OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 7 AUGUST 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BACTON - PF/14/0582 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
one and a half-storey dwelling with attached garage and garden shed;
Woodlands, Mill Road, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs Derby
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 July 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19781398 HR - Alterations and extension
Approved 27/10/1978
PF/13/1114 PF - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and outbuildings and erection
of one and a half storey replacement dwelling and detached garage
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/11/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling.
Amended plans have been received which have been re-advertised and re-consulted
upon. The site notice expires on 8 August 2014.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barry Smith having regard to the following issues:
 Proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site
 Design is inappropriate for this location
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the following grounds (summarised);
 Site is within a landscape of high amenity and can be viewed from far away,
including approximately 1 mile to the east from Old Hall Road. Readily viewed
from Bacton Woods, which lies some 220 yards away
 Existing dwelling is modest and consistent with the sparse distribution of
dwellings along Mill Road. Materials are in keeping with the area (red clay
pantiles and render)
 Proposed materials are alien to the architectural tradition of this area and would
look unsightly. Whilst zinc can be used in such developments it is not a
geographically local material
Development Committee
1
7 August 2014









Level of glazing is not sensitive to flying birds
Building would be substantially larger and have a much greater overall surface
area
Design has a utilitarian character
Position of dwelling closer to the south eastern boundary would further increase
the impact upon the Countryside
Gravel within the driveway would create unwelcome additional noise
Design and Access statement states that the previous application attracted no
objection from the Parish Council. Whilst this is true, local objections were
received and the only member of the Parish Council from Edingthorpe objected
No mention is made in the Design and Access Statement of the impact of the
dwelling to the south east
Development along Mill Road is limited to a sparse distribution of mainly modest
size dwellings, very different in form, layout and materials to the proposed
Development would fail to respect its surroundings and the built traditions of this
part of Edingthorpe
Comments awaited in respect of amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection received from 6 dwellings and 2 letters of support received
during the consultation period of the first site notice. Issues raised by the objectors
(summarised):
 Proposed new building is totally out of keeping with the character of the area and
would be an eyesore; roofline would be too high, shape would be far too complex
and the materials are more suited to industrial sites
 Footprint of the building is much too large for the site and unnecessary - over
double that of the majority of the properties situated on Mill Road (most of which
are single storey). Would result in overdevelopment
 Proposal has no aesthetic integrity and would look ridiculously untidy
 Design more suitable for a suburban area
 The number of separate elements of the dwelling do not lend themselves to sit
comfortably within the rural landscape
 Any development in this area should be single storey and feature elements of
rural structures
 The landscape value is high; gently rolling and containing woodland. The site is
exposed and therefore sensitive, in clear view of the public.
 By building the new dwelling so close to Rosy Lodge it would be an unbearable
intrusion into their privacy; building and access should be sited to the far end of
the site if permission is granted. Siting could enable a further dwelling to be built
in the site
 A building this size would cause huge disruption and chaos both during and post
construction, particular if a business is to be run from there
 Construction vehicles are likely to damage the grass verge along the side of the
Road, within which several windflowers grow
 Large gravel driveway would create high level of noise and air pollution from all
the traffic associated with the new dwelling
 Proposal would suggest a large occupancy and thus an increase in traffic in what
is a quiet and environmentally sensitive location
 Mill Road may no longer be considered a 'Quiet Zone'.
 The road has got noticeable busier of the last couple of years and this proposal
would only increase this
 Impact upon the value and resale of the adjacent property (Rosy Lodge)
Development Committee
2
7 August 2014






Dwelling would create overshadowing for the neighbour's rear garden and for
their PV panels on their rear roof slope
None of the trees on the site should be damaged, trimmed or changed in anyway
Owners of Rosy Lodge work to provide habitats for wildlife. Grass snakes have
been recent visitors. The snakes may have travelled through the applicant's site
Would find it difficult to establish a similar garden to their existing garden if they
moved (Rosy Lodge)
Amount of glass is a terrible danger to birds and bats, both of which are present
in Bacton woods
Maybe public rights of way running over and to the east of the site (not recorded
on the definitive map).
Issues in support (summarised):
 Proposed property looks like a breath of fresh air for the area
 Design would fit in well with the large site, with the glass elements reflecting its
surroundings
 Good design is needed in the Countryside to enhance the area; and this would
be an inspiration
 The current building is likely not to be environmentally friendly and whilst some
extensions could be made, these would result in a blot on the landscape
 The current design is modern and would blend into the site (e.g. dark tiles and
slates would blend with the dark leaves of the trees that surround the land of the
property)
 The new dwelling should be more environmentally friendly
 Recognise that some people don't like change, but this is not change for the sake
of change; thought has gone into the design
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions.
Environmental Health - No objection. Requested a note to be added regarding the
requirement for a notice of demolition to be given.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Committee
3
7 August 2014
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Scale of proposed dwelling
3. Design of proposed dwelling
4. Relationship with neighbouring property.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the village of Edingthorpe, just south of the part known as
Edingthorpe Green. The village falls within designated Countryside and thus falls
under Policy SS 2. A replacement dwelling is considered to be acceptable in principle
under this policy.
The site is located north west of Bacton Woods and has only one immediate
neighbour, sited to the north east. The rest of the site is surrounded by agricultural
fields. The site contains a 1930's bungalow sited to the north eastern side of the plot,
with the external materials render, red clay pantiles and dark wood stained timber
fenestration. The proposed replacement dwelling would be 1 1/2 storey in height and
of a contemporary design.
The amended plans serve to reduce the impact upon the immediate neighbours by
reducing the scale of the garage. This serves to reduce the height from 6.2m to 5.8m
and to increase the distance from the boundary from a minimum of 2.63m to 3.16m.
Policy HO 8 requires that replacement dwellings in the Countryside would not result
in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling,
and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of
the surrounding countryside. The current footprint of the bungalow is 140 sqm, with
the proposed dwelling's footprint 270 sqm. The new proposal includes an attached
double garage, whereas the existing dwelling has a single detached garage (with a
footprint of 27 sqm). The bungalow does not appear to have been extended, and
could therefore be extended to both sides and to the rear under Permitted
Development. The existing bungalow measures 5.5m in height, with the proposed
dwelling measuring between 4.8m and 6.9m.
The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal can be
constructed with minimal works to the trees. With the existing trees retained, together
with the additive design, the impact of the dwelling upon the wider countryside would
be reduced. With no set character of the built environment within the local area and
the plot large enough to readily accommodate a dwelling of this size the increase in
the scale is not considered to be out of character or disproportionate. Whilst the
replacement dwelling is larger than the existing dwelling, on balance it is considered
acceptable under Policy HO8.
Development Committee
4
7 August 2014
Policy EN 4 states that new development should be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does
not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
In addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers. This part of Edingthorpe is sparsely
populated with no distinctive character linked to the built environment. However the
dwellings are generally detached and on relatively generous plots. The designs are
varied, in terms of age, style, size and siting. There are currently no contemporary
dwellings in the immediate area. The only immediate neighbour's property is a red
brick bungalow with low pitched roofs, finished with red clay pantiles.
