials for construction, joinery details and hard and
soft landscaping (including surfacing and means of enclosure). Therefore, the
proposed development is considered to comply with the requirements of the Core
Strategy Policy EN4.
Residential Amenity Considerations
Residents to School Road have raised concerns that their properties and gardens will
be overlooked by the proposed new dwellings, exacerbated due to the level of the land
on the application site being higher than that of School Road. In all but one case there
is a separate parcel of land between the application site and the properties to School
Road (which is understood to belong to the adjacent public house) and therefore the
closest proposed dwelling will be located on average 50 metres from the rear garden
boundary of the properties to School Road, with windows between the proposed new
dwellings and existing dwellings being approximately 70 metres apart. Therefore, in
residential amenity terms it is not considered that the development proposed would give
rise to significantly detrimental impacts on the residential amenity of existing residential
properties close to the site in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy or overshadowing or
dominance issues as the development falls well within the Basic Amenity Criteria
recommendations of the North Norfolk Design Guide and Core Strategy Policy EN4.
Mention has also been made by one resident to an application (ref PF/13/1482) for a
marquee and camping area on the land adjacent to this site belonging to the public
house being refused on residential amenity grounds arising from noise, disturbance and
light pollution. The resident considers that this proposed development is considered of
greater or similar concern. However, it is considered that the application quoted was
for a use that has very different considerations to a housing development and was
located on a piece of land in closer proximity to residential properties and the refusal of
this application is therefore not directly relevant to the determination of this application.
Impact on designated heritage assets
The site is located adjacent to the Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area to the
south. In exercising duties under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, it is not considered that the proposed development
would harm the character and appearance of the adjoining Mannington & Wolterton
Conservation Area and the scheme would not impact upon any other designated
heritage assets.
Landscaping, biodiversity and open space
The proposed development will extend the boundaries of the village and will be visible
to users of Eagle Road as they enter the village from the east and to residential
properties on School Road and Eagle Road. The site is not visible in the wider
landscape as it sits on the valley side and is only visible from near to medium distance
views. However, as the application proposes an extension to the existing settlement it
is important that the development respects the edge of settlement character and is
integrated with the rural landscape setting.
The proposals necessitate the removal of one tree on the roadside site boundary while
the dwelling on Plot 1 has been repositioned slightly to reduce the impact of the
Development Committee
47
7 April 2016
development on a tree on the adjacent site. The plans illustrate an indicative
landscape scheme with the eastern and southern boundaries supplemented by either
new or restorative hedgerow planting, together with a variety of planting measures
within the site. The trees to the south of the site will be retained which will give the
southern section of the site an element of maturity. The planting of at least three heavy
standard oak or hornbeam trees within the hedge on the eastern boundary (one at the
entrance to the site, one just to the north of plot 4 and one between plot 4 and plot 5)
would break up the site when viewed from the east and should be secured by condition
as part of a landscaping scheme.
With the suggested landscaping it is considered that in the medium to long term the site
can be adequately integrated into the settlement and the local landscape without
significant detriment to the overall landscape character of the Tributary Farmland
Type. There will be a short term adverse impact as the landscape planting takes time
to mature, but overall the harm is seen to be minor and as such compliant with Policy
EN2 of the Core Strategy.
A Phase 1 Ecological Survey was submitted with the application, which confirmed that
the site is currently arable, with some grass margins and predominately surrounded by
a road, pub car park and residential gardens. The survey reveals that main impacts of
the development on biodiversity are likely to be the impact to the ash tree in the pub car
park, the loss of a bramble field margin for the access road, the risk of damage to roots
on trees and the hedgerow to the south of the site, a moderate risk to reptiles that may
stray into the site from the south/south-west and a risk to foraging bats along the
hedgerow. However, the survey recommends a variety of mitigation and enhancement
measures which will limit the impact to protected species to an acceptable level and
ensure no net loss of biodiversity over the site. Subject to the implementation of the
mitigation and enhancement measures by planning condition it is considered that the
development would be compliant with biodiversity planning policies.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer has not raised any objection to the
scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions as outlined above.
With regards open space a small area of the site will serve as open space but serves a
dual purpose as a drainage feature. Therefore the amount of on site open space
proposed is not sufficient and requires supplementing with a commuted sum for off-site
open space/play provision. A section 106 obligation will secure the commuted sum
required for off-site open space/play provision.
Highways issues
The main point of vehicular access to the site is to the north east corner of the site to
avoid conflict with the access to Eagle Close to the north. The dwelling on Plot 1 also
has its own vehicular access direct from Eagle Road. A new footway is proposed
across the site frontage to link in with the existing footpath to the north west. Also a
new footpath link is proposed through the site from Eagle Road to School Road
providing a shorter and safer route to the Primary School located further south along
School Road. The new footpath link will be constructed to a standard to allow it to be
adopted by the highway authority.
Parking is provided through garaging and small areas of parking to the front of
dwellings. The amount of parking provided is in accordance with the Councils parking
standards.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have not raised any objection to the
scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions. The proposed development is
Development Committee
48
7 April 2016
therefore considered to comply with Core Strategy Policies CT5 and CT6.
Drainage
The applicant’s Surface Water Drainage Strategy states that the soil types on the site
will not support the effective use of infiltration devices. Therefore it is proposed that
surface water from roofs, driveways and parking areas is cleansed and attenuated
through the use of permeable paving. The surface water from these areas and the
access road will be drained to an on-site detention basin, which will further attenuate
runoff. The on-site system has capacity to accommodate flows from a 1 in 100 year
event including an allowance for climate change. Attenuated discharge will be
released at a restricted flow rate equivalent to greenfield runoff rate and directed
westwards beneath the proposed new footpath, beneath School Road and across land
under the control of the applicant before discharging to a drainage ditch also on the
applicants land.
Some residents of School Road make reference to and have provided evidence of their
rear gardens being flooded reportedly due to surface water runoff from the application
site. The surface water drainage strategy submitted proposes attenuation and
detention of surface water in features on the site before discharge into the local
drainage ditch system. This is likely to give rise to improvements to the existing
situation due to the inclusion of specific drainage features on the site, reducing
opportunity for overland flow. The detailed design of the drainage system proposed
would need to be secured by planning condition as would details of the future adoption
and maintenance responsibilities for the proposed surface water drainage system,
which could be adopted by Anglian Water or a management company.
Foul drainage from the development is proposed to be connected into the existing foul
sewer. Anglian Water has confirmed that a desktop assessment showed that the
average foul flows generated by 10 dwellings would equate to 0.04l/s. The existing
foul sewer has adequate capacity to accept these flows. Also an assessment of
average flows was carried out for the other scheme proposed on Eagle Road for 24
dwellings, which showed that average flows would equate to 0.10l/s. The existing foul
sewer has adequate capacity to also accept these flows.
Given the number of local representations that have been made which make reference
to flooding issues in the School Road area which appear to relate to sewer flooding,
contact has been made with Anglian Water to confirm what they understand to be the
situation with regards sewer capacity for both surface water and foul sewage in the
area. This development does not propose connecting into the existing public surface
water sewer and although the other scheme proposed on Eagle Road does make a
connection to that sewer Anglian Water confirmed that there is available capacity to
make the connection.
Anglian Water have confirmed that reported foul water issues in both School Road and
The Street are issues which can be attributed to blockages and obstructions in the
sewer which appear to have been mainly caused by the build up of F.O.G (fats, oils and
greases), these issues are not capacity related, therefore the addition of a cumulative
flow of 0.14l/s (from both development sites on Eagle Road) will not have an adverse
hydraulic effect on the existing sewers in School Road and The Street.
Following on from this Anglian Water has very recently attended a parish council
meeting at the Parish Councils request to understand local concerns regarding sewer
maintenance on School Road and Eagle Road. They have agreed to carry out a CCTV
survey of the sewers in these locations that are not part of the current planned
maintenance programme. The results of the survey will be used to inform the future
Development Committee
49
7 April 2016
sewer maintenance plan for Erpingham.
On this basis, the proposed development is considered to comply with the requirements
of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy SS4 and EN10.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN6 is no longer
applicable as government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing
the Code for Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer
require compliance with these standards.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development to
be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. No information has been
provided in relation to this requirement and such detail can be secured by planning
condition.
Mention has been made by several local residents that the primary school in the village
is at capacity. This application falls well below the current threshold for planning
obligations required by Norfolk County Council towards education provision. However,
clarification has recently been sought from Norfolk County Council in their role as
education authority as to the capacity of the primary school in the village and they have
confirmed that the capacity at the school can be increased from 52 to 67 places without
the need for school expansion and therefore there is currently available capacity.
The parish council and a number of residents have raised issue with the content of the
Statement of Community Involvement as they do not consider that local residents were
properly consulted on the proposals for this site prior to the application being submitted.
Although public consultation on all major developments is encouraged by the Council
prior to the submission of a planning application, unfortunately the quality of that
consultation is not a determining factor when assessing the planning application. The
quality of the public consultation carried out by the applicant is perhaps reflected in the
level of subsequent objection to the proposals.
You will note that comments have been received from the Internal Drainage Board (IDB)
requesting a one off Surface Water Development Charge be paid by the developer.
This is ultimately a matter to be resolved between the applicant and the IDB.
A fire hydrant would be required as part of the development.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to play
provision at the village recreation ground and improvement works to the
potential local wildlife site adjacent to the village recreation ground.
Development Viability
To support the submission the applicant provided a commercially confidential Economic
Viability Analysis report which has been appraised by an external consultant on behalf
of the Council. The Economic Viability Analysis was required to confirm the level of
market housing required to deliver affordable housing to meet local need. In summary
the review of the Viability Analysis established that the appraisal inputs are reasonable
Development Committee
50
7 April 2016
and appropriate for the location and type of development in terms of cost and income
and the overall methodology used is sound. It is confirmed that the four open market
dwellings proposed are the minimum required to deliver the six affordable dwellings
proposed.
The affordable housing proposed should be secured through a Section 106 legal
agreement.
Summary
As a proposed rural exception housing scheme, whilst not in strict compliance with Core
Strategy Policy HO3, in terms of the inclusion of market housing and its location within
1km of another affordable housing exception scheme in the village which Development
Committee recently resolved to approve; the development is considered to nonetheless
accord with paragraph 54 of the NPPF which allows the inclusion of market housing in
order to provide affordable housing to meet local needs on rural exception sites. The
guidance within the NPPF is a material consideration that should be afforded significant
weight.
Although it is acknowledged that a not insignificant amount of local objection and
concern has been raised concerning the development of this site, including objection
from the Parish Council, the development accords with relevant development plan
policies other than in the instances already identified above where justification is
provided by provisions of the NPPF. Also there are no objections from statutory
consultees, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms
set out in the report.
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and construction
worker parking, provision of a visibility splay and off-site highway works,
materials of construction and joinery details, hard and soft landscaping
(including surfacing and means of enclosure), archaeological works,
arboricultural and ecological mitigation, full details of surface and foul water
drainage, adoption and maintenance of drainage features, provision of a fire
hydrant, details of 10% renewable technologies, details of any proposed
external lighting and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by
the Head of Planning.
(7) FAKENHAM - PF/15/1529 - Conversion of unused tennis court area to staff
car-parking area (retrospective); Fakenham Connect, Oak Street for North
Norfolk District Council
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 December 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Development Committee
51
7 April 2016
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19990587 PF
Change of use from educational establishment to local authority offices including minor
extension and alterations
Approved 20/09/1999
THE APPLICATION
Seeks retrospective permission to convert an unused hard surfaced tennis court to a
staff car parking area to the north eastern side/rear of Fakenham Connect building. A
Grade II Listed Wall (part Crinkle-Crankle style) runs in close proximity to the northern
and eastern boundaries of the proposed development. The existing hardstanding area
is proposed for parking area and an access is proposed to link the parking area with the
existing car park at the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is for development by North Norfolk District Council, Property Services
and, in accordance with the scheme of delegation, such proposals must be determined
by the Development Committee.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Fakenham Town Council: No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway): No objection
Environmental Health: No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection subject to
imposition of conditions requiring a monitoring scheme for an annual seasonal
programme of checking and recording the health and physiological condition of the
trees at the site and restrictions in relation to lighting.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): No
objection – there appears to be a reasonable gap between the hard surface and the wall
to allow for some overrun/margin of error such that the wall would be protected from
impact damage
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
52
7 April 2016
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Impact on the historic environment
Landscape impact
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within the designated town centre and a designated Conservation Area and
adjacent to a Grade II Listed wall. Policy SS5 provides that a broad range of shopping,
commercial, cultural and other uses are in principle acceptable in town centres. Under
Policy EN8 development proposals should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of Conservation Areas and should not have an adverse impact on
important designated assets. The principle of the proposal is therefore considered
acceptable.
Impact on the historic environment.
The site is well screened and it is considered that the proposal would not negatively
impact on the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area. There is
considered to be sufficient separation between the proposed development and the
adjacent Listed structure such that the designated asset would not suffer any adverse
impact. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy EN8.
Landscape impact
The Council’s Landscape Officer has advised that the change of use of the tennis court
to a car park is relatively insignificant in respect of the landscape impact. The tennis
court is located to the rear of the building and is not visible from any sensitive public
viewpoints. Whilst the visual impact of cars parked is different to the previous use of
the land, this use is not uncommon in the immediate locality which has a number of hard
surfaced parking areas. The applicant has advised that LED lighting has been
installed using the existing tennis court lighting and that a timer and Passive Infrared
Sensor (PIR) has been fitted. To reduce the impact on foraging bats, it is recommended
that any lighting is restricted to a timer (times to be agreed and conditioned) and PIR
sensor. As the car park is for staff only with no public use, it is considered that
operation of any external lighting can be restricted to an hour before and an hour after
opening times only. Details to be agreed.
The main concern with the proposed development has been the installation of a new
access drive from the existing hard surfaced car park in front of the building around the
side of the building to the old tennis courts. This new driveway passes within the root
protection areas of a number of mature trees of amenity value. The method of
construction creates two problems; first is the damage to the rooting structure of the
trees caused by the removal of the fine feeding roots within the top 100 to 150mm of soil
Development Committee
53
7 April 2016
which can then have an impact on the health of the trees, the second is the compaction
of the soil underneath the driveway caused by traffic flow which will limit the trees ability
to take up nutrients, water and gaseous exchange.