The site itself is relatively secluded, with mature vegetation throughout the site. The
dwelling has been designed in an additive form in order to reduce its impact upon the
wider countryside. The volume closer to the road has been kept smaller. The
dwelling would be largely finished in red brick on the ground floor, timber cladding to
the first floor and plain tiles or slates to the roof. A zinc clad gable ended section
would be located to the rear of the dwelling (south east). All fenestration would be
painted timber. Whilst the design is not typical for Edingthorpe the low roof pitches,
red bricks and use of timber would help it to tie into the existing character of the area.
The use of zinc cladding and plain tiles or slates is, in relation to the modern design,
considered to be acceptable in this instance.
By moving the garage further away from the only neighbour the impact upon them
would be reduced. The garage would be sited in line with the neighbour's own
garage (single storey) and be a minimum of 7.2m from their rear garden. Designed
with the pitch running away from neighbours, the ridge would be 10.6m from the
garden. Located south west of the neighbours there is anticipated to be some degree
of overshadowing. However due to the distance this is expected to be relatively
minor. In addition the neighbouring dwelling is also surrounded by agricultural fields,
with fields to their south, east and north. There are no windows along this elevation
which could cause any undue overlooking. The proposal is therefore considered to
comply with Policy EN 4 in respect of design and the relationship with the
neighbouring property.
Policy EN 6 requires that all new development will be required to demonstrate how it
minimises resource consumption, minimises energy consumption compared to the
current minimum required under part L of the Building Regulations, and how it is
located and designed to withstand the longer term impacts of climate change. Whilst
a Sustainability Construction Checklist has been submitted outlining how the
proposed dwelling may meet these requirements, a condition would be added to
require the dwelling to achieve at least a 3 star rating under the Code for Sustainable
Homes. The dwelling has been designed to benefit from solar gain, with large
sections of glazing sited to the south east.
The site is of sufficient size to readily accommodate the dwelling and the proposal is
not considered to be an overdevelopment.
As previously mentioned the site is well screened and the submitted Arboricultural
Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal can be constructed with minimal
works to the trees. The Landscape Officer has no objection subject to conditions and
Policy EN 2 can be complied with.
The submitted Bat Survey report indicates that no bat roosts were found at the site.
However it does state that the site falls within a well used bat commuting and
Development Committee
5
7 August 2014
foraging route, therefore it is not unreasonable to anticipate that the site is used for
occasional roosts. The works have potential to impact upon bats should they use the
bungalow for occasional roosts. As such suitable precautions should be taken during
the build, together with mitigation works. The Landscape Officer has no objection
subject to conditions and Policy EN 9 can be complied with.
As a 5 bedroom dwelling the Parking Standards set out within Appendix C of the
Core Strategy state that a minimum of 3 parking spaces would be provided. Whilst
the garage, at 6m by 6m, is not large enough to count as parking (minimum 7m
deep), there is enough space within the driveway area to park 3 cars. As such Policy
CT 6 is considered to be complied with.
It is considered that the proposal generally accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, unless any new material considerations are raised prior to the
consultation period expiring (8 August 2014).
2.
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/0641 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to nine
dwellings, erection of replacement dwelling, screened car port and walkers'
refuge; Beeston Hall Farm, Cromer Road for Timewell Properties Ltd trading as
Blue Sky Leisure
Major Development
- Target Date: 26 August 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
09/0849
PF - Conversion of agricultural buildings to nine units of holiday
accommodation, bunk barn and two craft units, refurbishment of two dwellings and
erection of stables - Approved 28/10/2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion/extension of a range of traditional farm buildings to nine
residential dwellings, and a replacement of an existing residential unit at the rear of
the farmhouse.
Unit 1 would involve the conversion and extension of a concrete framed building to
the north western corner of the site to a single storey, 3 bedroom dwelling having a
floor area in the region of 172 sq. metres.
Unit 2 would involve the conversion of part of the main barn and replacement of a
single storey outbuilding, now demolished, to a 4 bedroom dwelling having a floor
area in the region of 175 sq. metres.
Units 3, 4 & 5 would involve the conversion of the main barn at the centre of the site,
which is of coursed flint work with red brick quoins under a corrugated asbestos roof,
Development Committee
6
7 August 2014
to three - two storey units, each having two bedrooms. Unit 3 would have a floor area
in the region of 120 sq. metres, Unit 4 105 sq. metres and Unit 5 100 sq. metres.
Units 6 and 7 would be single storey and involve the conversion/extension of an “L”
building to the southern gable end of the main barn, part of which has been
demolished. Unit 6 would have a floor area in the region of 95 sq. metres and have
three bedrooms whilst Unit 7, would have two bedrooms and a floor area of some 70
sq. metres.
Units 8 and 9 would involve the conversion of a linear form stable building at the
southern end of the site, which is of flint work construction under a clay pantiles roof
to two - three bedroom units, each of which would have a floor area in the region of
95 sq. metres. The upper floor of the building would be lit by four dormer windows to
the southern elevation, matching an existing dormer to this elevation.
Replacement residential unit - this would involve the total demolition of a two storey,
three bedroom, flint and red brick cottage, to the rear eastern elevation of the main
farmhouse, which is in poor structural condition, and its replacement with a dwelling
having a similar floor area and overall proportions.
As part of the scheme of conversion the main barn would be re-roofed in clay
pantiles, whilst other new build elements would be of flint work and red brick quoins
to match the main barn with the roofs of clay pantiles. All external joinery would be
painted softwood.
In addition as part of the scheme a single storey outbuilding to the frontage of the
site, which abuts the access driveway, would be converted 6 covered car parking
spaces and cycle store and also a shelter for walkers using the public footpath, which
is part of the Norfolk Coast Path National Trail.
As far as the landscaping of the site is concerned, although there would be hard
landscaping between the main barn and the covered parking area, the majority of the
site would be laid to mown grass interspersed with new hedging and trees. In
addition, a landscaped surface water drainage basin is proposed to the western side
of the access driveway, within the existing field.
Amended plans have been received show a reduction in the number of roof lights.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Sweeney have regards to the concerns of the Parish
Council in respect of the potential impact of the development on the Norfolk Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
PARISH COUNCIL
Beeston Regis Parish Council - Object on the grounds that the development would
result in urbanization within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including off site highway improvement works to the junctions
with the A149 Cromer Road and the provision of on-site car parking.
Development Committee
7
7 August 2014
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – Given
that a similar scheme has previously been granted and the principle of most of the
physical works established there is no substantive Conservation and Design
objection. However, the number of roof lights appears to have increased from the
earlier scheme and would surely dominate the development. Conservation and
Design would therefore welcome a rationalization of the roof lights, particularly to the
most visible western slope of the main barn, thereby reducing the visual clutter.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions
National Trust, East of England Regional Office - No response
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Considers that the proposal it is likely to improve the
overall appearance of the site and conserve this group of vernacular buildings largely
in their original farmstead context, which would be consistent with most parts of
Policy HO9 and with the AONB Management Plan. However a conditions to restrict
permitted development would be advantageous in preventing a cluttered appearance
developing through erection of sheds and other structures. In addition, they are
disappointed to the fact that the Council‟s Housing Delivery Incentives Scheme would
mean that this development in the AONB would not make any contribution to
affordable housing, as required by part 5 of HO9. Affordable housing remains an
important issue for the coastal area in particular and a driver for much of the housing
allocations in the AONB under the Local Plan. The AONB is clearly an attractive area
for developers and allowing such exemptions increases the opportunities of market
housing here, with the potential for gradual cumulative impacts on the undeveloped
landscape character of the AONB impacting on the qualities that underpin the very
important tourism sector of the local economy – but without the community benefits
of affordable housing.
Ramblers Association - No response
Open Spaces Society – Objection on the grounds that the buildings are in an
extremely sensitive, rural location, within the designated Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), adjacent to a public byway which forms part of
the Peddars Way and Norfolk Coast Path National Trail, and close to registered
common land, too. Compared to the previous scheme which was restricted to
holiday use only, the proposed conversion would create a much more substantial
change, in terms of the character of the buildings, and traffic flows. Of particular
concern is the increase in traffic which would be brought about by the development
and the additional movements, between the site and the A149 involving the same
route as the restricted byway (Beeston Regis RB4) and National Trail, a route which
also runs alongside a publicly accessible piece of registered common land of high
amenity value. The significant extra motor traffic, would adversely affect the public's
safe and quiet enjoyment of the route.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the submission of a detailed
landscaping scheme and the removal of Permitted Development Rights in respect of
the erection of buildings and structures within the curtilage of the site and boundary
treatments.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions relating to the removal of asbestos from the site and potential
contamination.
Development Committee
8
7 August 2014
Public Rights of Way - No objection
Building Control - No objection
Norfolk Fire Service - No objection subject to the imposition of an appropriate
condition requiring the submission of details for the provision of a water supply for
firefighting operations.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the 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 1: Dwelling Mix and Type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
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 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).
North Norfolk District Council Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development.
2. Impact on the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Highway Safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated in the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies HO1, HO8, HO9, EN1,
Development Committee
9
7 August 2014
EN4, CT5 and CT6 are considered to be relevant as is the North Norfolk District
Council Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme.
Policy HO1 requires that unless it is demonstrated that a proposal will address a
specific identified local need for sheltered / supported accommodation, all new
housing developments, including the conversion of existing buildings to dwellings,
shall meet the following criteria:

On schemes of three or four dwellings at least one dwelling shall comprise not
more than 70 sq. metres internal floor space and incorporate two bedrooms or
fewer; and on schemes of five or more dwellings at least 40% of the total number
of dwellings shall comprise such dwellings; and

On schemes of five or more dwellings at least 20% of dwellings shall be suitable
or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the
area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal would
not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling, and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
countryside for permanent residential purposes where the building is within an area
identified on the Proposal Map for that purpose or is worthy of retention due to its
appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. In addition, the development
should accord with the criteria contained in 4 & 5 of the Policy. That is the scheme is
of an appropriate scale in terms of the number of dwellings proposed for the location
and where it is viable to do so, on all schemes resulting in two or more units, not less
than 50% of the total number of dwellings proposed are affordable. However the
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme does wavier this requirement on schemes of
conversion of buildings of up to 9 units where an applicant is agreeable to a condition
requiring the scheme to be implemented within one year of the date of the
permission.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect,
on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully
assessed. Development will be permitted where it does not detract from the special
qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads. In addition opportunities for
remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set; ensure that the scale and massing
of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area; and retain existing
important landscaping and natural features. In addition, proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and
new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require development to be designed to reduce the need to
travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its
particular location. In addition, proposals should provide for safe and convenient
access on foot, cycle, public and private transport addressing the needs of all,
including those with a disability and be capable of being served by safe access to the
highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality. Whilst
Development Committee
10
7 August 2014
there should be adequate car parking facilities to serve the needs of the
development.
In 2009 planning permission was granted, under delegated powers, for the
conversion of the former agricultural buildings at Hall Farm to nine units of holiday
accommodation, a bunk barn, two craft units and stables. Part of that scheme
involved the demolition of some 886 sq. metres of sub-standard farm buildings and
lean to structures and the conversion and retention of the remaining 1052 sq. m of
traditional farm buildings. In addition, the scheme allowed for the construct of 214 sq.
metres of new building on existing footings together with a further 180 sq. metres of
new building, and the refurbishment of two dwellings on the site. The proposal also
involved the creation of a total of 28 parking spaces, cycle storage, refuse areas,
children‟s play area, pond and other communal garden areas together with additional
tree planting. In granting permission it was considered that the site which is set in a
fairly prominent open landscape to the north of the Cromer ridge with long views of
the site from Roman Camp and National Trust land, would be an enhancement.
Since that time the sub-standard buildings have been demolished and the site
cleared and as such the permission for the conversion of the building for holiday use
could be implemented at any time.
In terms of the latest proposal the footprint of the buildings together with their overall
scale and massing remain unaltered. The principle changes being that what was
proposed as the bunk barn would become a covered car parking area and the
building which would have housed the craft units would be demolished. Whilst the
building to the northern western corner of the site that was intended for stabling,
would become Unit 1. In addition, the drainage pond which was proposed adjacent to
the eastern boundary would now be to the west of the barns, the children play area
deleted and the amount of hard surfacing and car parking areas reduced.
It is therefore considered that the latest proposal would result in a simplified scheme
and that given the extant permission which involved elements of new build that the
current proposal would accord with the requirements of Policy H09 as not only is the
site within an area identified on the Proposal Map the majority of the remaining
buildings are worthy of retention due to their appearance and landscape value.
Furthermore, the applicant has indicated that he wishes to take advantage of the
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme which negates the need for affordable housing
and the need to comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes.
As far as Policy HO1 is concerned, this would require that four of the dwellings have
an internal floor space of 70 sq. metres and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer.
Whilst Unit 7 would comply with these policy requirements, the other two bedroom
Units 3, 4 and 5 would have an internal floor space ranging from 100 to 120 sq.
metres. Whilst the preamble to Policy HO1 does not define what comprises internal
floor space; although not directly related, the reference to amenity criteria contained
in the North Norfolk Design Guide, in the case of flat conversions, refers to internal
space as being habitable floor area (i.e.) internal measurements of all living and
kitchen areas, excluding toilets, bathrooms and circulations areas. Based on this
criteria Unit 3 would have a habitable floor area of 84 sq. metres, Unit 4 and 5 60 sq.
metres. It is therefore considered that although Unit 3 does not comply this would not
constitute grounds to refuse the application. However it is accepted that in the event
of the application being approved, unless permitted development rights are removed
there could be scope to extend the properties without the need for planning
permission.