The first problem cannot be undone; any damage to the trees caused by the excavation
has already been inflicted. It is therefore considered that should Members be minded
to approve the application a condition should be imposed that requires monitoring of the
trees to see if any decline occurs as a result of the loss of rooting structure. There is
the possibility that the damage caused will not result in any visible decline as the area of
impact within the root protection area is relatively limited and the amount of excavation
restricted. The trees could rejuvenate some rooting structure in the remaining
non-surfaced parts of the rooting zone. Should the health of the trees decline during the
period of monitoring a scheme of remediation for the soil surrounding the trees and
re-installation of the driveway should be required by condition.
Conclusion
Given the above it is considered that subject to the imposition of the requested
conditions the proposal complies with the policies of the development plan and is
therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions requiring a monitoring
scheme for the health of the trees, lighting and all other conditions considered to
be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(8)
FAKENHAM - PF/16/0104 - Variation of condition 2 of 06/0738 to allow alterations
to roof, rooflights and windows including installation of 2 gable end windows to
second floor; Land to rear of 16 Queens Road for Mr Rockett
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 March 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060738 PF
Erection of two-storey dwelling
Approved 04/07/2006
PF/12/0067 PF
Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference: 06/0738 to permit revised design of
dwelling (including increase in ridge height)
Approved 01/03/2012
PF/12/0918 PF
Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref: 06/0738 to change roof design and
vary window positions and size to north elevation
Approved 12/10/2012
Development Committee
54
7 April 2016
PF/13/1084 PF
Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference: 12/0918 to permit installation
of gable windows and roof lights
Withdrawn - Invalid 23/10/2013
PF/15/0482 HOU
Insertion of gable windows and rooflights to permit accommodation in the roofspace
Withdrawn by Applicant 09/06/2015
PF/15/1758 PF
Variation of condition 2 of 06/0738 to allow a change to roof design, to vary window
positions and size to northern elevation and the insertion of six roof lights
Approved 22/01/2016
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to vary the approved design of the original permission for a two storey dwelling.
Variations have been approved under permission references 12/0067 and 15/1758.
This application is for consideration of gable end windows at second floor level to serve
an attic room. The description includes the variations previously approved as it is the
original permission that has to be varied. The dwelling is under construction.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Claussen-Reynolds for the following planning reason;
Neighbour amenity/privacy
TOWN COUNCIL
Fakenham Town Council: No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
2 x objections received on the following grounds:
 With reference to the North elevation:
 Overlooking of east end of my garden (no.20 Queens Road and neighbour
at 18 directly) which is the most private area of my garden – some 50m from
the rear of the properties
 Overlooking of area which catches afternoon sun in the summer away from
the shadow of the houses
 Overlooking of whole neighbourhood
 Would destroy the sense of privacy
 Immediate overlooking (No.12 Lancaster Close)
 Direct sight into property through bedroom and living room windows
 To maintain privacy we would have to keep curtains shut
1 x support submitted by the applicant on the following grounds:
 The north elevation is a little plain due to having windows only on the ground
floor
 The two chimneys and gable verges produce a pleasing effect that will be further
enhanced by the gable window with an architectural concrete sill
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
Development Committee
55
7 April 2016
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
North Norfolk Design Guide (Adopted December 2008)
Amenity Criteria (paragraphs 3.3.9 – 3.3.11)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
The application description includes variations in the design that have already been
approved (and in part constructed as per those permissions) such that the development
to be considered is for the additional amendment of installation of two gable end
windows at second floor.
It is considered that the position of the proposed windows, high in the gable ends, to
serve an attic room would introduce additional loss of privacy to several neighbouring
properties. The proposed north gable window would create additional overlooking of the
eastern end of the rear gardens of several properties that front Queens Road. Whilst it is
recognised that these gardens are somewhat overlooked by their existing neighbours it
is not considered acceptable to introduce additional overlooking, particularly as the
proposed new windows (especially those in the north elevation) would be situated in an
elevated position and as a result would look down on the areas of garden that are
currently the most private. In addition this window would introduce an element of
overlooking to Number 12 Lancaster Close which although technically a public area of
their property (the front), it is in a position that is largely away from public view.
In respect of the proposed window to the southern elevation it is considered that by
virtue of its height in the gable end and the size of the opening an unnecessary loss of
privacy would be introduced to the private garden area of Number 8 Lancaster Close.
The window would directly overlook the parking area and rear of the adjacent veterinary
surgery.
The earlier permission reference 15/1758 approved the installation of 6 rooflights to the
dwelling which would serve the attic room and would allow adequate natural light and air
into this area of the dwelling. The Council's Building Control Officer has confirmed that
escape windows are not required under building regulations and would not be suitable
due to the height above ground level. So as to remove any potential for overlooking,
officers consider that a condition requiring the glazing of the two gable end windows to
be obscured glazed should be applied if permission is granted. In addition, the condition
should also require that no parts of the windows should be openable, unless above
1.7m above the floor level of the room the windows serve. Such a condition would allow
for the applicant to achieve the design detail and additional light into the building and
would mean that the development would not detrimentally effect the amenity and
privacy of neighbouring properties and that with this condition the proposal would be
considered to comply with Policy EN 4 of the Development Plan.
Development Committee
56
7 April 2016
RECOMMENDATION: To approve subject to a condition requiring obscure
glazing and non-openable windows, and re-imposition of all conditions still in
force under the original permission.
(9)
MORSTON - PF/15/1312 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road for Mr & Mrs M Goff
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 November 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
This report is to provide an update to the Committee following the deferral of the above
application at the meeting on 11 February 2016
BACKGROUND
This application was considered by the Development Committee on 11 February 2016
following a site visit which took place on 4 February 2016. The application was
recommended for refusal by Officers on the following grounds:
“The size of the proposal is considered to be disproportionate to that of the
existing dwelling in terms of its scale and its prominent location which would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside contrary to Policy HO8 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy, also it is considered that the proposal would fail to preserve or
enhance the character and quality of the area contrary to the requirements of
Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Furthermore, it is considered that given the scale and prominent location of the
dwelling in the landscape it would have a significant detrimental impact upon the
special qualities and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty along
with the open coastal character of the Undeveloped Coast contrary to Policies
EN1, EN2 and EN3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and paragraphs
114 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”
A copy of the full report from the meeting of 11 February 2016 is contained in Appendix
1.
Members resolved to defer determination of the application in order for further
negotiations to take place regarding moving the building back on the site and
removal/reduction of the outbuilding element. (see minutes of 11 February 2016 in
Appendix 1).
UPDATES
In terms of report updates amended plans have been received, along with an update to
the Design and Access Statement explaining the changes that have been made and
why the applicant considers the proposal to be policy compliant (see Appendix 1).
The amendments made to the proposal as set out in the amended Design and Access
Statement are as follows:
1.
Removal of the ancillary wing including the garages and utility room (23.5m x
8.3m with a ridge height of 5.7m).
Development Committee
57
7 April 2016
2.
Removal of the secondary access road on the north east of the site.
3.
The proposed south facing elevation of the main house has been simplified, by
the removal of the single storey link accommodation.
4.
Relocation of the main house 1 metre south.
5.
Relocation of the utility room to a lower level (subterranean) beneath the
proposed terrace, with additional storage below the kitchen and hall. Access to
be provided by an internal staircase.
6.
Increase in size of the open south facing courtyard centred on the main front
door.
7.
A newly proposed single driveway. This will form the only access/egress point to
the dwelling.
8.
Two linked garage buildings are proposed to the south of the main building
located closer to the main road with storage accommodation provided above.
The proposed amendments have been submitted by the applicant without entering into
any discussion or negotiation with Officers in terms of the acceptability of the changes
made.
Following consideration of the amended plans submitted, the applicant has been
advised that Officer's objection’s remain. It is not considered that the proposed
amendments fully address concerns in terms of scale, design and the impacts on the
AONB and Undeveloped Coast.
Officers are of the opinion that insufficient information has been submitted in order to be
able to assess the visual impact of the amended proposal, particularly the lower ground
level/basement and terrace, on the sensitive and open landscape location within the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast.
Officers have advised the applicant that further information is required. Specifically, an
update of the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), and sections across the
site so that the impacts on the AONB and Undeveloped Coast as a result of any
remodelling and changes in ground levels to provide the lower ground level/basement
can be fully assessed, as well as views from the Coastal path.
The applicant has declined to submit this information, as they consider that they have
now fully addressed the specific areas requested.
Re-advertisement and re-consultation has taken place in relation to the amended plans.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES IN RELATION TO AMENDED PLANS:
A consultation response has been received from the Landscape Officer (email dated 11
March 2016) and is contained in Appendix 1 along with their comments in relation to
the scheme as originally submitted.
A response has also been received from Norfolk Coast Partnership (email dated 16
March 2016) who refer to their original comments (see Appendix 1) and have the
following comments to make:
The relocation of the proposed ancillary building, previously adjoining the east of the
proposed main replacement dwelling, to a separate location to the south of the
Development Committee
58
7 April 2016
proposed main building, is likely to reduce the impact of the overall proposal to some
extent. However, without detailed additional assessment (an amended LVIA and visual
representations from key viewpoints do not appear to be available) it is difficult to
assess to what degree this would reduce the impact. This also needs to be balanced
against some increased impact from the proposed new lower ground floor, which would
also increase the floor area compared to the existing building significantly from the
previous plan.
The relocation of the main replacement dwelling 1 metre to the south is likely to make
little significant difference to its impact; it would still be well to the north of the existing
dwelling, with a significantly higher ridge height and of a significantly larger scale.
Whether this is judged as ‘disproportionate’ or not, it would inevitably have a
significantly increased impact on the surrounding countryside, particularly in views from
the most sensitive direction (the northerly quarter). This alone would mean that this
revised proposal would be incompatible with Local Plan Policy HO8, and consequently
also with policies EN1 and EN2.
The County Council Highway Authority have nothing further to add to their original
comments.
At the time of writing this report responses were awaited from Blakeney and Morston
Parish Councils, Environmental Health and Natural England. The Committee will be
updated verbally at the meeting.
REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RELATION TO AMENDED PLANS:
One objection has been received expressing disappointment that the applicant has not
taken the opportunity given to scale back the proposal or move the main building a
meaningful distance further south. Concerns have also been raised that adding a lower
ground floor increases massing and floorspace, and moving the garaging/utility building
does not significantly reduce the massing when viewed from the east. The amended
elevations do not accurately reflect the appearance of the dwelling on the site.
KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the proposed amendments overcome Officer objections and address the
resolution of the Development Committee in relation to main issues which were in
relation to Policy HO8, Design, Impact upon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
Undeveloped Coast in accordance with Policies SS1, SS2, HO8, EN1, EN2, EN3, EN4
and paragraphs 114 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
APPRAISAL
Policy HO8 and Design
The applicant has removed the ancillary wing (boot room, utility and garaging), which
was originally shown to be linked/attached to the main dwelling on the eastern
elevation. This was of significant concern given that it was considered in itself to be
excessive in scale and height (23.5m x 8.3m and ridge height of 5.7m), and significantly
increased the overall scale and appearance of the proposed dwelling in the wider
landscape setting from its most open view point to the north east. This change is
welcomed by Officers, and is considered to be a significant improvement.
However, in order to achieve this, the applicant has sought an alternative means of
providing the accommodation that originally formed the ancillary wing. It is proposed to
create a lower ground level/basement with a terrace above. A cellar and two large
storage areas would be located directly under the proposed dwelling. An office, boot
Development Committee
59
7 April 2016
room, dog room, wc and laundry room measuring approximately 8m x 17m in total area,
with a terrace above at the upper ground level, would be created to the east of the
proposed dwelling. The elevations as submitted give the appearance of a three storey
dwelling when viewed from the east increasing the appearance of the scale of the
dwelling in the landscape.
The ancillary wing is no longer attached to the dwelling. Rather the building has been
relocated to the south of the proposed dwelling and now consists solely of garaging at
ground floor (six garages), with storage above. The building has reduced in depth by
1m, but increased by the same amount in length. The height remains the same as
previously submitted (5.7m in height to ridge). Whilst no longer attached to the main
dwelling the built form proposed on the site has not reduced in scale or height, it has
simply been relocated. It is therefore considered that this building is still excessive in
size, and not in accordance with policy.
In addition the amended plans show the proposed dwelling only set back further to the
south by 1m.
In terms of Policy HO8 it is not considered that the amended plans overcome Officers
objections. It is acknowledged that the removal of the ancillary wing reduces the scale of
the proposed dwelling, but the scale of the proposed built form remains the same with
the relocation of the ancillary wing to the rear of the site for use as garaging, and the
creation of a lower ground level which effectively creates a three storey dwelling when
viewed from the east increases the appearance of the proposed dwelling in terms of
scale. Also setting the dwelling back into the site by 1m is negligible.
It remains that the proposal would result in a disproportionately large increase in terms
of its scale compared to the original dwelling. Given that that it would still be sited in a
prominent position it would still materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside contrary to Policy H08 of the Core Strategy.
It is also considered that the proposed changes to the design, by virtue of the siting,
scale and massing would not preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area
contrary to the requirements of Policy EN4.
Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast
Whilst there is no objection in principle to the introduction of a lower ground
level/basement it is not considered that the amended information submitted with the
application adequately demonstrates whether such a proposal would have an
acceptable impact on the setting of the AONB, and Undeveloped Coast as well as
views from the Heritage Coast.
There is a change in ground levels across the site, with a reduction in levels between
the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling and the eastern boundary. However, this
is a subtle change. Therefore in order to create the lower ground level/basement a
change/remodelling of ground levels would be required. The information submitted
does not sufficiently demonstrate how this would be achieved. Without any site sections
it is not considered that the visual impacts of the proposal can be fully assessed to
determine what, if any, of the lower ground level/basement and terrace would be seen in
the wider landscape, and whether this is likely to be acceptable or not in policy terms.