Development Committee
11
7 August 2014
Turning to the proposed replacement dwelling given that its footprint, scale and
massing would be very similar to the building it would replace it is considered that
this would comply with the requirements of Policy HO8.
In terms of the concerns raised by Beeston Regis Parish Council regarding the
potential effects of the development on the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, as outlined above the footprint of the buildings together with their
overall scale and massing remain unaltered. Furthermore, in terms of landscaping
the latest proposals would result in a simplified and less cluttered scheme. As a
result subject to the use of clay pantiles of an appropriate colour it is not considered
that the development would be unduly prominent in the landscape when viewed from
the south and east from where there are only long views of the site, Whilst from the
access driveway/public footpath to the west only the roof scape of the buildings
would be visible, due to Hall Farmhouse and the frontage building to the site, which
from the west would remain virtually unaltered. It is therefore considered that overall
the scheme is acceptable and would not detract from the special qualities of the Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would conserve the special qualities of the area.
This view has been confirmed by the Council‟s Landscape Officer who has raised no
objection to the proposal.
As far as the access and parking arrangements are concerned the Highways
Authority has confirmed that given the previous permission on the site, subject to the
improved junction layout where the site access meets the A149 Cromer Road there
is no objection to the scheme. Whilst in terms of the parking provision there would be
two parking spaces per unit plus four visitor spaces which would comply with the
parking standards contained in the Core Strategy.
The County Council (Highways and Footpath Officer) have raised no objection in
relation to potential impact on users of the national trail.
It is therefore considered that overall the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy. However in order to safeguard the visual amenities of the
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is suggested that in the event of
the application being approved that Permitted Development Rights be removed. This
would prevent any enlargement or other alterations to the dwellings and the erection
of any building, structure or means of enclosure within the curtilage of the site without
planning permission having first been granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including the removal of Permitted Development Rights and a
requirement that the scheme be implemented within one year of the date of the
permission.
3.
HOVETON - PF/14/0539 - Erection of an attached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive, Hoveton for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
Minor Development
- Target Date: 26 June 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Development Committee
12
7 August 2014
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740171
PO - Erection of one detached residence and double garage
(outline)
Approved 17/05/1974
PLA/19771706 HR - Erection of house and garage
Approved 21/03/1978
PF/12/0216 PF - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Refused 29/10/2012 D 15/10/2013
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two storey dwelling attached to the applicant's house.
The dwelling would be a one bedroom two storey dwelling within the existing garden
of the applicant's dwelling. It would be attached to the western gable.
The existing house is sited on the eastern side of the curtilage with the largest part of
the garden to the west. The plot would be on this western part of the garden,
extending to the boundary with 26 Waveney Drive to the west and to the A1062 to
the south.
The submitted plans show the creation of a semi-detached dwelling joined to the
applicant's existing dwelling. The dwelling would follow the existing roof and wall
lines of the applicant's dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Dixon, having regard to the following planning matters;
1. Plot size
2. Impact upon the character and appearance of the area
3. Failure to comply with Policy EN 4 or paragraph 58 of the NPPF
PARISH COUNCIL
Do not object to the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
8 letters of representation received, 4 supporting and 4 objecting.
Issued raised by the objectors;
1. Proposal is out of character and would result in unacceptable harm to the
character and appearance of the area
2. Main reason for moving to the road was the spaciousness between the properties
and the open gardens at the front
3. Proposed dwelling would occupy a much narrower plot than existing properties
nearby, creating a more closely spaced pattern of development and a more built
up appearance
4. Most of the front garden would be taken up with access and parking areas,
leaving little room for landscaping
5. Proposal would conflict with Policy EN 4 and paragraph 58 of the NPPF
Issued raised by the supporters;
1. The new build will not look out of place
2. Would feel more comfortable having a neighbour nearer, as opposed to a large
space between her property and the neighbours
3. Cannot understand why people it does not affect can object
4. Cannot understand why the last application was not passed
5. Site looks like a building plot
Development Committee
13
7 August 2014
6. Believes that the original intention of the builder was for the whole area to be just
bungalows. However number 17 was built (a two storey dwelling), and the owner
of the site brought the area opposite (28 and the application site) which was two
building plots. Only one dwelling was however built (28). An additional dwelling at
the site would complete the estate. The essence of the estate was for open plan
front gardens, however the site does not have this. If the application is approved
an open plan front garden would be introduced, bringing the site into the
character of the area.
7. Not all the bungalows on the estate have wide plots as stated by one objector;
the plans of the estate have been altered to allow more bungalows to be built on
narrow plots
8. Siting a new dwelling here is better than siting it on good agricultural land
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highway Authority) - no objection. Conditions should be
added to ensure the proposed parking and access is suitably provided and no access
is available from Horning Road.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the area
3. Design
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Hoveton, where new dwellings
are acceptable in principle under Policy SS 3, subject to compliance with other Core
Strategy policies.
The previous application (PF/12/0216) for a detached two-storey dwelling was
refused and dismissed on appeal, on the grounds of unacceptable harm that would
be caused to the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector took the view
Development Committee
14
7 August 2014
that the proposal would give this part of Waveney Drive a more built up appearance,
by virtue of the width of the plot, the dwelling's scale and massing and the low level
of landscaping to the front of the property. This application seeks to address these
concerns. A copy of the Inspector's decision is attached as Appendix 1.
The new dwelling has been designed to have the appearance of an extension to the
existing dwelling as opposed to a new dwelling. The materials would match, together
with details such as the soldier bricks atop the fenestration openings. The entrance
would be from the western elevation of the house instead of the front (northern
elevation). The parking would be sited to the western side, allowing for a more open
plan frontage. The width of the dwelling would be 8.1m, with the width of the plot
varying between 12m and 18m.
This part of Hoveton contains a mixture of detached residential properties in terms of
size and style. However the majority of dwellings in Waveney Drive appear to date
from the 1960's. The siting of the dwellings and plot sizes are varied along the road,
but in the immediate area there are several dwellings on fairly large plots, which are
sited near the centre of their curtilages. Further north and north-east plot sizes
quickly become more varied and both properties and plots are generally smaller. In
addition new dwellings have recently been permitted to the south of Waveney Drive
along Church Road, reducing the size of the curtilage of 30 Church Road.
To the west of the site lies a chalet bungalow and directly opposite a 2 storey
dwelling. The house to the east (28 Waveney Drive) has an attached garage only 3m
from the road. The proposed dwelling would be attached to the existing dwelling, but
with no garage to the front it would be set back just over 10m from the road. Creating
a pair of semi-detached dwellings, the roof ridge would continue in line with number
28.
Designed to have the appearance of a single dwelling on the plot and retaining
sufficient space around it, the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the form
and character of the area, under Policy EN4.
The rear garden is more than the footprint of the dwelling, complying with the
guidance within the Design Guide. In addition, as a south facing garden it is
reasonable to expect the majority of it to be substantially free from shading during the
year.
In terms of the impact upon neighbouring dwellings the only neighbours directly
affected would be the immediate neighbours on either side. As the dwelling would
not extend beyond the line of the attached dwelling (the applicants' property), no
overshadowing is anticipated. The neighbouring dwelling to the west is sited a
minimum of 11.5m away, with the boundary being served with a boarded fence some
1m high together with vegetation, varying in height between approximately 2m and
6m which provides an almost continuous barrier. Vegetation falls both within the
development site and the neighbouring site. With south facing rear gardens the
impact on neighbours in terms of overshadowing is considered to be acceptable
under Policy EN 4.
In terms of overlooking only an obscure glazed window is proposed on the first floor
of the western elevation, together with the front door on the ground floor. Windows to
the front (north) elevation and rear (south) elevations cause no concern regarding
overlooking. Two pairs of a window and door are sited within the western elevation of
the applicants‟ house. These serve a utility room and garage. They would face a
close boarded boundary fence 1.5m and 1m away respectively. Whilst this distance
Development Committee
15
7 August 2014
is less than the 2.5m required to meet the guidelines for tertiary to blank walls under
the Design Guide Amenity Criteria, the impact of a fence in terms of overshadowing
is considered to be less than a wall. This shortfall is therefore considered to be
acceptable.
Para 58 of the NPPF requires development to respond to the local character and
reflect the identity of local surroundings. Policy EN 4 requires new development to
reinforce local distinctiveness and to preserve or enhance the character of the area.
The alterations from the previous application are considered to further reduce the
impact of the new dwelling upon the character of the area. Whilst is it recognised that
the area has several larger dwellings with larger plots there are also several smaller
plots and dwellings within this area. The removal of parking from the front of the site
would enable the dwelling to have an open frontage comparative to several
neighbouring dwellings. Removal of permitted development for any fencing along the
northern boundary would ensure this is maintained. With the dwelling designed to
appear as an extension the overall appearance would arguable be more of a large
detached dwelling within a large plot. By attaching to the existing dwelling the result
development would not be closely spaced, with 11.5m minimum distance between
the dwelling and the neighbour.
Policies CT 5 and CT 6 aim to ensure that any new development includes sufficient
parking and that any transport impact is acceptable. The proposed dwelling would be
served by a new access from Waveney Drive which would lead onto a driveway with
room for two cars. The parking world be provided to the western side of the dwelling,
with a turning space available to the front of the dwelling. With appropriate conditions
both policies are considered to be complied with.
On balance therefore the size of the plot in relation to the dwelling and the impact of
the dwelling on the overall form and character of the area are considered to be
acceptable. It is considered in this case that the development would not be
significantly out of character with the area. Furthermore the development would not
significantly affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties and would provide
adequate amenity space and parking. The proposal is therefore considered to
comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, with appropriate conditions.
4.
LUDHAM - PF/14/0664 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 14 Catfield
Road for Mr A Tedder
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 July 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
Development Committee
16
7 August 2014
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/0415 PF - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 09/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a two storey dwelling on a plot of land that is currently part of the
garden of 14 Catfield Road. A three bedroom property is proposed with a footprint of
approximately 58 sqm. The dwelling would be set some 12m back from the road
frontage and proposes a shared driveway, parking and turning area with number 14.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Williams having regard to the following planning issue:
Highway safety
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:
 the property is not in keeping with the character of the area
 the road at that point is narrow, with huge congestion issues at school pick
up/drop off times - this property would only add to the issues and would
increase levels of congestion.
 additional traffic and additional properties would exacerbate the current
issues
 the Parish Council recommends any outdoor lights associated with the
proposed development should be:
 fully shielded (enclosed in full glass cut-off fitments)
 directed downwards (mounted horizontally to the ground and not tilted
upwards)
 switched on only when needed (no dusk to dawn lamps)
 whit light low energy lamps (Philips Cosmopolis or fluorescent) and not
orange or pink sodium sources)
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways: Objects, recommends refusal.
This proposal is to be served from Catfield Road (C405) a 4A2 Link Road in the
Norfolk County Council Route Hierarchy which at the point adjacent the application
site is subject to a 30 Mph speed limit. My recent site inspection, carried out outside
of peak travel times, indicates the C405 to be subject to steady intermittent traffic
flows.
The proposal suggests the sub-division of the curtilage of the existing dwelling 14
Catfield Road. Vehicular access to the proposed and existing dwelling will be gained
via a centrally located access point on the sites roadside frontage.
My site inspection reveals the maximum level of visibility from the required 2.4m
setback at the access point to be restricted to some 9m to both the north (traffic
direction) and south. The C405 at this point is a location where it is acceptable to use
visibility guidance provided in 'Manual For Streets' (Communities & Local
Government & Department of Transport (2007)) and from this document and on-site
observation I believe it reasonable to expect a new access at this point to provide
Development Committee
17
7 August 2014
visibility sight lines of 59m X 2.4m x 59m commensurate with 85th Percentile
vehicular speeds of 37Mph.
Visibility is measured from land under the applicants control and highway
verge/footway only, and in this case this amounts to the site roadside frontage
(approximately 14m) and very narrow strip of verge to the north. The submitted
photographs provided in the Design & Access Statement shows visibility both over
land outside of the applicants control and to points within the carriageway rather than
to the nearside carriageway edge which is the correct method.
It is therefore the case that visibility available at the access with the C405 amounts to
only
15% of safety recommendations to both directions.
In addition to the highway safety concerns regarding the acceptability of the access
point, the proposals suggested parking arrangement relies on considerate parking by
occupiers of both dwellings to provide the indicated four spaces. Should all spaces
be occupied it is highly likely that a driver in wishing to exit the site would need to
reverse onto the C405.
Any vehicle reversing from the site would be via an access point that has severely
restricted visibility to both directions.
It also should be noted that to provide any likelihood of on-site turning space the
boundaries between the two dwellings would need to be crossed. Any boundary
treatment between the two dwellings, which potentially could be erected in the future
without planning permission, would make on-site turning impossible for either
dwelling.
A single additional dwelling is considered to engender 8-10 vehicular trips a day
(TRICS), and at this location I see no reason to expect any deviation from these
figures. Taking into account the severely restricted visibility available at the site
access and the constrained layout of the parking and turning facilities which has the
potential to result in unacceptable on-street parking and manoeuvring I must consider
the proposed additional dwelling on this site detrimental to highway safety and
recommend it's refusal for the following reasons:1. Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway Catfield Road (C405) and this would cause danger and
inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway. Contrary to Development
Plan Policies.
2. The proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority. The
proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in
on-street parking and manoeuvring to the detriment to highway safety. Contrary to
Development Plan Policies.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
18
7 August 2014
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
3. Design
4. Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The application seeks the sub-division of the garden of 14 Catfield Road to erect a
detached two storey dwelling. The site lies within a designated residential area where
Policy SS3 permits appropriate residential development subject to compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies. The principle of this proposal is therefore
accepted.