As you will note from the Landscape Officers comments on the amended plans, no
sections have been provided and the LVIA has not been updated, so there is no way of
verifying the impact of the amended development on the visual receptors or landscape.
This view is supported by Norfolk Coast Partnership.
Development Committee
60
7 April 2016
This proposed change would also result in the removal of the existing Pine trees which
were to be retained to the north east of the proposed dwelling and were helping to
screen the proposed building from the coastal path to the east. No additional
landscaping proposals have been submitted.
Whilst it is considered that the removal of the ancillary wing from the main dwelling is a
significant improvement this has unfortunately introduced new elements to the scheme
such as the lower ground level and garage block that Officers consider raise issues in
terms of scale and design, and the impact upon the AONB, Undeveloped Coast and
coastal path. There is also a lack of supporting information to justify the amendments. It
is for these reasons that it is considered the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the special qualities and
setting of the AONB and would not be significantly detrimental to the open coastal
character, contrary to policies EN1, EN2, EN3 and paragraphs 114 and 115 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
Other matters
There is no objection to the changes made to the driveway or to the increase in size of
the courtyard. The relationship to the neighbouring dwellings remains acceptable and in
accordance with Development plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:
The size of the proposal is considered to be disproportionate to that of the
existing dwelling in terms of its scale and its prominent location which would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling the appearance of the surrounding
countryside contrary to Policy H08 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy,
also it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
proposal would preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area
contrary to the requirements of Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Furthermore, it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate the
proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the special
qualities and setting of the AONB, along with open coastal character of the
Undeveloped Coast by way of its prominent siting, and insufficient information in
terms of the lower ground level and garage block contrary to Policies EN1, EN2
and EN3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and paragraphs 114 and 115
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
(10) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1819 - Removal of condition 1 of planning permission
reference PF/13/1335 to allow use of land for hand car wash and valeting
services, including retention of canopy and two containers on a permanent
basis; Land at 29 New Road for Mr M Meizeraitis
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 February 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Development Committee
61
7 April 2016
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/1335 PF
Continued use of land for hand car wash and valeting services and retention of canopy
and two containers
Approved 13/06/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the removal of condition 1 of planning permission reference 13/1335 (see
Appendix 2) which granted temporary permission for the continued use of a hand car
wash and valeting services and retention of canopy and two containers. Condition 1
specifies that the permission shall expire on 31 December 2015 unless on or before that
date an application is made for an extension of the period of permission and such
application is approved. This application to be determined was received 11 December
2015. The condition is clear that any such subsequent permission should be made and
determined before 31 December 2015. Therefore the temporary use is considered to
have lapsed.
Planning permission is sought to allow the use to continue on a permanent basis. The
site originally formed part of the curtilage of a garage/petrol station but has been
subdivided and the proposal is a stand-alone business unconnected with the main
building/use on the wider site.
The proposal is situated at the rear of the site adjacent to the boundaries of two
residential properties and in close proximity to others. The proposal, although
commonly described as ‘hand car wash’, utilises pressure washing equipment and
vacuum cleaners on a regular basis.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning given the potential impact of refusal on a
business and employment
TOWN COUNCIL
North Walsham Town Council: no objection providing all the environmental issues as
outlined in Condition 7 in the original Notice of Decision PF/13/1335 have been
addressed.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 x objections received on the following grounds (summarised):
 Noise nuisance
 Pressure jet wash
 Vacuuming – per vehicle 20-30 minutes uninterrupted noise
 Up to 58 hours per week
 Including Bank Holidays (business operated Boxing Day)
 Prevents quiet enjoyment of neighbouring gardens – severely affects
home life
 Noise also heard throughout the house – even with windows closed
 Additional noise from car radios, revving engines, conversations,
shouting, coughing and spitting
 Odour nuisance
 Wax
 Valeting products
 Conditions imposed on temporary consent have not improved the situation
 We have reported breaches of conditions on 19 occasions since approval
Development Committee
62
7 April 2016





Light pollution
 During the winter from 3.30 shining into our garden
Urinating on the site
Signage obstructs New Road Pavement
Concern about pollution affecting wildlife - particularly hedgehogs
Previous businesses in this location have not caused disturbance
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: object – a significant number of complaints of nuisance have
been received during the last 18 months and investigation has established that nearby
residents are detrimentally affected by intrusive levels of noise on a regular basis. Due
to the proximity of residents it is not considered possible to attenuate the noise to an
acceptable level. Should the use continue a noise abatement notice is likely to be
served.
Environment Agency: No objection – subject to imposition of requested condition. The
applicant has not supplied sufficient or adequate information to demonstrate that the
risks of pollution posed to the water environment can be safely managed. A condition is
requested to secure implementation of a scheme, which is to be submitted and agreed,
to address: disposal of foul drainage; disposal of surface water; installation of oil and
petrol separators, installation of trapped gullies; roof drainage – sealed at ground level
and disposal of trade effluent.
Anglian Water: No comments to make.
Economic Development: Comments awaited. Committee will be verbally updated.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 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).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 109 – “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural
and local environment by: …preventing both new and existing development from
contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by
unacceptable levels of … water or noise pollution or land instability…”
Development Committee
63
7 April 2016
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Drainage
Neighbour impact
Business implications
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within a designated residential area where policy SS3 permits compatible
non-residential development which can include small-scale business. The site is
located to the north western corner of a larger site which accommodates a number of
small businesses, the majority of which are vehicle repair related. Unlike the proposal
the other businesses are largely contained within buildings on the site.
Drainage
The Environment Agency has stated that they would not object provided that a condition
be imposed on any approval in respect of drainage details being submitted and
approved. Without this they would object on the grounds that they could not be satisfied
that the proposal would not detrimentally affect water quality. However this condition
was imposed on permission reference 13/1335 (Condition 7) and has not been
complied with. The applicant has verbally advised that he considers that he has carried
out required works in consultation with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency and
has advised that he will provide proof of the works to support this application. However,
at the time of writing this report, no details have been submitted and agreed by the
Planning Authority to discharge Condition 7 of 13/1335 or in support of this application.
The Environment Agency have advised that they have given advice and guidance to the
landlord, tenant (applicant) and sub-tenant and that they are co-operating to resolve
issues of concern. It is therefore considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that policy EN13 has been complied with in respect of health and safety of the public,
surface and ground water quality and the need for compliance with statutory
environmental quality standards. Therefore in this instance it is not considered that the
re-imposition of a condition in respect of drainage details would result in the submission
of details that would satisfactorily address the concerns raised.
Neighbour Impact
Permission reference 13/1335 required changes to be carried out to the original layout
of the site in order to reduce the impact of the development on the neighbouring
properties. It is considered that the layout was amended in accordance with Conditions
2 and 3 of the temporary permission. However, Condition 5 which sought to agree
additional screen fencing to protect nearby residents from noise pollution has not been
complied with. The development was given temporary permission to enable the effects
of the development upon the residential amenities of the surrounding area (with the
approved layout changes) to be properly established. Given the advice provided, and
the objection raised, by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, it is considered that
the measures imposed have failed to address matters of noise nuisance. It is therefore
considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies EN4 and EN13 by virtue of the noise
nuisance.
Business implications
Officers are mindful of the potential implications to the business and employment at the
site should the application be refused and have briefed the Council’s Economic
Development Team of the situation. In the event that Members are minded to refuse the
application delegated authority to the Head of Planning is sought under Section 172 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and
Compensation Act 1991 to serve an enforcement notice requiring the unauthorised use
Development Committee
64
7 April 2016
to cease and the associated structures to be removed from the site within 3 months of
the effective date of the notice
Conclusion
It is considered that since the temporary permission was granted the applicant has
failed to comply with Conditions 5 (additional screening) and 7 (drainage) and has failed
to demonstrate within this application that the continued use of the site would not result
in significant detrimental harm, by way of noise pollution to the occupiers of dwellings in
the vicinity of the site.
In addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are suitable drainage
systems at the site to ensure that the use of the site would not have an unacceptable
impact on the health and safety of the public, surface and groundwater quality and the
need for compliance with statutory environmental quality standards.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies SS3, EN4 and EN13 of
the development plan and paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse for the reasons specified below and grant delegated
authority to the Head of Planning under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to serve an
enforcement notice requiring the unauthorised use to cease and the associated
structures to be removed from the site within 3 months of the effective date of the notice.
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 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).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 109 is also considered relevant to the
proposed development:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the use of the site would not result in significant detrimental noise pollution to the
occupiers of dwellings in the vicinity of the site.
In addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are suitable drainage
systems at the site to ensure that the use of the site would not have an unacceptable
impact on the health and safety of the public, surface and groundwater quality and the
need for compliance with statutory environmental quality standards.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the above
Development Plan policies and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and
the applicant has failed to provide substantive material considerations sufficient to
outweigh the identified policy conflicts.
Development Committee
65
7 April 2016
(11) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1761 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Seal Cottage, 55 High Street for Mr J Rhodes
- Target Date: 09 February 2016
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential area
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19880784 LD
Alterations to front elevation of property
Approved 03/05/1988
PLA/19880782 PF
Alterations to front elevation of property
Approved 07/06/1988
PLA/19881235 LA
Subdivide into 2 no. Dwellings
Approved 16/06/1988
PLA/19881234 PF
Subdivision of property into 2 dwellings & change of use from retail shop to residential
Approved 04/08/1988
PLA/19920794 PF
Reconstruction of semi-derelict garage to form a studio
Approved 31/07/1992
PLA/19920666 LE
Demolition of garage to be rebuilt as private studio
Approved 31/07/1992
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to erect a modest (3.1m W x 3.1m D x 3.8m H to highest point)
single-storey extension to the rear elevation of Seal Cottage, 55 High Street,
Wells-next-the-Sea.
Amended plans were received in respect of the changes to the design of the roof and
the numbering of the neighbouring properties.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred for a site visit at a previous meeting and at the request of Cllr. Vincent
Fitzpatrick on the grounds that the development would result in a loss of amenity for
neighbouring properties and the loss of a unified open aspect of the garden /courtyards
of this group of cottages.
TOWN COUNCIL
Wells Town Council: raised no objection to the proposal
Development Committee
66
7 April 2016
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notices expired on the 1 February 2016. To date the Local Planning Authority
has received 5 letters objecting to the scheme. All of the objectors own properties
neighbouring the development site. The following is a summary of the objectors'
concerns:








The development contravenes guidance relating to development in a Conservation
Area
The development would negatively impact on the character and setting of a
designated Conservation Area
The development is in breach of many national and local regulations
The size of the development would be both unsightly and intrusive
The development would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in
terms of loss of privacy
The property is used as a holiday let and the development would significantly reduce
the outside space of the property and its storage space, resulting in the property's
car port being used for storage resulting in cars parking in the communal area;
creating a nuisance
The property forms part of an eight unit development which includes garages and
gardens built around three sides of a courtyard. The properties all follow the same
basic design pattern which provides for an open garden area adjacent to each
house. The proposed extension would adversely affect the visual harmony of the
area.
The pitched roof would be deleterious to the overall visual appearance of the area should the application be approved a flat roof to match the car port and neighbouring
garages would be more in keeping with the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): The
Conservation and Design officer raised no objections to the proposed development.
The implication being that the rear elevation extension would be away from the public
domain and as such would not significantly negatively impact on the wider Conservation
Area. The officer did, however, recommend conditions relating to the proposed building
materials be added to the decision notice.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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
Development Committee
67
7 April 2016
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraphs 17, 56 and 135
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Amenity - impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupants
Design - out of character with the open plan design of the area
Impact of development on a Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The proposed development site lies to the rear elevation of Seal Cottage, 55 High
Street, Wells. The proposed extension would extend beyond the property's original rear
wall by more than 3m (Notification for Prior Approval for Larger Home Extensions
Applications are not applicable within AONB), hence the need for planning permission.
Seal Cottage lies to the northern corner of a courtyard development to which eight
properties overlook a central courtyard and detached garages. Immediately to the rear
(east) elevation of each property lie small private garden areas and beyond that lies a
footpath from which the cottages are accessed. Whilst these gardens have partition
fencing they remain relatively open plan.
Seal Cottage is situated in the northern corner of the courtyard. A 2.5m wall separates
the cottage from its north elevation neighbour; 53 High Street. To its east elevation lies
the cottage's carport beyond which lie the neighbouring properties' detached garages.
The extension would lie 2.9m north of No. 57 High Street's boundary fence.
Amended plans indicate the extension would have patio doors and a velux style
rooflight to the extensions south facing elevation.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would overlook the rear gardens of the
properties to the south, it is argued that given the open plan nature of the courtyard and
the access footpath there is already significant overlooking of the garden spaces. It is
considered that the erection of a garden room would not exacerbate the existing
situation. Furthermore, the easterly direction of the rear elevation suggests that for
much of the day the occupants of 55 High Street would be within the garden room rather
than using the outside patio area; thereby reducing any noise to neighbouring
occupants.
With regard to the design of the garden room: objectors suggested that a flat roof would
be more in keeping with the site given the flat roof of the car port and neighbouring
garages. The Planning Officer considers that the extension's 30º pitch would be a more
appropriate and in keeping with the host property. Furthermore, the North Norfolk
Development Plan's Supplementary Document: Design Guide does not endorse flat
roofs, especially in association with traditional buildings.
In terms of the proposed extension's impact on the open plan design of the courtyard
complex: the extension would be tucked into the northern corner of the courtyard,
adjacent to a 2.5m wall and partially screened by the property's carport suggesting its
impact on the open plan design of the courtyard complex would be marginal.
Development Committee
68
7 April 2016
The application form states the existing facing material is red brick and the proposed
extension would match the existing. The existing finish to the property is in fact painted
brick. A condition will be imposed to ensure the proposed extension's external walls are
painted in a colour to match the existing rear elevation.
Seal Cottage lies within a designated Conservation Area, however, the property's rear
elevation is in a private courtyard and away from the public domain. The District
Council's Conservation and Design team raised no objection to the proposal subject to
the imposition of conditions relating to external finishing materials.