In terms of the proposed design of the building it is considered that the scale and
form respects the character of the area. The relationship with No.14 would fall short
of the design guide criteria for window to blank wall separation distances. No.14 has
a living room window at ground floor on its north elevation and a bathroom and
landing window at first floor. The proposed dwelling would have a facing blank gable.
However the recommended distance between blank wall and window to living room
is 11m. Here approximately 1.6m of separation would be provided. However, the
applicant is in ownership of No.14 and has proposed as part of this application to
obscure glaze the first floor bathroom window and to block up the living room window
and replace with French doors to the eastern elevation thereby somewhat addressing
the conflict with the design guide amenity criteria. It is considered that a condition
could be imposed that would ensure those changes to the fenestration of No.14 were
implemented prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling. A minor shortfall with the
recommended distances would still occur, however given the proposed positioning of
the dwelling, partially set back from the existing dwelling, it is considered that this
relationship would not introduce any significant detriment to the amenity of the
occupiers of No.14 nor that of No.16.
The application follows the withdrawal of application reference 14/0415 which
proposed the dwelling further forward on the site than the current proposal. The
Development Committee
19
7 August 2014
Highway Authority raised concerns over 14/0415 and requested submission of
suitably scaled plans to address matters of access visibility and on-site parking and
turning provision. The applicant withdrew that application to address the highway
concerns.
The revised application proposes to position the dwelling further back into the site to
provide a greater area for parking and turning. The Highway Authority (see
consultations above) considers that the revised proposal does not satisfactorily
address the highway safety concerns and recommends refusal of the application on
the grounds of inadequate visibility splays and inadequate parking and turning
facilities (for both the proposed and existing dwelling).
It was queried that the original Highway Authority advice referred to a minimum of
43m x 2.4m x 43m visibility splay yet the response to this proposal requires 59m x
2.4m x 59m. The Highway officer further advised that the original figures were
minimum sightline distance for vehicles travelling at 30mph under the Manual for
Streets Guidance (MfS). It is considered that the response to this application is more
detailed and with an expectation that actual 85th Percentile vehicle speed in the
vicinity of the site would be above the 30mph limit the actual visibility splay
requirement 59m x 2.4m x 59m is given, which under MfS equates to a 85th
Percentile speed of 37mph. If the applicant disputes that this speed (37mph) is
correct it is open to them to commission a traffic survey to establish definite speed.
Notwithstanding this the Highway Authority consider that the site access sightlines do
not comply with either of the speed standards.
The Parish Council have raised objection on the grounds of highway safety, relating
to level of additional traffic generated, adding to current problems of congestion in the
vicinity.
The applicant has advised that it is his intention to provide the dwelling for rent to a
local family at a reasonable rent which he states is sorely needed. No indication or
undertaking has been given as to what he considers to be a 'reasonable rent'. He
considers that this should be a material consideration that outweighs the Highway
Authority's objection.
Officers do not agree that this outweighs the highway concerns.
Given the above it is considered that the proposal has failed to demonstrate
compliance with Core Strategy policies CT5 and CT6 and therefore a dwelling on this
site would be detrimental to highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
1. Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with
the County highway Catfield Road (C405) and this would cause danger and
inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway. Contrary to
development plan policy CT5.
2. The proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning
Authority. The proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an
undesirable increase in on-street parking and manoeuvring to the detriment of
highway safety. Contrary to development plan policy CT6.
Development Committee
20
7 August 2014
5.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
April to July 2014, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 2) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the first quarter of 2014/15
Eleven major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 148 minor
applications and 198 other applications, a total of 357 applications, an increase of 65
compared with the previous quarter.
Members will recall from the discussion at the January 2013 Development
Committee meeting the strenuous efforts being made to determine planning
applications more quickly in the light of the possibility of „special measures‟ sanctions
being introduced by the Government under its open „Planning Performance and
Planning Guarantee‟ proposals, which were the subject of consultation at the end of
2012.
The most recent quarter saw 8 of the 11 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, ie 72.73%. The cumulative figure for 2013/14 is 76.92%
comfortably above the 40% figure now proposed for special measures by the
Government.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance increased by 6.33% to 62.16% over the
previous quarter, as against the Council‟s target of 72%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance increased by 5.55% to
81.31%, above the Council‟s target of 80%.
Members will appreciate that performance has improved significantly over the last 3
quarters.
Pre-application enquiries increased from the previous quarter. Discharge of
Condition applications and „Do I Need Planning Permission” enquires were down.
Duty Officer were the same.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went up to 94.68%; continuing
to be above the Council‟s target.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 13
decisions were made, 8 dismissed and 5 allowed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 614 were submitted and handled during
the quarter, an increase of 96 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the first quarter of the year has again seen an improvement in
performance, as the Service continues to see the benefits of the investment the
Council has made with the additional temporary planning officer posts and as their
experience has grown. The Service, however, is about to go into a period of change
with a restructuring, one officer changing roles, two others leaving the Authority and
Development Committee
21
7 August 2014
the summer holidays are approaching. This will undoubtedly impact on performance
in the short term, however, steps are being taken to try and minimise that impact.
(Source: Andy Mitchel, Development Manager ext 6149)
6.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/14/0619 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Seabrink,
Beach Road, Bacton, Norwich for Mr W & Mrs E Coombe & Hay
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/14/0651 - Increase roof height; Laneside, Sandy Lane, Bacton,
Norwich for Mr K Robinson
(Householder application)
BARSHAM - PF/14/0549 - Retention of garden room; 3 Old Farm Court,
Fakenham Road, East Barsham, Fakenham for Mr L Elliott
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/0632 - Removal of Condition 10 of planning permission
reference:03/0568 to permit full residential occupation; Street Farm Barn,
Irstead Street, Irstead for Mr A Habgood
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/0654 - Erection of stable block and detached hay
store; Land at Beeston Hall Farm, Cromer Road for Timewell Properties Ltd
trading as Blue Sky Leisure
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/14/0403 - Construction of rear dormer; Catslide Cottage, 5 Front
Street for Mr R Turner
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/14/0607 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 14 Langham Road
for Mr M Jeffery
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0652 - Erection of porch and insertion of rooflight to front
roof slope; Plot 3, adjacent 1 Pyes Close, Morston Road for Mr R Bent
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0596 - Erection of 1.7 metre high flood protection wall; Red
Lodge, The Quay, Blakeney for Mr and Mrs A Faulkner
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0597 - Erection of 1.7 metre high flood protection wall; Red
Lodge, The Quay for Mr and Mrs A Faulkner
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0657 - Installation of 16 solar panels; The Merchants House,
86 High Street, Blakeney for Mr Marris
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
22
7 August 2014
BODHAM - PF/14/0671 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning permission ref:
01/1431 to permit change to 1.4m wide footway to front of plot 2; Plot 2, John
William Way for Prince Plant
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - PF/14/0674 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission ref:
03/1689 to permit erection of 1.8m timber fence to front boundary of Plots 1 & 2;
Plots1 & 2, Cromer Road, Bodham for Mr & Mrs Prince
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - PF/14/0701 - Erection of two-storey side/front extension; 4 Cromer
Road for Mr L Perrott
(Householder application)
BODHAM - NMA2/14/0035 - Non material amendment request to permit to
increase width of windows in rear elevation, insertion of window to side
elevation and omission of door.; Plot 2, John William Way for Prince Plant
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRININGHAM - PF/13/1076 - Change of use of agricultural barn to residential
dwelling; Hall Farm, Dereham Road, Briningham for Harold Jones Farm Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/14/0687 - Installation of dormer window to facilitate conversion of
loft to habitable accommodation; Karammel, 7 West End for Ms Travers
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/14/0766 - Erection of rear conservatory; 16 West End, Briston,
Melton Constable for Mrs Bash
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/14/0486 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions with
balconies; Rose Cottage, Fenside, Catfield for Mr & Miss Tucker & Barry
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA3/13/0256 - Non material amendment request to
permit increase in size of single-storey front extension, alteration to front
windows of side extension and installation of external staircase; Riverside
House, High Street for Mr A Livsey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0668 - Demolition of two garages and erection of
detached double garage; Two Wooden Garages, The Fairstead for Mr S Young
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0660 - Erection one and a half storey side extension; 23
Hillside, Cromer for Mr & Mrs Jonas
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0679 - Installation of dormer window to rear of office building;
Cromer Crab Factory, 33 Holt Road, Cromer for Structure-Flex Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
23
7 August 2014
CROMER - NMA1/14/0573 - Non material amendment request to permit
extending front elevation of proposed two-storey side extension to be level with
existing building; 18 Grove Road for Mr R Moore
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - PF/14/0542 - Installation of replacement windows and wall cladding;
RNLI End Of Pier, Promenade for RNLI (Trading) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/14/0575 - Installation of replacement windows and wall cladding;
RNLI End Of Pier, Promenade, Cromer for RNLI (Trading) Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/13/1479 - Non material amendment request to permit
revised layout of proposed porch and installation of single pitch roof; School
House, Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Milford
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/0686 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extension;
The Pightles, Rectory Road, Edgefield for Ms S Allsopp
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/14/0676 - Erection of workshop; Chapel House, Chapel Road
for Mr J Claxton
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PO/14/0566 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Former
Playground, Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham for Fakenham Town Council
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0591 - Erection of lean-to extension; Berendsen UK Ltd,
Holt Road for Berendsen UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0708 - Change of use from B1 (business)/B8 (storage) to A1
(retail); 11 George Edwards Road for The Original Factory Shop
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0399 - Erection of single-storey extension and conversion
to residential dwelling; 12 Market Place for B & L Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/14/0400 - Internal alterations and erection of extension; 12
Market Place for B & L Properties Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0649 - Removal of 3 portable chilled storage unit and
erection of replacement refrigerated storage building; Hain Frozen Foods, Holt
Road for Hain Daniels Group
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/14/0105 - Installation of field drains; The Hall, Felbrigg Park,
Felbrigg for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
24
7 August 2014
FELBRIGG - NMA1/09/1200 - Non material amendment request to permit garage
roof gable to turn 90° to east/west position and insertion of windows to south
elevation; Middlemarch, Metton Road for Mr G Mann
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/0187 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference; 07/1437 to permit revised foul drainage arrangements; Land at
Goulders Lane, off North Walsham Road, Felmingham for Dove Jeffery Homes
Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0565 - Variation of Condition 10 of planning permission
reference: 05/1634 to permit full residential occupation; Units 4 & 5 Hall Farm
Barns, Hall Road, Gimingham for Mr M Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0610 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 10/1103 to permit revised parking layout, amendments to design,
window arrangements and internal layout; Barn 3, Hall Road for Mayes
Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - NMA2/13/0113 - Non material amendment request to permit
installation of single oak post to front elevation of proposed detached
carport/outbuilding; Loke End Cottage, The Loke, Gresham for Mrs M Kirk
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GUNTHORPE - LA/14/0646 - Structural repairs including installation of wall
plates and ties; 21 Swanton Road, Gunthorpe for Albanwise Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0608 - Siting of building to provide ancillary retail sales;
RNLI, Cart Gap Road, Happisburgh for Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0615 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension with accommodation in roof space; Thistledown, North Walsham
Road for Mr S Underwood
(Householder application)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/0406 - Removal of conditions 4, 5 and 6 of planning
permission reference 11/1244 to permit full residential occupation; Becketts
Farm Barns, Baconsthorpe Road, Hempstead for Mr & Mrs Marsh
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - PF/14/0614 - Demolition of rear extension and erection of twostorey side/rear extension and single-storey rear extension; 9 East View,
Raynham Road for Mr & Mrs Dawson
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/14/0691 - Erection of rear porch/conservatory; Cherry Garth,
Cromer Road for Mr M Warner
(Householder application)
Development Committee
25
7 August 2014
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/13/1024 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dimensions of extensions and erection of bin store; Holt Rugby Football Club,
Bridge Road for Holt Rugby Football Club
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HINDRINGHAM - PU/14/0609 - Prior notification of intention to convert barns to
two residential dwellings; Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road, Hindringham
for Norfolk County Council
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
HOLKHAM - PF/14/0560 - Alterations to buildings to provide B1 (business units)
with associated access and car parking; Longlands, Holkham Park, Wells-nextthe-Sea for Viscount Coke Fund
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - LA/14/0561 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
business units; Longlands Holkham Park, Wells-next-the-Sea for Viscount Coke
Fund
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/14/0633 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extensions and detached
garage/home office; Jenis Barn, Thornage Road for Mr & Mrs R Woods
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/0587 - Demolition of garage and outhouse and erection of
single-storey side/rear extension; Picton House, 5 Church Road for Mr C
Jeckells
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/0433 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 26 Stalham
Road for Mr & Mrs C Galloway
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/12/0753 - Erection of double garage with storage above; Manor
Farm View, Bloomstile Lane, Salthouse for Mr A Gray
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/14/0002 - Installation of 450 kw ground-mounted photovoltaic
solar arrays; Bernard Matthews Ltd, Cockthorpe Road for RenEnergy
Installations Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/14/0107 - Revisions to hotel and spa including increasing