CONCLUSION:
On balance, it is considered that the extension would pose no significant detrimental
impact upon the privacy of the neighbouring occupant's gardens than already exists and
its 'tucked away' location suggests it would not compromise the integrity of the open
plan design of the courtyard complex. Furthermore, being away from the public domain
the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the wider conservation
area.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
(12)

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.

This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 252 - 02 Revision C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 3
February 2016.

Prior to the first use of the extension hereby permitted the external walls shall be
painted in a colour to match the exterior walls of the Seal Cottage and thereafter
retained as such. All roof tiles will match those of the existing property.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be
installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no window shall be inserted in
the walls or roof of the rear extension hereby permitted unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
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.
Development Committee
69
7 April 2016
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/15/1892 – Creation of access track from Freeman
Street, relocation of vehicular bridge and installation of pedestrian footbridge to
facilitate use of former pitch and putt land as a seasonal car park for 60 days per
annum; land at Freeman Street for Holkham Estate
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the range of planning issues to
consider and in order to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
(13) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/16/0005 - Installation of new sewage treatment plant
(part retrospective); Home Farm Cottage, Middle Hill, Alby for Mr & Mrs Turner
(Householder application)
BACONSTHORPE - NMA1/15/0964 - Non material amendment request to allow
revised window and doors, insertion of rooflights to first floor and use of plain
tiles to gable end roof of extension; Post Office Cottage, Long Lane for Mrs J
Shervell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BARTON TURF - PF/16/0046 - Erection of first floor and single-storey side
extensions; Oakdene Cottage, Smallburgh Road for Ms Tims
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/15/1729 - Change of use of 3 ground floor rooms to residential; 32
Front Street for Mr A Howell
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - AI/16/0079 - Illumination of existing hanging sign; White Horse
Hotel, 4 High Street for Adnams PLC
(Advertisement Illuminated)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/14/1658 - Non material amendment request to change garage
to bedroom and en-suite with associated elevation alterations, alterations to
style of front porch, installation of flue, installation of two roof lights and
addition of Juliet balcony to bedroom 2; Plot 3, land adjacent to Poppyland, Back
Lane, Blakeney, Holt for Mr & Mrs Tuck
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRINTON - PF/15/0474 - Change of use from agricultural land to residential
garden/paddock, erection of stables/tack room/toilets/shower building, creation
of new vehicle access to dwelling (part retrospective), erection of single-storey
front/side and rear extensions and two-storey side extension to dwelling and
erection of detached garage/store; Milestone House, Holt Road for Mr Markham
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/16/0052 - Retention of double fronted cart shed;
Newgate Farm, Holt Road for Mr Chapman
(Householder application)
Development Committee
70
7 April 2016
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/16/0053 - Retention of double fronted cart shed;
Newgate Farm, Holt Road for Mr Chapman
(Listed Building Alterations)
COLBY - PF/16/0069 - Erection of single-storey rear and first floor side
extensions; Rose Cottage, Colby Road, Banningham for Mr Stark
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/1897 - Erection of extension to front of
dwelling; Colwall, Post Office Lane, Saxthorpe for Mr W James-Allison
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/16/0056 - Erection of porch; Dingley Dell,
Irmingland Road, Corpusty for Mr and Mrs Fiorentini
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/1756 - Installation of shop front; 28 High Street, Cromer for
Card Factory
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - AN/15/1757 - Installation of non-illuminated fascia sign; 28 High Street
for Card Factory
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
CROMER - LA/16/0106 - Installation of granite kerbs to create crossing point; The
Gangway, Cromer, Norfolk for Director of Environment, Transport and
Development
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/16/0192 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling;
Stoke Cottage, Cliff Road for Mrs F Eckett
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/16/0086 - Change of Use from Architectural Practice (A2) to
Chiropodists (D1); 28 Louden Road for Mrs Randell
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1789 - Subdivision of single detached dwelling into 2
semi-detached dwellings and creation of new vehicular access; Loke House, The
Green for Mr A Chevalier
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/16/0044 - Erection of single storey extensions to rear of
dwelling (Revised scheme 15/0419 refers); Annandale Cottage, Ramsgate Street
for Mr and Mrs S Smith
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1751 - Erection of storage shed; Wensum Lodge Hotel,
Bridge Street for Wensum Lodge Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AI/16/0062 - Display of replacement signs; 36 Market Place for
HSBC Corporate Real Estate
(Advertisement Illuminated)
Development Committee
71
7 April 2016
FAKENHAM - HN/16/0102 - Notification of intention to erect a rear extension
which would project from the original rear wall by 4100mm, which would have an
eaves height of 2400mm and would have a maximum height of 3600mm; 50
Warren Avenue for Mr & Mrs Nethercoat
(Householder Prior Notification)
FELMINGHAM - PF/16/0109 - Conversion of barn to provide residential annexe;
The Farmhouse, Aylsham Road for Mr and Mrs D Yuasa
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/16/0101 - Erection of single storey extension to side and
rear of dwelling; 1 Fakenham Road for Mr and Mrs K Johnstone
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/15/1879 - Erection of single-storey extension to front and side of
dwelling to create annexe; Beck House, Sustead Road, Lower Gresham for Mr &
Mrs Tizzard
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/16/0003 - Change of use of detached garage/workshop to
holiday let; 4 Willow Farm Cottages, Lower Street for Mr & Mrs Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/16/0030 - Erection of side/rear extension (revised design);
Wayside Stables, The Street for Mr Chaney
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/16/0088 - Erection of single-storey extension to side of
dwelling; Rosebank, Whimpwell Street for Ms J Couldrey
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/15/1874 - Erection of single storey extension to side and rear
of dwelling.; 50 Pineheath Road for Mr J Glover
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/16/0042 - Erection of extension (revised design); Victoria Hotel,
Park Road, Holkham for The Victoria Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - LA/16/0043 - External and internal alterations to facilitate erection of
kitchen extension (revised design); Victoria Hotel, Park Road for The Victoria
Hotel
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/15/1828 - Erection of extension to shop; 8 Old Stable Yard, High Street
for Miss J Howard
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/15/1877 - External and internal alterations to facilitate erection of
extension to shop; 8 Old Stable Yard, High Street for Miss J Howard
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
72
7 April 2016
HOLT - LA/15/1843 - External and internal works, including raising of chimney,
removal of partition walls, refurbishment of windows, re-instatement of lime
render, two external vents, replacement rooflight, new and replacement dormer
windows; Hanworth Cottage, 43A Bull Street for Hereditas Heritage Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/15/1883 - Erection of porch to front, alterations and conversion of one
garage to form habitable room, and creation of new access; 27 Pearsons Road
for Mr Knowles
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/1525 - Extension and alterations to existing car park and
associated works; Land off Church Street, Holt, Norfolk for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/16/0020 - Erection single storey front extension; 53 Cromer Road for
Mr & Mrs O'Sullivan
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/16/0009 - Erection of single-storey side, front and rear extensions; 52
Charles Road for Mr T Bacon
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/16/0126 - Erection of single-storey extensions and opening
alterations; Stone Stocks, 149 Lower Street for Mr Thornton
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/15/1762 - Erection of replacement dwelling (Revised scheme
15/0123 refers); 2 Summer Drive for Mr Shepherd
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - PF/15/1868 - Retention of window to south gable end, velux rooflights
to east elevation and revised layout of windows to west elevation; The Cart
Lodge, Holly Farm, Calthorpe Street for Mr & Mrs W Graveling
(Householder application)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/15/0689 - Continuation of use of land for seasonal camping
for up to 7 tents.; Mannington Hall Estate, Mannington Hall Road, Mannington,
for Lord Walpole
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - PF/15/1821 - Erection of rear extension, change of flat roof to
pitched and installation of cladding; Sea Lows, Crowden Road, Bush Estate,
Eccles-on-sea for Mr & Mrs P Dale
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/1882 - Erection of two-storey extension to rear of dwelling;
Ashgrove House, Irstead Road for Mr & Mrs Powell
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/16/0169 - Replacement of glazing to three sash
windows.; 1 Mundesley Road for Managed Property Supply Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
73
7 April 2016
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1871 - Change of use of meadow land to residential
garden, demolition of garage and erection of replacement garage; The Old Coach
House, Little London Road for Mrs J Downing
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/16/0014 - Structural tying of north facing gable including
the fixing of external pattress plates; 6 Market Street for Dr R Lysaght
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/16/0158 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and
single storey extension to front and rear of dwelling; 74 Yarmouth Road for Mr &
Mrs Davison
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - LA/15/1788 - Installation of wood burning stove and associated
flue; Dairy Barn, Winspur Barns, North Walsham Road for Mr D Morgan
(Listed Building Alterations)
OVERSTRAND - PF/16/0132 - Erection of single-storey extension and insertion of
window to side at ground floor of dwelling; 16 Cliff Road for Mrs M Hickling
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/16/0034 - Change of use of first, second & third floors to
residential dwelling; Former Control Tower, Blenheim Way, West Raynham for
Mr Booty
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - NMA1/15/1872 - Change roof tile to Goxhill County; Wren Cottage,
Helhoughton Road, West Raynham for Mr D Mason
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ROUGHTON - NMA1/10/0908 - Non material amendment request to change meter
cupboard to open porch; Lake View, Chapel Road for Mrs E Arrow
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RUNTON - PF/15/1863 - Erection of extensions to sides and rear of dwelling, and
erection of replacement garage off Church Lane; Crossrow, Cromer Road, West
Runton for Mr S Fulford
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/1894 - Change of use of Building 12 to automotive
manufacture/hand tools and lifting equipment (B1); Unit 12, Scottow Enterprise
Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield for Mr Dockerty
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/0366 - Retention of temporary site compound to provide living
accommodation (provided during two phases 26/1/15 to 30/4/15 & 1/1/16 to
30/4/16), canteen, toilets and showers for construction site workers and erection
of security fence; Scottow Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield for Scottow
Moor Solar Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/16/0010 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 160 Ormesby
Road, Badersfield, Scottow for Ms F Kelly
(Householder application)
Development Committee
74
7 April 2016
SEA PALLING - NMA1/15/0439 - Non material amendment request to reduce
glazing to south elevation, revised window sizes and positioning, position of
north block and increase in height to main building/pitch roofs and
re-positioning of flue; Shangri-La, Church Road, Waxham for Mr S Fenn
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1820 - Single storey rear extension; 5 Montague Road for
Mr J Reynolds
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/15/0233 - Non material amendment request to change end
gable to flint and alter first floor window size and location; High Winds, 51
Nelson Road for Mr Schofield
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SIDESTRAND - PF/15/1845 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
installation of larger window on front elevation; Cattle Creep Cottage, Main Road
for Dr K Miszkiel
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - LA/15/1846 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate the
erection of rear extension; Cattle Creep Cottage, Main Road for Dr K Miszkiel
(Listed Building Alterations)
STALHAM - PF/15/1508 - Continued siting of portable building to provide
changing and and lounge facilities; Stalham Football Club, Rivers Park,
Brumstead Road for Stalham Town FC
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/16/0038 - Erection of first floor rear extension and to change flat
roof to pitched roof of part of rear extension; 25 Ingham Road for Mr & Mrs
Morphew
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - AN/16/0058 - Erection of non-illuminated adverts; Land at Greenway,
Stiffkey Saltmarshes, Stiffkey, Norfolk for National Trust
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SUSTEAD - PF/15/1579 - Erection of timber frame cart shed and store; Church
Barn, The Street, Sustead for Mr A Sellex
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/16/0063 - Erection of single storey side extension; Oakdene, 4
Hall Road, Bradfield for AD Alston
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - NMA1/15/0290 - Non material amendment request to revised
siting and size of single-storey side extension; Bell Cottage, Gunthorpe Road for
Mr R Chambers
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
TRUNCH - PF/16/0074 - Erection of single-storey extension to front of dwelling;
Etnacott, Front Street for Mr Moore
(Householder application)
Development Committee
75
7 April 2016
WALSINGHAM - LA/15/1453 - Internal and external alterations and replacement
joinery; Dow House, 17 High Street for Mr Marston
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/16/0047 - Installation of tennis court and swimming pool,
erection of swimming pool building and alterations to boundary walls; Edgar
Farmhouse, Edgar Road for Walsingham Estates
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/16/0048 - Alterations to boundary walls; Edgar Farmhouse,
Edgar Road for Walsingham Estates
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1816 - Insertion of conservation-style roof light
to North roof slope; 1 The Old School, Polka Road for Homes for Wells
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/16/0022 - Erection of single storey front extension; 3
Polka Place, Polka Road for Mr R Tyzska
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/10/0484 - Non material amendment request to
replace ditches to either side of access road with positive drainage system,
remove ditch infill and reposition, revise position of car parking area, use of
asphalt to parking bays, construction of bund to northern boundary and north
side of attenuation ponds/reed beds, attenuation pond/reed bed divided into two
areas, amend eastern attenuation pond/reed bed shape, ditch infilled and
culverted for construction of footpath, revised car park drainage system and
landscaping plan.; Land to the north of Freeman Street, Wells-Next-The-Sea for
Holkham Estate
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WEYBOURNE - PF/16/0002 - Erection of detached storage building and log store;
Sandy Hill House Sandy Hill Lane for Mr Nichols
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/15/1127 - Non material amendment request to increase the
width of the dormer extension; 27 Beck Close for Mr K Bishop
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WICKMERE - PF/15/1656 - Erection of side conservatory; White Cottage, Lower
Street for Mr & Mrs Higham
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/15/1818 - Installation of wooden entrance gates; Ash Tree Farm,
Well Street for Mr & Mrs N Green
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/16/0151 - Variation of condition 2 of 15/1742 to allow alterations to
design and materials; Foxes Barn, Stonebridge Road for Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald
Scales
(Householder application)
Development Committee
76
7 April 2016
WIVETON - PF/16/0017 - Siting of temporary office to accommodate additional
staff; The National Trust at, Friary Farm, Cley Road for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PU/16/0013 - Prior approval for proposed change of use of
agricultural building to a dwellinghouse (C3); Four Acre Farm, Holt Road for Mr
Palmer
(C/U Agricultural to Residential (Prior))
WORSTEAD - PF/16/0041 - Erection of single-storey extension to side of dwelling
and detached garage; Sunnyside, Dilham Road for Mr D & Mrs F Green & Adams
(Householder application)
(14) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
COLBY - PF/16/0071 - Removal of condition 5 of planning permission ref
PF/10/0381 to allow permanent residential occupation; Orchard Cottage, Long
Lane for Mrs G Riddleston
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/16/0049 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached garage;
New Barn, Honing Road for Fyebridge Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - PF/15/1611 - Use of land for the siting of marquee to use for private
functions (April to October); Glebe Farm, White Post Road for Deer's Glade
Caravan & Camping Park
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/16/0004 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent
to Bluebell Public House, Bacton Road for Mr Emerson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1760 - Erection of single-storey front extensions;
The Tower House, The Buttlands for Mr D Langley
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
(15) NEW APPEALS
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/1669 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum
height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation
building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure;
Selbrigg Farm for Selbrigg Generation
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0770 - Demolition of garage and erection of two-storey
side/rear, part first floor and two-storey side and two-storey east elevation
extensions to facilitate creation of semi-detached dwelling, alterations to vehicle
access and car-parking arrangements; Fairway, 2 Links Road for Mrs J Greene
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
77
7 April 2016
STALHAM - PF/15/1370 - Erection of 2 bungalows and associated works.; Land
adj Holly Grove, Yarmouth Road for East Anglian Property Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(16) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks and
crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road, Bodham for Genatec Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 November 2016
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/1669 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum
height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation
building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure;
Selbrigg Farm for Selbrigg Generation
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 November 2016
(17) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
FAKENHAM - AI/15/1236 - Instillation of illuminated "H" frame totem sign; 16-18
Norwich Road, Fakenham for Aldi Stores Ltd - Chelmsford
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0968 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 35
Fairview Road for Mr P Banthorpe
WALCOTT - PF/15/0503 - Retention of single-storey replacement dwelling; The
Glen, Helena Road for Mr & Mrs Robinson
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place
(18) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BRISTON - PF/15/0337 - Use of land as agricultural contractor's storage yard,
erection of agricultural contractor's storage building and retention of alterations
to access.; Tithe Barn Lane, Briston, NR24 2JB for Mr C Nutkins
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Members are asked to note the outcome of the appeal relating to tyre storage at the
former Sculthorpe Airfield at Appendix 3.