bedrooms from 28 to 32, provision of service area, entrance canopy and
covered walkway; The Langham Hotel, The Langham, North Street for Avada
Langham Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/0580 - Conversion of store to
habitable accommodation and erection of single-storey extension; Lowes Barn,
Riverside Road, Letheringsett for Mr & Mrs D Matthews
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/0363 - Erection of wildlifewatching hide/shelter; Land at Bayfield Hall, Bayfield for Mr R Combe
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
26
7 August 2014
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - NP/14/0835 - Prior notification of
intention to erect extension to agricultural building; Meadow Farm Barn,
Letheringsett for R G Carter Farms Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
LITTLE SNORING - PF/14/0665 - Erection of rear first floor extension with
balcony and single-storey side/rear extension; Wickets, Thursford Road, Little
Snoring for Mr and Mrs Price
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - HN/14/0760 - Notification of intention to erect an extension which
would project from the original rear wall by 4.7m and which would have a
maximum height of 3.3m and eaves height of 2.2m; Cherwell, Norwich Road for
Mr M E B Moffat
(Householder Prior Notification)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0685 - Erection of cart shed garages; Culpits
Farm, Hindolveston Road for Oakmoor Limited
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0498 - Erection of single-storey side extension with
accommodation in roof space and raising height of wall; 2A Buxton Road for Mr
R Clarke
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0594 - Erection of replacement storage building; 57A
Mundesley Road, North Walsham for Murrell Cork
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0385 - Removal of Condition 6 and variation of
Condition 7 of planning permission reference: 08/1580 to permit retention of
existing bridge; Land at Folgate Road, Lyngate Industrial Estate, North
Walsham for Southrepps Developments Ltd & Drurys Transport Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0545 - Demolition of Veterinary Centre buildings and
erection of replacement building; 40 Yarmouth Road, North Walsham for
Westover Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0601 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission reference 13/1270 to permit increase in length of extension; Oak
Dene, Anchor Road, Spa Common, North Walsham for Mr C Baker
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0669 - Erection of single storey side extension; 66
Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs P Bean
(Householder application)
PUDDING NORTON - PF/14/0588 - Erection of rear extension to grandstand;
Fakenham Racecourse, Dereham Road for Fakenham Racecourse Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
27
7 August 2014
RAYNHAM - NMA1/13/1166 - Non material amendment request to permit the
erection one cabin to house switch gear connection and one cabin to house
communication/CCTV equipment.; Former Airfield, West Raynham for Good
Energy West Raynham Airfield Solar Park (30) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0365 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land at Keepers
Retreat, Old Turnpike Road, Roughton, Norwich for Mr & Mrs D Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/13/1232 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
replacement two-storey dwelling; The Shambles, 202 Holt Road for Mr & Mrs N
Thomas
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/14/0643 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Woodwinds,
Davey Hill for Mr and Mrs Ridgway
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/14/0675 - Retention of barn/summerhouse; Woodhill House, High
Street, East Runton, Cromer for Mr J Neal
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/14/0642 - Change of use of former munitions stores to B8
storage; Former RAF Coltishall, Lamas Road for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0554 - Erection of detached annexe with accommodation
in roof space; 22A Hooks Hill Road, Sheringham for Mr & Mrs S Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0541 - Installation of side facing dormer window and
attached double garage; 3 Meadow Way for Kelling Construction Co
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/0923 - Non material amendment request to permit relocation of first floor windows of front and rear elevations, removal of inset
porches and installation of external canopies; 47 Station Road, Sheringham for
NL3 Construction & Property Consultancy
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0602 - Continued use of dwelling for a mixed use of
residential/bed and breakfast accommodation; 19 Cromer Road for Mr R J
Edwards
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0662 - Installation of replacement shop front, satellite
dish and air-conditioning unit; 21 Station Road for William Hill Organization
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AI/14/0663 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 21 Station
Road for William Hill Organization Limited
(Advertisement Illuminated)
Development Committee
28
7 August 2014
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0683 - Erection of attached garage and pitched roof to
front extension; 18 Beech Avenue for Mr D Homan
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/13/1172 - Demolition of garage and erection of single-storey
dwelling; Forrests, 87 High Street, Stalham for Bure Valley Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/14/0634 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 8 High Street
for Mr & Mrs G Limehouse
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - AN/14/0798 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; Flower
Moments, 35A High Street, Stalham for Flower Moments
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SUFFIELD - PF/14/0533 - Erection of extensions to garage to provide storage
and workshop with playroom above; 4 Corner Cottages, The Street for Mr A
Honey
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PU/14/0449 - Prior notification of intention to convert agricultural
building to C3 (residential dwelling); Oaklands Farm, New Road, Bessingham,
Norwich for Mr I Clark
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
SWANTON ABBOTT - NMA1/13/1279 - Non material amendment request to
permit removal of gable and insertion of door to east elevation and insertion of
window to replace door to north elevation of proposed single-storey side/rear
extension; Conifers, Cross Road, Swanton Abbott, Norwich for Mr R Wallace
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
THORPE MARKET - LA/14/0638 - Installation of window; The Barn, Common
Lane, Thorpe Market for Mr A Witmond
(Listed Building Alterations)
THURSFORD - PF/14/0647 - Removal of Condition 1 of planning permission
reference: 12/0911 to permit permanent retention of marquee; Laurel Farm,
North Lane, Thursford, Fakenham for Thursford Enterprises Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0697 - Erection of front and rear extensions; Llangower, North
Walsham Road, Trunch, North Walsham for Mr S Puncher
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/0501 - Change of use of land from agricultural land to
residential garden and erection of detached cartshed; New Barn Farm, Church
Lane, Tunstead, Norwich for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/14/0581 - Installation of post and wire safety system to roof;
The Abbey, Sunk Road, Walsingham for Mr A Mclaren
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
29
7 August 2014
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/0564 - Erection of attached garage with accommodation
in roof space and replacement front porch; St Benedict, 16 Cleaves Drive,
Walsingham for Rev & Mrs J Joyce
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0648 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 13/0038 to permit change to design of front elevation of
proposed rear conservatory.; Heritage House, Mill Road for Heritage House
Caring Group
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0733 - Erection of single-storey extension; St.
Michaels House, Red Lion Yard for Mr A Gardner
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0734 - Erection of single-storey extension; St.
Michaels House, Red Lion Yard for Mr A Gardner
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0673 - Erection of single-storey infill extension; 7 Church
Farm Close, Weybourne, Holt for Mrs A Tebbutt
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - LA/14/0709 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate conversion to
farm office; Copy's Green Farm, Wighton for J F Temple & Son Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/14/0650 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front porch;
Holly Cottage, The Street, Ridlington, North Walsham for Mr R Marsh
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/14/0667 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Briggate
Farm Barn, White Horse Lane, Briggate for J A Paterson & Co Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
7.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/0084 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 06/1650 to permit full residential occupation; Agricultural Buildings,
Poplar Farm, Chequers Street for Ms D Hopton
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0677 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Woodlands, Cromer Road for Mr D Sayer
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PO/14/0692 - Erection of eight dwellings; Land at Yarmouth Road
for R T Grimes, B N Grimes and L K Smith
(Outline Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0758 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
rear of 6 Southgate Close, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr & Mrs Watling-Darrell
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
30
7 August 2014
APPEALS SECTION
8.
NEW APPEALS
None
9.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
None
10.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one twostorey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills for PP3
HICKLING - PF/13/1456 - Variation of Condition 13 of planning permission ref:
12/1397 to permit revised access/visibility details; Bay Cottage, The Green,
Hickling for Anne Thorne Architects LLP
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road for Mr R Banester
11.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road, Southrepps for Mr M Goss
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0791 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning
permission reference: 12/1032 to permit permanent residential occupation; The
White Lady, Front Street, Worstead for Mr D Gilligan
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
12.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
None
Development Committee
31
7 August 2014