Development Committee
78
7 April 2016
(19) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CO/5162/2015
PLANNING COURT
GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT and NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
COUNCIL
The District Council refused Planning application PO/14/0846 which proposed
residential development of up to 170 dwellings and associated infrastructure on land to
the south of Lodge Close, Holt. An appeal was made against this decision to the
Secretary of State and dealt with under the Planning Inspectorate’s reference
APP/Y26260/W/14/3000517.
Following an inquiry held over 28 – 31 July 2015, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal decision has been the subject of a Legal challenge to the High Court and a
copy of the Order of the Court is attached (Appendix 4). The claim was unsuccessful
and Gladman Ltd were ordered to pay the costs of the Secretary of State (£9,000).
The Government Legal department resisted the claim on behalf of the Secretary of
State and the District Council had a limited support role and were not separately
represented at the hearing.
The Committee is requested to note the outcome of this case.
(Source: Roger Howe – Planning Legal Manager – Ext. 6016)
Development Committee
79
7 April 2016
APPENDIX 1
Report to Development Committee – 11 February 2016
(3)
MORSTON - PF/15/1312 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road, Blakeney for Mr & Mrs M Goff
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 November 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071815 PF
Erection of replacement dwelling
Approved 16/01/2008
PF/10/1415 PF
Erection of replacement dwelling (extension of period for commencement of planning
ref: 07/1815)
Approved 02/02/2011
PF/13/0418 HOU
Erection of single-storey rear extension, single-storey extension with balcony above
and replacement single-storey front extension and cladding of gable in flint/timber
cladding
Approved 30/05/2013
PF/14/0150 PF
Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn
PF/14/1190 PF
Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 28/10/2014
PF/14/1434 HOU
Installation of swimming pool and plant room
Approved 17/02/2015
PF/14/1492 HOU
Erection of detached 4 bay garage block
Approved 09/01/2015
PF/15/0169 PF
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 25/03/2015
Development Committee
80
7 April 2016
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a
replacement dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wells having regard to the following planning issue:
Due to the subjectivity of the relevant planning policy considerations.
BLAKENEY PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, however, would like to draw attention to Policy H08: House extensions
and replacement dwellings in the countryside, but feel the site can take this proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
A Design and Access Statement, Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA),
Protected Species Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment have been submitted
in support of the application. The Design and Access Statement is contained in
Appendix ….
CONSULTATIONS
Morston Parish Council - No objection
Environmental Health - No objection. Advisory notes required in relation to asbestos
removal and demolition of buildings.
County Council Highway Authority - No objection, subject to conditions in relation to
access, visibility splays and car parking.
Natural England - In summary concerns have been raised regarding the visual
impacts of the proposal upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the National
Trail given the sites prominent position situated approximately 300m in land from the
coastal grazing marsh boundary, and the substantial increase in size of the proposed
replacement dwelling which would be more visible in the landscape. Natural England
advise to consult with Norfolk Coast Partnership.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - In summary considers the proposal raises concerns in
terms of the large increase in scale and relocation of the dwelling on the site and
compliance with Policy HO8. The proposed replacement dwelling due to its orientation
would also materially increase the impact as seen from the north which is the most
sensitive direction as it includes the undeveloped marshes of the North Norfolk
Heritage Coast and the Norfolk Coast Path National Trail.
The photomontages in the LVIA show that from certain viewpoints it would have a
greater impact than the existing house and that despite proposed landscaping there
would not be a significant reduction in year 15 compared with year 1, so the impact
should be understood as permanent. Norfolk Coast Partnership disagree with some of
the conclusions in the assessment of the LVIA and consider that the proposal would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the most sensitive
parts of the surrounding countryside.
Concerns over cumulative impact on the relatively undeveloped and remote character
of the AONB which is a key aspect of its defining characteristics. (Response contained
in full in Appendix …).
Landscape Officer - In summary whilst no objection in principle to a replacement
dwelling it is considered that the proposal as submitted would materially increase the
Development Committee
81
7 April 2016
impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside, contrary to Policy HO8 of the
Core Strategy and that the impact of the proposed application within a key section of
such a highly valued and sensitive landscape is of such significance that the proposal
should not be approved as it would detract from the special qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and undermine the designation. (Full comments in
Appendix …).
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 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).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Paragraph 114
Paragraph 115
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development/ Policy HO8
2. Design
Development Committee
82
7 April 2016
3. Impact upon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast
4. Impact on neighbouring properties
5. Highway safety
6. Impact upon trees and Protected Species
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site having carried out a site visit last week.
1. Principle of Development
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area (SS2) as designated in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a location replacement dwellings are
permitted. There can therefore be no policy objection to the principle of the proposal.
However, such proposals in this location are required to comply with Policy H08 which
permits replacement dwellings provided that they:
a) would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling, and
b) would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside
In determining what constitutes a 'disproportionately large increase' account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been or
could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of
the area.
The existing dwelling is a two storey property set well back into the site to the north of
the Morston Road (A149) by over 70m. It is located in close proximity to a group of
mature trees and outbuildings which provide some screening. It is considered to be
relatively inconspicuous and recessive in the landscape. A 1.8m high fence on the
roadside boundary (south), and existing vegetation and mature planting screens any
views into the site from the Morston Road, and parts of the east and west boundaries.
The site is well screened from the west and Morston Quay itself by the Esker SSSI,
which consists of mature trees. The ground levels alter across the site dropping down
from the road level, north towards the application site.
The existing dwelling has a footprint of approximately 150sqm, and total floor area of
approximately 293sqm. The existing outbuildings and garaging have a floor area of
approximately 117sqm. This existing cumulative floor area totals approximately
410sqm. The ridge height of the existing dwelling is just over 7m. Whilst of a brick and
flint construction the existing dwelling has been altered and extended over time and is
not considered to be of any historic or architectural merit. There is therefore no
objection in principle to its demolition and replacement.
It is intended for the proposed replacement dwelling to have a veranda/loggia
extending around the majority of the dwelling. However, the actual habitable
accommodation would have a footprint of approximately 310sqm. The total floorspace
of the actual proposed dwelling would be approximately 535sqm. In addition to this
there is a utility/boot room wing attached to the dwelling of approximately 137sqm, and
a garage of approximately 56sqm. This would result in a total floorspace of
approximately 728sqm. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling would be
approximately 9m.
Development Committee
83
7 April 2016
The total increase in floorspace between the existing dwelling (excluding outbuildings
and garaging) and the proposed dwelling (excluding utility/ boot room and garage
wing) would be approximately 82%. This is the increase in floorspace referred to in the
Design and Access Statement, which the agent has calculated at 80%. If the total area
of the proposed dwelling (including utility/ boot room and garage wing) were to be
used in the calculation of increase in floorspace it would result in approximately 148%.
However, if the existing outbuildings and garaging on the site are included in this
calculation the increase in total floorspace from all structures would be approximately
77%.
The difference in ridge heights between existing and proposed of approximately 2m is
not considered to be significant in terms of Policy HO8. However, in terms of scale
and comparing the floorspace figures there is no dispute that the proposed
replacement dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing dwelling on the
site.
Taking a direct comparison between the existing and proposed dwelling the increase
in floorspace is comparable with other replacement dwelling applications that have
been approved over recent years on other sites across the District within the
Countryside Policy Area (Policy SS2) and under Policy HO8. However, each site is
judged on its own merits and the location and context is different for each site along
with any constraints. Therefore, what may be an acceptable increase in floorspace for
one replacement dwelling does not mean it will be acceptable for another.
Whilst Officers have no objection in principle to a larger replacement dwelling on the
site, this proposal also changes the positioning of the dwelling. Where the existing
dwelling is located in a fairly recessive location in close proximity to a group of mature
trees which help to provide some screening, the proposed dwelling is shown to be
positioned to the north east of the existing dwelling in a more prominent and open
location on the site. The proposed dwelling would be some 10m further to the north
and 14m further to the east.
This raises significant concerns for Officers, particularly as the proposed dwelling has
an attached utility, boot room and garage wing which alone measures approximately
23.5m x 8.3m, with a ridge height of approximately 5.7m. Whilst the overall ridge
height is fairly low it is the overall length of this wing which is considered to be
excessive and significantly increases the scale of the proposed replacement dwelling,
particularly from its most open view point from the north east.
In terms of prevailing character of the area there is a mix of dwelling type, scale,
design and use of materials in the immediate area. It is not an area where one
character prevails over another. The application site is significant in terms of its area,
and the site can comfortably accommodate a larger dwelling.
However, it is considered that the proposed dwelling as a whole would result in a
disproportionately large increase in the scale of the original dwelling. In view of this
and the north easterly siting of the proposed dwelling, to a more prominent position in
the landscape, it is considered that this would materially increase the impact of the
dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside, contrary to the
requirements of Policy HO8.
It is not therefore considered that the proposal as submitted complies with either
requirement of Policy HO8.
Development Committee
84
7 April 2016
2. Design
Officers have no objection in principle to a "New England" style design in this location.
There is a mix of designs and materials in this area of Blakeney, including the use of
timber cladding. It is not considered that there is one overriding local distinctiveness.
The Cedar shingles proposed for the roof, and Iroko timber cladding would weather to
a silvery grey, and would help to make the proposed dwelling more recessive. In
accordance with advice set out in the North Norfolk Design Guide it is not necessary
to slavishly copy existing materials. There are no objections to the use of materials
proposed.
In terms of design and the requirements of Policy EN4, Officer's do not doubt that the
proposed dwelling is designed to a high quality. However, whilst the proposed "New
England" style design is supported, Officers are not satisfied that the proposed
dwelling is of a scale and massing that relates sympathetically to its surroundings.
This is further exacerbated by its re-location.
Officers have raised the issue of scale and massing with the applicant and agent and
made suggestions as to how this could be reduced. This included reducing the overall
length of the ridge of the proposed dwelling by removing the projecting first floor wings
on the east and west elevations, and pulling the balconies in, slightly reducing the
ground floor area, and by reducing the size of the utility, boot room and garage wing
perhaps even having part of this as a detached building. However, the applicant has
decided to pursue the application as submitted, but has reduced the overall length of
the ridge of the dwelling by introducing hipped gable ends. This has taken some 7m
off the length of the ridge, reducing it from 22.5m to 14.5m. Whilst this is seen as an
improvement, and welcomed by Officers, it is not considered to be a sufficient
reduction to the overall scale and massing of the design for the proposal to be
considered acceptable. In view of this the proposal would not therefore preserve or
enhance the character and quality of the area contrary to the requirements of Policy
EN4.
3. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast
The site is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), where
development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities
of the AONB and their settings will not be permitted (Policy EN1).
The site is also located within the Undeveloped Coast (Policy EN3), where only
development that can be demonstrated to require a coastal location and will not be
significantly detrimental to the open coastal character will be permitted. Whilst it is
accepted that the development requires a coastal location because it is a replacement
dwelling on the applicants land, it is not considered that the proposal as submitted
complies with the second part of that policy.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer is objecting to the application as
submitted, and that significant concerns have been raised by Norfolk Coast
Partnership and Natural England in relation to the impacts upon the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Whilst the Landscape Officer has no objection in principle to a replacement dwelling
on the site the concerns that have been raised are in relation to the impact on the
AONB and landscape which are considered to be unacceptable and non-compliant
with local and national policies.
Development Committee
85
7 April 2016
The applicant has submitted a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) with the
application. The Landscape Officer considers the methodology and evaluations in the
LVIA to be generally accepted. However, it is considered that some of the effects of
the development on some landscape receptors and viewpoints have been
undervalued and the impacts are actually greater than suggested. This alters some of
the effects of the development on the landscape into the 'significant' bracket of impact.
The Norfolk Coast Partnership also disagree with some of the conclusions in the
assessment of landscape and visual effects. Despite proposed landscaping they do
not consider that the visual impacts suggested in the LVIA between year 1 and year
15 are significantly reduced, and that the impact should be considered as permanent.
The Landscape Officer has advised that the LVIA acknowledges the significance of
the impact of the dwelling and does attempt to mitigate the impacts with strategic
planting and a set of landscape principles. However, it is not considered that these
successfully reduce the impact to acceptable levels in order to comply with the
requirements of the NPPF and Policies EN1 and HO8 of the Core Strategy.
Both the Landscape Officer and Norfolk Coast Partnership consider that the proposed
dwelling would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the most sensitive
parts of the surrounding countryside contrary to the requirements of Policy HO8.
This is a significant concern as the site is located within a 'highly valued and sensitive
landscape', which is afforded significant protection under local and national policies.
Paragraph 114 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local
planning authorities should: "maintain the character of the undeveloped coast,
protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes, particularly in areas defined as
Heritage Coast". The site is less than 300m from a Heritage Coast, this proximity has
been raised by both Natural England and Norfolk Coast Partnership who are
concerned that the proposed dwelling would materially increase the impact as seen
from the most sensitive direction to the north. In addition, Paragraph 115 of the NPPF
states that "great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty
in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have
the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty".
The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application provides some
examples of other substantial dwellings that have been altered/extended or replaced
in Blakeney. The nearest of which is a property called 'Bliss', located in close proximity
to the application site. However, this site along with the others referred to may all be in
Blakeney, but their locations and context are all different. For example "Bliss" is a
substantial replacement dwelling, and whilst very close to the application site it is to
the south of the A149 Morston Road, flanked by other dwellings and forming part of an
existing 'developed' street scene. The application site differs to this as it is to the north
of the A149 Morston Road in a more isolated and open location, which is significantly
more sensitive to development. Officers are in agreement with the applicant that there
are other substantial new dwellings in Blakeney, but each site has to be judged on its
own merits, and what may be acceptable on one site does mean it is acceptable on
another given that there may be different constraints to consider.
Both the Landscape Officer and Norfolk Coast Partnership have referred to the
cumulative impact of approval that substantial replacement dwellings can have on this
particular sensitive setting which is relatively undeveloped. It is considered that the
proposal as submitted would detract from the special qualities of the AONB and
undermine the key characteristics of its designation.
Officers are of the opinion that with further consideration by the applicant, in terms of
reducing the overall scale of the dwelling and re-positioning the dwelling further south
Development Committee
86
7 April 2016
back into the site that, it could be possible to achieve an acceptable development in
this location. Officers were prepared to explore this further with the applicant and their
agent, but they declined to enter into any further negotiations and asked for the
application to be determined as submitted.
In view of this the proposal as submitted is considered to be contrary to Policies EN1,
EN2, and EN3 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 114 and 115 of the NPPF.
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
Given the distances to neighbouring properties from the application site it is not
considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon the
privacy and amenities of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is therefore
considered to be acceptable in this respect and in accordance with the relevant part of
Policy EN4 regarding residential amenity.
5. Highway safety
The Highway Authority have not raised an objection to the application. However, they
have raised concerns over the existing vehicular access onto the A149 Morston Road,
which they advise has been relocated without planning permission. The access is
unmade and draws loose material onto the busy A149 and currently has substandard
visibility. Notwithstanding this the Highway Authority are able to deal with the access
issues by way of conditions on this permission. The proposal is acceptable under
Policy CT5.
6. Impact upon trees and Protected Species
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been submitted with the application
along with a Protected Species report. The Landscape Officer has been consulted on
both and has raised no objection to the information submitted. The proposal is
therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of the relevant part to Policy EN4 in
relation to trees and Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
Conclusion
The principle of a replacement dwelling on this site is considered to be acceptable, as
indeed is one that is larger in floorspace than the existing. The proposed general style
of design and materials are also considered to be acceptable in this location.
However, it is the overall scale of the proposed replacement dwelling, in particular the
attached utility, boot room and garage wing and its orientation along with the
prominent and forward positioning of the replacement dwelling on the site which is not
considered to be acceptable or in accordance with Development Plan policy.
Given the highly sensitive landscape location it is considered that the proposed
dwelling would be disproportionate to that of the existing dwelling in terms of its scale
and would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside. Furthermore it is considered that the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact upon the special qualities and setting of the AONB along
with the open coastal character of the area.
The recommendation is therefore one of refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:
The size of the proposal is considered to be disproportionate to that of the
existing dwelling in terms of its scale and its prominent location which would
Development Committee
87
7 April 2016
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside contrary to Policy HO8 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy, also it is considered that the proposal would fail to preserve or
enhance the character and quality of the area contrary to the requirements of
Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Furthermore, it is considered that given the scale and prominent location of the
dwelling in the landscape it would have a significant detrimental impact upon
the special qualities and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty along
with the open coastal character of the Undeveloped Coast contrary to Policies
EN1, EN2 and EN3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and paragraphs
114 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Development Committee
88
7 April 2016
APPENDIX to Report to Development Committee - 11 February 2016
DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT Application for (Detailed) Planning Permission For a residential development At Larkfields, 146 Morston Rd, Blakeney, NR25 7BG North Elevation (NTS) Mr & Mrs M Goff Development Committee
1 89
7 April 2016
CONTENTS
Introduction Photographs Context Physical Social Economic Planning Assessment Context Guidance Proposals Use Amount Scale Layout Access Landscape Appearance Local Consultation Highways Planning Statement Sustainability Appendix CABE Assessment Sheet Development Committee
2 90
7 April 2016
INTRODUCTION
Google Earth image of the site with a 200 m line drawn on it 1.1 Thomas Faire Architects have been instructed to submit an application for Detailed Planning Permission for the demolition of the existing property, and the construction of a new house, on behalf of Mr & Mrs M Goff. 1.2 This Design and Access Statement is to be read together with other submission documents including drawings, the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by Sheils Flynn and other specialist statements. 1.3 The existing house was built in the 1930’s and has little architectural or local merit, and has been extensively altered to varying degrees of success and quality of workmanship. 1.4 The site lies in the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) however the house is not listed and there is no requirement to under-­‐take an Historic Building Recording prior to the building being demolished. 1.5 The site is located at OS coordinates 017 438 1.6 Adjacent to the site are two properties, including Lark Cottage (under the same ownership) to the West, Curlews to the East; opposite is a former quarry. In other words there are other properties within the existing settlement boundaries further West. 1.7 The site area is approximately 4.34 ha, with a road frontage of 140 m. The rear of the main bulk of the site sits approximately 230 m South from the Coastal Path and 70 m North of Morston Rd. 1.8 The site boundaries are well defined (north/south/east and west) with planted hedges 1.9 This Design and Access Statement has been prepared as described by CABE in “Design and Access Statements How to Read and Write Them” NB The images within this document are not necessarily to scale. Development Committee
3 91
7 April 2016
Ordnance survey map of existing site at 1:25O0 Site plan (NTS) showing curtilage of the existing house Development Committee
4 92
7 April 2016
Site plan (NTS) showing curtilage of the proposed new house Site plan (NTS) showing curtilage of the existing house and proposed new house Development Committee
5 93
7 April 2016
PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE AND BUILDINGS
View of entrance to the site from Morston Road View of existing house from the North with the proximity of Lark Cottage clearly shown Development Committee
6 94
7 April 2016
PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE AND BUILDINGS continued View of existing house from the West with uPVC picture windows and raised eaves using different brickwork clearly visible View of existing house from the South East showing the raised eaves and new plain tiled roof Development Committee
7 95
7 April 2016
PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE AND BUILDINGS continued View of the garages and outbuildings View of existing summer house and walls of walled garden to be restored and retained Development Committee
8 96
7 April 2016
Context
PHYSICAL 2.1 The site falls from South to North with a fall of approximately 18 m over 300 m and from West to East with a fall of approx. 3 m over 140 m. 2.2 The site is approximately 1 km west of Blakeney Quay (village centre) and 300 m from the Bliss Development. 2.3 The site has direct access onto the A149 main East/West north Norfolk coast road, which services numerous towns and villages from Kings Lynn to Cromer and then on to Norwich by train. 2.4 The site is outside the NPPF defined Flood Zone 1,2 & 3, and as such no Flood Risk Assessment is required. Bliss development SOCIAL 2.4 The site has the benefit of the numerous local services and transport connections that operate along the A149, including the regular Coast Hopper bus service. Since the site is within walking distance of the village centre (either along the footpath by the A149 or via the North Norfolk Coastal Path along the northern boundary of the site) it benefits from all of the community facilities, such as the village shop, fishmonger, delicatessen, pubs, hotels, church and other community buildings. 2.5 The proposal will improve the current visual impact and usage of the site, and is consistent with recent similar development carried out by neighbouring property owners (most notably Bliss Development’s on Morston Road, NR25 7BG). 2.6 Blakeney is an attractive and desirable location and this development is in keeping with the vitality and viability of this unique village. Development Committee
9 97
7 April 2016
Plan of the site showing the dramatic contours from North to South (each one representing 0.5 m) Development Committee
10 98
7 April 2016
ECONOMIC 2.7 The new development will create employment for local trades and crafts, and support businesses within the local community infrastructure. 2.8 North Norfolk’s increasing popularity requires a continuing need to improve and update the housing stock. Whilst this dwelling is aimed at the upper end of the market it is important that this range is covered, as well as other particular types and mixes. PLANNING 2.9 The proposed development endeavours to adhere to relevant policies and strategies outlined in the NNDC Core Strategy Policies, Development Control Policies & Development Management Policies (Local Plan 2014) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 2.10 Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and distribution of development in the District). 2.11 Policy SS2 Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with specific exceptions) 2.12 Policy SS4 Delivery of a sustainable development 2.13 Policy SS6 Good access to infrastructure, open space, public services and utilities 2.14 Policy HO8 House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside) 2.15 Policy EN1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the area and the setting) 2.16 Policy ENV2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement 2.17 Policy ENV4: Design, including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction 2.18 Policy ENV8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive development) 2.19 Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (no adverse impact on designated nature conservation sites) 2.20 Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (criteria to reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable forms of transport) 2.21 Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking standards) Development Committee
11 99
7 April 2016
PLANNING POLICY MAPS Proposals Map West showing hierarchy of settlements Plan of Blakeney as a Coastal Service Village Development Committee
12 100
7 April 2016
Assessment CONTEXT 3.1 The site area is 4.34 hectares and the curtilage of the existing house and various out houses is 1,350 sq m. The proposed new house is 535 sq m, excluding outdoor areas, garage and utility space and the existing 1930’s dwelling is 293 sqm an increase of 80%. 3.2 The new house would be built close to the site of the old one, with the existing wall garden included within the new planned curtilage. 3.3. The new development will improve the northerly views from Lark Cottage and will not affect other surrounding properties with a modest increase in the ridge line of only 1.73m above the existing house. The distance from the northern boundary (Coastal Path) is 230 m and from the A149 is 70 m. 3.4 The existing trees and hedges will screen the development to the south, east and west, and privacy will be maintained. Views into the site will be limited from all the above boundaries, except for oblique views from Lark Cottage, which is under the same ownership 3.5 The house is designed to nestle into the existing landscape. The LVIA demonstrates clearly how the existing and proposed new trees, planting and hard landscaping allows the development to sit naturally within the physical contours of the site leading gently down to the salt marshes. GUIDANCE 3.6 The site has been the subject of a number of discussions with regard to its future development, including a planning application validated on 23rd February 2015 and subsequently withdrawn as a result of unresolved issues. 3.7 It has generally been agreed with planning officers of North Norfolk District Council that the principle of a replacement dwelling on the site is acceptable, with particular emphasis on the overall design, scale, massing and setting within the landscape. 3.8 The current proposal take into account this dialogue between NNDC and the architect and landscape consultants, with additional and updated information supporting this application. This illustrates how important design issues can be addressed in a sensitive and appropriate manner. USE – see photos of the existing house above and submitted drawings 3.9 The development will provide a single new dwelling to replace the existing house, which has little or no architectural merit, is functionally unattractive and does not meet current standards. The existing house was built in the 1930s as part of a small development of thatched houses, including Blakeney Downs and Curlews next door. At a later stage the thatch was removed and replaced with a plain tiled roof; in the process of which the eaves height was raised resulting in an ugly proportioned building. Traditional windows have been replaced with inappropriate uPVC picture windows and a plastic conservatory added to the north. Inside the layout is inefficient with wasteful passages and a too-­‐small kitchen for a house of this size. Insulation values are inadequate with solid walls and floors, and a barely insulated roof. The current house does not maximise the qualities of the site: its setting, the views to the marshes or present an attractive aspect to the Coastal Path. Development Committee
13 101
7 April 2016
3.10 The proposal, as indicated above will consist of a new house on ground and first floor, with garage and utility space to replace the existing house, garage and outbuildings. 3.11 This submission includes an application to North Norfolk District Council to gain consent for the demolition of the property. The adjacent property on the same site, Lark Cottage, will be unaffected. AMOUNT 3.12 The development will consist of 310 sq m of ground floor and 225 sq m of first floor space, with 56 sq m of garage and 137 sq m of utility accommodation. 3.13 The density of the development will be consistent with the character and grain of development in the area consisting of spacious well proportioned houses set in large gardens LAYOUT 3.14 On the ground floor the development will consist of Sitting Room, Study and Kitchen on either side of a Hall, with ancillary utility areas in the garage wing. Upstairs there are three bedrooms. Owing to the exposed position there are open verandahs or loggias on all sides to provide shelter from the elements – this is an extremely exposed site! 3.15 The proposed development has been designed so as not to have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy 3.16 The building’s plan form strongly and directly relates axially to the salt marshes to the North and the entrance court to the South which is accessed from Morston Road. ACCESS 3.17 Vehicle access to the site will be from the south off the A149. 3.18 All parking on site and turning areas will be laid out, levelled and surfaced with appropriate drainage 3.19 Refuse will be stored out of sight in the entrance to the service yard and taken by cart to the kerbside as at present. SCALE 3.20 The total site area is 4.34 ha. The total proposed external gross construction footprint of the new house (excluding verandas, garage and utility space) is 310 sq m. This equates to a total of 0.7% site coverage The total existing external footprint of the building is 193 sq m (excluding outbuildings). This equates to total site coverage of 0.44%. 3.21 The scale of the building has been reduced, since the first floor accommodation is now two thirds of the ground floor footprint. 3.22 The proposed house is formed around a central hallway with kitchen on one side and Sitting Room and Study on the other. At first floor there is one principal bedroom and two further small bedrooms. Development Committee
14 102
7 April 2016
3.23 A feature of the property are the verandahs that wrap around the ground floor. These are open to the elements but will enjoy weather protection and prevent excessive solar gain. 3.24 There are other large replacement houses in the village most notably the Bliss development 300 m away to the East, and on Back Lane The Coast House and Moonrakers, both substantial dwellings. Moonrakers, Back Lane viewed from the South LANDSCAPE 3.24 For a full description of all landscaping issues please refer to the comprehensive LVIA report attached to this report. 3.25 It is anticipated that detailed content of the landscaping scheme will be elaborated on as part of the reserved matters application. However the planning will be designed aesthetically to enhance the development, and provide additional screening and privacy within and surrounding the site. This will also bring ecological benefits and assist in any noise abatement purposes. Development Committee
15 103
7 April 2016
Photomontage from Coastal Path after 15 years (Courtesy of Sheils Flynn) APPEARANCE 3.26 All external works will be designed to be consistent with the character and appearance of a local “seaside New England style”, hence the verandahs and use of indoor/outdoor spaces. The planning officers have warmly welcomed this design philosophy. 3.27 With a strong pyramid shape it will be firmly grounded in the site, minimising impact on the sky line. This will be reinforced by the use of muted natural materials, and recede against the sky line when viewed from the coastal path. 3.28 The materials of the house are to be timber, render and cedar roof shingles. Cedar shingles and Iroko timber boarding will weather well over time to a silvery grey, and timber windows are proposed to complement the overall muted and natural effect. These materials are found in the local vernacular building styles, with varieties of timber visible at The Boat House (formerly Charlie Ward’s boatyard in Morston), Bliss, Jasmine (Saxlingham Road) and The Coast House (Back Lane), which uses naturally weathered iroko on its balconies. Development Committee
16 104
7 April 2016
The Coast House, Back Lane Render can be seen at North Down (the neighbouring house to the West) and in combination with timber boarding at Jasmine (Saxlingham Road). Jasmine, the first house you see on entering Blakeney on Saxlingham Road Development Committee
17 105
7 April 2016
The house is inspired by New England style houses which have this combination of materials – rendered piers, timber boarding and shingles -­‐ and will look very similar to this example here. Development Committee
18 106
7 April 2016
LOCAL CONSULTATION 3.29 As part of the public and stakeholder consultation process both Blakeney and Morston Parish Council Members are aware of the proposal and informal support for the design and setting has been offered. 3.30 The immediate neighbours to the property are also aware of the proposals and no objection has been made in the past to earlier applications. HIGHWAYS 3.31 Norfolk County Council (NCC), as the Highway Authority has confirmed (email dated 23rd February 2015) that in respect of the proposal it “does not wish to object”. It is accepted that the proposal “does not affect current traffic patterns or free flow”. 3.32 Further discussion will now take place with NCC however to clarify a number of points raised in this email, and this in turn will influence whether or not a planning condition is required. 3.33 The land and property has enjoyed two separate points of access/egress for many years. A decision was made by the owner (8 to 9 years ago) to use by preference the access furthest to the east, away from the crest of the hill. Subsequently improvements to the internal road and splay line within the property were made. The owner has therefore had continuous enjoyment of this access for many years without any concern from either the Highway Authority or North Norfolk District Council. 3.34 The proposal will provide an opportunity to improve the splay lines and width of the access/egress on to the highway. Concerns over material on the highway and drainage will also be addressed and in this respect a number of new developments in Blakeney along Morston Road provide useful guidelines of the design approach proposed. 3.35 NCC has made an assessment of 8 vehicles using the property. This is significant over-­‐ estimation and in view of the modest size of this residential dwelling, with only one principal bedroom and intended holiday use, we believe a more appropriate number of vehicles should be 3 to 4. As such any condition relating to parking and servicing within the curtilage of the property, given the distance from the highway needs to be proportionate to the proposal. 3.36 As indicated above further discussion with NCC will take place, once the planning application process commences. Development Committee
19 107
7 April 2016
PLANNING STATEMENT 3.37 The Policy considerations are stated above, with particular relevance to SS2, HO8, EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN8 together with NPPF. 3.38 Policy SS2 relates to development in the Countryside, including replacement dwellings. 3.39 Policy HO8 states that the proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings with 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.
Care has been taken to ensure that the proposal does not constitute a “disproportionately large increase”, having regard to the original dwelling (and extended under permitted development rights as included in HO8) and prevailing character of the immediate area. (At the present time the site is occupied by a building of footprint 193 sq m, plus outbuildings/garage of 117 sq m. In contrast the proposed building would have a footprint of 310 sq m (not including verandahs, utility and garage space), with an internal habitable floor area of 535 sq m spread over ground and first floor. In addition a separate 2 bay garage of 56 sq m and utility of 137 sq m. Since Policy HO8 does not refer to the need for the replacement dwelling to be on the same footprint as the existing property or be in close proximity or within the immediate curtilage the design approach is to ensure that the new property is not a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling and that there is no material increased impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. In terms of the increase in scale of the proposed dwelling, based solely on the net increase in floor area of 242 sq m (excluding verandas, utility and garage space), this is not considered excessive and should not provide grounds for a refusal. We would draw officers’ attention to recent similar replacement dwellings in NNDC’s coastal villages which far exceed this increase and have been approved. 3.4 Landscape Impact (AONB) Following discussions with NNDC’s planning and conservation area officers the site and location of the replacement dwelling and its impact on the AONB and landscape character have now been fully addressed. Full appreciation has been given to the views of the site gained from the north, and the relationship between the dwelling and surrounding land based upon the LVIA is a natural and acceptable one, in relation to key policies (EN1, EN2, EN4 & EN8). As indicated the proposed dwelling is only 1.73m higher to the ridge than the existing house, and the roof area approximately the same. As a result the dwelling will be no more visible within the landscape and from the main viewpoints the proposed building will be seem against a backdrop of mature trees, and shrubs. The resulting visual impact is therefore minor, given the large scale surrounding landscape and relative insignificance of the building within it and distance viewing. The LVIA clearly demonstrates that this is the case. Since this will not detract from the special qualities of the AONB (EN1) we do not believe there are sufficient grounds to warrant an objection under these policies. Development Committee
20 108
7 April 2016
The landscaping restoration and enhancement proposals are significant and offer benefits to the wider landscape. A Protected Species Scoping Study has been prepared in accordance with recognised procedures and guidelines by a suitably qualified ecologist and the report and conclusions support the proposal. In particular the grassland around the site has the potential to support reptiles, ground nesting birds and a wide range of biodiversity in line with Policy EN9. 3.41 With regard to EN4 this is not a replacement dwelling for a farmstead or barn and within close proximity are a range of different house styles, of varying ages. As such the design does not have to follow a vernacular precedent. The North Norfolk Design Guide and a sustainable construction approach have informed the design approach (EN2). This has led to a philosophy to ensure that the replacement building does not “jar on the eye” and looks wholly appropriate, via a mild mannered structure and muted colours and materials approach, which will not impose itself on the landscape. Similarly the garage block is designed to be inoffensive visually. As such the development will be designed to a high quality and strengthen local distinctiveness along Morston Rd and the approaches to Blakeney village centre (EN4). The design will relate closely to its local context and enhance the character of the area, represented by the supported received from adjoining neighbours to this proposal. A contemporary internal design will allow for high standards of energy efficiency, with principles of sustainability at the heart of the construction, and on-­‐going property management and maintenance. 3.42 This approach also allows it to meet objectives to preserve or enhance the character of the designated asset (EN8) in terms of the AONB and other important historic buildings and landscapes. The LVIA refers to the site in relation to the setting of both St Nicholas Church Blakeney (Grade 1 listed) and All Saints at Morston. Given the distances involved the proposal is not likely to have a significantly harmful impact on either the setting of these churches or the wider AONB. In conclusion in respect of Policies EN1 EN2 ENV4 & EN8 we believe this represents an acceptable proposal. 3.43 The site benefits from regular (every 30 minutes during the extended summer period) bus access ( North Norfolk CoastHopper) linking Blakeney to eastwards to Sheringham and Cromer (onwards to Norwich via the Bittern rail line and then London (in 3 hours) and west to Kings Lynn. In addition the Peddars Way/North Norfolk Coastal Path allows easy walking from the rear of the site into Blakeney village centre for goods and services. As such the site has access to a sustainable form of transport in accordance with policy (CT5). 3.44 The NPPF (para 137) highlights the opportunity for Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to look for new development within the setting of heritage assets that will enhance or make better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. The existing house has little architectural merit, is much changed and has been unsympathetically altered many years to the detriment of its external appearance, the new proposals will make significant improvements by way of a qualitative approach using high quality external materials and detailing. It is noted that in close proximity to the site the Council has supported a more radical contemporary design approach by approving Bliss Development’s Morston Rd scheme, recently completed and occupied. Development Committee
21 109
7 April 2016
Sustainability 4.1 Sustainable Design is a principle in all development. The development will be designed to meet or exceed national standards in place at the time of approval. 4.2 The proposals are designed to: -­‐ maximise natural light and ventilation where applicable. -­‐ provide adequate provision for the storage and collection of waste. -­‐ use sustainable timber cladding and materials with low embodied energy 5.3 Landscaping enhancements and continued wildlife management of the existing flower field will benefit local ecology. 5.4 As a brownfield site the proposal will make the most sustainable use of an existing building and its land. Development Committee
22 110
7 April 2016
CABE Assessment Sheet (extract from Design and Access Statement How to write them -­‐ 2006) Development Committee
23 111
7 April 2016
From: Venes, Tim [mailto:tim.venes@norfolk.gov.uk]
Sent: 27 October 2015 14:30
To: Planning Consultation
Subject: PF/15/1312
PF/15/1312 Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling at Larkfields, Morston
Road, Blakeney
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal in the Norfolk Coast AONB, and within
the setting of the North Norfolk Heritage Coast.
The statistics provided in paragraph 3.39 of the Design and Access Statement are helpful.
This is a significantly larger building than the existing dwelling (62% increase in overall footprint of
buildings, 82% increase in overall floor area). The ridge height of the proposed dwelling is 1.73m
higher than the 8.27m height of the existing house, a substantial 20% increase. Overall this
represents a large increase in scale, which raises concerns with regard to Policy HO8 which states
that replacement dwellings should not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or
scale of the original dwelling.
Policy HO8 further provides that a replacement dwelling should not materially increase the impact of
the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The substantial increase in size,
combined with the proposed relocation of the replacement house to the east and its much larger
northern frontage compared to the existing dwelling (in which the longer axis is orientated northsouth rather than east-west as proposed for the replacement) means that the proposed
replacement would have a materially increased impact as seen from the north, which is the most
sensitive direction as it includes the undeveloped marshes of the North Norfolk Heritage Coast and
the Norfolk Coast Path National Trail.
This is confirmed by the photomontages in the LVIA, for which it should be borne in mind that
although they have used the accepted standard focal length for visual assessment, in practice
individual features such as houses are much more apparent to the eye than such photographs
suggest.
The existing house is clearly visible and quite prominent from viewpoints 1B and 1C, but appears to
be screened by trees from viewpoint 1D and 1E.
In the photographic representations of the proposed replacement house (pages 65 to72), it is
apparent that it would have a greater impact than the existing house from viewpoints 1B and 1C,
and would also be visible from viewpoints 1D and 1E. The representations also suggest that, despite
proposed landscaping there would not be a significant reduction of impact in year 15 compared with
year 1, so the impact should be understood as being permanent.
I would therefore disagree with some aspects of the conclusions in the assessment of landscape and
visual effects (sections 7 and 8 of the LVIA) and conclude that with reference to Policy HO8 this
proposal would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the most
sensitive parts of the surrounding countryside.
This suggests it would also contravene Policies EN1 and EN2. The Design and Access Statement gives
examples of other new or replacement dwellings nearby that have been permitted as a reason to
approve this proposal and it might be thought that an impact on a relatively small part of the AONB
would not be significant. However, this raises concerns that continued approval of such proposals,
particularly in very sensitive settings such as in this case, both encourages other such applications
Development Committee
112
7 April 2016
and has a cumulative impact on the relatively undeveloped and remote character of much of the
AONB, which is a key aspect of its defining characteristics.
Tim Venes
Norfolk Coast Partnership Manager
Norfolk Coast Partnership
South Wing, Fakenham Fire Station
Norwich Road
Fakenham
Norfolk NR21 8BB
Telephone: 01328 850530
E. tim.venes@norfolk.gov.uk
web: www.norfolkcoastaonb.org.uk
Protecting an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Funded by Defra, Norfolk County Council, North Norfolk District Council, Borough Council of King's
Lynn & West Norfolk and Great Yarmouth Borough Council
-To see our email disclaimer click here
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer
Development Committee
113
7 April 2016
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Kerys Witton
Planning Consultation
Jo Medler
PF/15/1312 - Larkfields 144 Morston Road, Blakeney
10 December 2015 10:39:26
The site is located in a prominent location on top of a ridge that overlooks the salt marshes of
the North Norfolk Coast. The site is located in one of the key character landscapes of the AONB
which exhibits many of the special qualities of the AONB. The site is set apart from the main
village of Blakeney part way between Blakeney and Morston. The application has been
supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by ShielsFlynn
Associates, a Protected Species Report prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology and an Arboricultural
Impact Assessment prepared by AT Coombes Associates.
The AIA suggests that the majority of the trees and tree groups will be retained as part of the
proposals however a section of hedge (G2) will have to be removed to allow the new dwelling
and garage to be constructed. The Protected Species report has identified a brown long-eared
bat roost within the building to be demolished therefore a European Protected Species Licence
will be required and mitigation with respect to undertaking the works and compensation for the
loss of bat roosts also required.
Although the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling on
the site is not objected to in principle, the Landscape Section are concerned that size and scale
of the new dwelling is such that the impacts on the AONB and landscape are unacceptable and
not compliant with local and national policies.
Although the methodology and evaluations within the LVIA are generally accepted, it is
considered that some of the effects of the development on some landscape receptors and some
viewpoints have been undervalued and the impacts are greater than suggested. This pushes
some of the effects of the development into the ‘significant’ bracket of impact.
This is relevant as the site is located in a highly valued and sensitive landscape which is afforded
significant protection under local and national policies. The NPPF states that “great weight
should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty” (para 115), and that local planning authorities should
“maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive
landscapes, particularly in areas defined as Heritage Coast” (para 114). The site is located less
than 300m from a Heritage Coast* and is within an area of Undeveloped Coast.
Policy EN1 of the NNDC Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted where it
does not detract from the special qualities of the AONB. The special qualities of the AONB
include the sense of remoteness, tranquillity and wildness and the strong and distinctive links
between land and sea. The sense of remoteness and tranquillity is linked to the Undeveloped
Coast and Heritage Coast status and are extremely important when considering the impacts of
development. As part of the 2014-19 Norfolk Coast Management Plan, the AONB Partnership
have produced a Statement of Significance which summarises the area’s qualities of natural
beauty and in which they state “Along the undeveloped coast, panoramic and spectacular views
– from the coastal marshes, the higher land behind the low coast and from the cliff top are
characteristic and varied but all give an impression of wildness and the dominance of the forces
Development Committee
114
7 April 2016
of nature”.
Within the LVIA, Section 2.4 (methodology and attribute significance) states that Medium - High
significance values are deemed to have a significant effect and considerable effort should be
made to reduce the significance level, and that Medium – Low significance values whilst they are
not considered significant are dependent on context and significance should be considered on
this basis in the assessment. Given that it is considered that some undervaluing of the effects of
the proposal have occurred in the assessment, some impacts of the development can be
considered as significant or just below significant and when assessed in the context of the
location of the site and the strong policies for protection of the landscape/AONB in the NPPF
and the Core Strategy, the impacts of the development on the AONB, Heritage and
Undeveloped Coast should be given sufficient weight in the decision making process.
Policy HO8 (replacement dwellings) stipulates that replacement dwellings will only be permitted
provided that the proposals “would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside”. The conclusions of the LVIA state that the
proposals would have a significant impact on long coastal views from elevated land in Year 1 and
a medium-low impact in Year 15. Furthermore, that the proposals would again have a
significant impact from representative viewpoints along the Peddars Way and North Norfolk
Coast Path National Trail in Year 1, suggesting that this impact will reduce to medium – low in
Year 15. When considered against the context of the valued landscape and the requirements of
Policy HO8, it is suggested that there will be a material increase in the impact of the dwelling on
the surrounding countryside, and that the proposal would not be compliant with the policy.
Within the ‘Discussion of Results’ section of the LVIA (Section 8.4), the assessment acknowledges
that the “location combined with the scale of the replacement house will result in a noticeable
change to the baseline situation”. Furthermore, that the garage section of the new dwelling will
result in a long building that is a “similar scale to the existing barn adjacent to Curlews”, this
introduces an additional built element into the landscape that is of a scale comparable to an
individual building. The assessment concludes that when viewed from the east, the
replacement dwelling will “extend the built form of Blakeney” and might potentially have a more
of an impact in night time views. The LVIA clearly acknowledges the significance of the impact
of the dwelling and does attempt to mitigate for these impacts with strategic planting and a set
of landscape principles. However, it is not considered that these successfully reduce the impact
to acceptable levels to comply with the requirements of national planning policies and policies
EN1 and HO8 of the Core Strategy.
Although the proposals only affect a small part of the AONB, the cumulative effects of such
development can be considerable. On balance it is considered that the impact of the proposed
development within a key section of such a highly valued and sensitive landscape is of such
significance that the proposals should not be approved as they would detract from the special
qualities of the AONB and undermine the designation. This view is supported by both Natural
England (letter dated 21st October 2015) and the Norfolk Coast Partnership (email dated 27th
October 2015).
It is suggested that the applicant consider the evaluation of the LVIA, and the requirements of
policy HO8, and look at ways to reduce the significance of the impact of the replacement
dwelling. This is likely to be through a reduction in the size and scale of the dwelling and re-
Development Committee
115
7 April 2016
positioning the dwelling further back (south) into the site.
* The North Norfolk Heritage Coast, a section of the coast from Holme-next-the-Sea to
Weybourne, was defined in an agreement between local authorities and the Countryside
Commission in 1975, recognising this section of coastline as one of the forty finest stretches of
undeveloped coast in
England and Wales, in addition to its status as an AONB. ‘Heritage Coast’ is a non-statutory
definition, although it is recognised within the statutory planning system. Management of the
Heritage Coast is considered within the overall management plan for the AONB.
Kerys Witton
Landscape Officer
+441263 516323
Development Committee
116
7 April 2016
Minutes of Development Committee – 11 February 2016
(180)
MORSTON - PF/15/1312 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road, Blakeney for Mr & Mrs M Goff
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Delafield (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that the Campaign for the Protection of
Rural England (CPRE) had expressed concerns regarding Policy HO8 and the
increase in the size of the building, the high value of the area in terms of visual impact
and development pressure. He referred to concerns raised by the Landscape Officer.
He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.
Councillor A Wells, the local Member, referred to the comments of Blakeney Parish
Council. He stated that there had been a very small number of objections compared
to other proposals in the Blakeney area and people generally considered the design to
be sympathetic.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that Blakeney was one of the most iconic places in East
Anglia. He considered that the existing building was of a reasonable size and sat
back from the AONB. However, the proposed replacement was unacceptable in scale
and would sit forward of the existing building. He considered that it was contrary to
Core Strategy Policies HO7, EN1, EN2, EN3 and also the NPPF. He proposed
refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that if the proposed building were set
back on the footprint of the existing dwelling it could be acceptable.
Councillor P W High stated that Blakeney had many different styles of building and
there was no uniformity. He considered that the proposal was acceptable.
Councillor S Hester stated that there were vast areas of land in Morston which could
not be built on, there was an existing house on the site and he considered that the
proposal would not spoil the area.
Councillor P Rice spoke in favour of the design. However, he considered that the
building should be set further back on the site and the application should be refused
as currently submitted.
The Major Projects Manager suggested deferral to consider the possibility of resiting
the building as suggested by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and possibly
reducing or removing the boot-room element.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor S Hester and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2
Defer for further negotiations regarding moving building back on the site
and removal/reduction of outbuilding element.
Development Committee
117
7 April 2016
Morston- PF/15/1312 Larkfields,146 Morston Rd, Blakeney,NR25 7BG
Appendix to Design & Access Statement
Introduction
The detailed planning permission application was considered by North Norfolk District Council’s
Development Committee on 11/2/2016.
Members noted that a) the principle of a replacement dwelling is acceptable, b) the principle of a
larger floor space than the existing is acceptable and c) the general style, design and materials are
attractive and appropriate for this location.
However, having regard to officer comments and policy (HO8/EN1/EN2/EN3),Members voted in
favour a deferment to consider a) the overall scale, particularly the ancillary wing and its orientation
and b) whether or not the forward position could be moderate. The applicants were to be asked
whether or not changes could be made.
Design Changes
1. The ancillary wing including the garages and utility room (23.5m x 8.3m) with a ridge height
of 5.3m to be removed.
2. The secondary access road, north east, to be removed.
3. The main house proposed south facing elevation to be simplified, with no single storey link
accommodation.
4. Relocate the main house 1 metre south.
5. Relocate the utility room to a lower level beneath terrace, with additional storage below the
kitchen and hall, with access via an internal staircase.
6. Increase the size of the open south facing courtyard centred on the main front door.
7. A single driveway to provide the only access/egress to the dwelling.
8. Two linked garage buildings south of the main building located closer to the main road with
storage accommodation above.
By removing the ancillary wing this will significantly reduce the scale of the proposed dwelling and
minimise the impact on the surrounding countryside, particularly from the more sensitive north east
aspect.
The topography of the site allows for the creation of this lower level without having any additional
impact on the scale or massing of the property. Effectively built into the landscape it will not be
visible from the Coastal Path 300m away. As a result the overall footprint of the dwelling will
reduced although the internal habitable floor area will remain largely the same.
The proposed timber-clad garages will be hidden by neighbouring properties and existing trees
screening.
Development Committee
118
7 April 2016
The proposed ridge line will not alter (only 1.73m above the existing) however by moving the
dwelling further south this will be less prominent. The proposal remains partly contained within the
existing curtilage, screened by new and existing trees and shrubs.
These changes together with the removal of a secondary driveway will help further to preserve and
enhance the character and quality of the area.
Planning Policy
The Design & Access Statement submitted with the application fully outlines why the proposal is
policy compliant. However the above changes will significantly improve the case to support the
proposal as follows;
Policy HO8- officers have confirmed that there are no objections in principle to a larger replacement
dwelling on the site. However in judging each site on its own merits, balancing the “fairly recessive
location” and mature trees providing screening around the existing dwelling with the proposed new
site, the main concern expressed by officers is the “attached utility, boot room and garage wing”
which is considered “excessive and significantly increases the scale of the proposed dwelling,
particularly from its most open view point from the north east”. Whilst it was noted that Blakeney
Parish Council, having regard to HO8, “feel that the site can take this proposal” the changes
proposed will resolve any concern here.
Also discussed at the planning committee meeting was how to define under HO8 whether or not any
proposal is a “disproportionately large increase in height or scale of the original dwelling”
(particularly in light of the Inspectors decision at Three Owls Farm). Regard therefore should be
given to the “prevailing character of the area”, with reference to a) style of architecture, b)range of
finishes)siting closer to existing cluster of buildings and d) within the curtilage of an existing
dwelling.
Members, in considering the proposal, complimented the design approach. They also commented
on the mixture of different house styles and design in and around Blakeney. As a result the changes
will improve the appearance of the main house, whilst the proposed use of materials remains the
same. The proposal sits on the curtilage of the existing dwelling and the massing and scale of the
proposal is now very much reduced. The net effect of this is to reduce significantly the impact of the
dwelling on the surrounding countryside.
Policy EN1, EN2, EN4 & EN8- it was noted that the landscape officer accepted the methodology and
evaluations of the applicants LVIA, but what is “significant” is highly subjective. By removing the
utility wing and relocating the main building further south, the impact of the proposal will clearly be
reduced. When viewed over 300 m away from the Coastal Path, given the existing dwellings, hedges,
mature trees, new planting and wild flower meadow, this would seem now to be policy compliant. It
was also noted at the planning meeting that Members feel that this particular stretch of coastline is
less sensitive in terms of AONB, with existing properties and a site within the settlement. The
Inspector’s comments regarding Three Owls Farm are also interesting because distance is relevant
and the test seems to be whether the proposal would “constitute an imposing feature on the
landscape”. The changes clearly now help avoid any significant detrimental impact.
Development Committee
119
7 April 2016
Development Committee
120
7 April 2016
APPENDIX 2
Development Committee
121
7 April 2016
Development Committee
122
7 April 2016
Development Committee
123
7 April 2016
APPENDIX 3
(Appendix for Development Committee, 7 April)
FORMER SCULTHORPE AIRFIELD – ENF/14/0248 – TYRE STORAGE
APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
UPHELD SUBJECT TO VARIATION.
In May 2015 the District Council issued an Enforcement notice relating to part of the
former Sculthorpe Airfield. The alleged breach of Planning control was the storage of
tyres and the notice required no further tyres to be brought onto the site and the
phased removal of tyres already on site to an authorised disposal facility.
The notice was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State.
In her appeal decision the Inspector noted that it is estimated that there are at least
6000 tonnes of tyres on the site and that Planning permission had been granted for
use of a building nearby for the shredding and recycling of tyres. The Inspector
went on to outline the complicated Planning history of the site, noting that a series of
temporary permissions had allowed the tyres to remain whilst the various parties
involved sought to find a solution to the problem of removing and disposing of the
tyres.
An application had been submitted in 2014 to continue the temporary storage. This
was refused and the District Council then commenced enforcement action.
The appeal involved several grounds; in short summary




That the Council had failed to take into account material considerations
when determining whether it was “expedient” to take enforcement action
That the County Council rather than the District Council should have dealt
with this matter as the tyres comprise “ waste” and are therefore a County
matter
That the Enforcement notice was a nullity because the alleged breach was
not factually correct
The appellants also added a further ground during the course of the
appeal, alleging that the time for compliance was too short
The Inspector considered these grounds in turn, concluding that whether it was
expedient for the Council to have issued the notice was a matter to be dealt with by
judicial review, rather than through this appeal. The District Council had undertaken
Development Committee
124
7 April 2016
the appropriate consultation with the County Council prior to issuing the notice and
the officer who had signed the notice had the necessary authority to do so.
In a detailed section of her decision the Inspector has analysed the “ground (b)”
appeal, by which the appellants had challenged the validity of the notice. The
assertion was that the change of use of the site alleged by the notice was incorrect,
as the breach of Planning control was failure to comply with a condition requiring
removal of the tyres upon the expiry of the temporary Planning permission. After
considering the specific sections of the Act and relevant case-law the Inspector
concluded that the Enforcement notice had incorrectly referred to a change of use of
the land; however she was able to correct this without injustice to the appellants.
Turning to the time-limit for compliance the Inspector noted that the adjacent building
would be prepared for the processing of waste tyres (for which Planning permission
was granted in April 2015).
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the notice but subject to
variation as follows:
Remove the tyres from the site in accordance with the following schedule:
Steps to be taken
By date

Remove 2,000 tonnes of tyres and transfer them to an
authorised facility
30 June 2017

Remove a further 2,000 tonnes of tyres and transfer
them to an authorised facility
30 June 2018

Remove all of the remaining tyres from the site and
transfer them to an authorised facility
30 June 2019
An application for costs was also made against the Council; this was refused.
Source: Roger Howe
Planning Legal Manager
Ext. 6016
Development Committee
125
7 April 2016
APPENDIX 4
Development Committee
126
7 April 2016
Development Committee
127
7 April 2016