OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 8 APRIL 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control 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 INFORMATION
1.
SHERINGHAM – 20090777 – Erection of A1 (retail Supermarket) and D1 (Norfolk
Food Academy) with Associated Kitchen Garden, Parking, Landscaping and
Infrastructure at Sheringham Town Allotments, Land South of Weybourne
Road for Greenhouse Community Projects
SHERINGHAM – 20090818 – Demolish all Buildings except numbers 7, 9 and 11
Cromer Road and Erection of A1 (Retail Supermarket), 5 Class A1/A3 Retail
Units, 2 Flats and a Class D1/D2 Community Space with associated Access,
Landscaping, Car parking and Servicing Arrangements at Land at Cromer
Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
The purpose of this report is to update the Committee following the receipt of legal
advice since the meeting on 4 March. The report is for information only and it is not
intended that discussion will take place on the merits of these applications nor that
any decisions will be made.
The minutes of the special meeting of the Development Control Committee held on
Thursday 4 March are submitted to this meeting of the Committee for approval as a
correct record (item 3 of the agenda).
Members will recall that the following decisions were made:That subject to seeking legal advice and consideration of that advice, the Head of
Planning and Building Control be authorised to:
a) refuse application 20090818 for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
Failure to comply with Core Strategy Policy EC 5 on grounds that the
proposed store will have a detrimental impact on the sustainability and
viability of the town by reason of its size.
Contrary to the appeal decision in respect of 20070217 in terms of size.
The design is incompatible with the town and conflicts with Policy EN 4.
Failure to meet the tests of PPS4; and
b) approve application 20090777 as the Committee considers that insufficient
weight has been given to the ethos, design and sustainability of the
Weybourne Road proposal and its connection with the town, and to benefits
of the electric bus service and the food academy, subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
Following the Committee meeting further legal advice has been sought from Mr
James Strachan of Counsel (who acted for the District Council on the previous
appeals by Tesco Stores Limited which were the subject of a Public Inquiry in July
2008). A summary of Mr Strachan’s advice in respect of the decisions made by
Committee on 4 March is attached at Appendix 1.
Development Control Committee
1
8 April 2010
Counsel has advised that having regard to the applications before the Committee on
4 March and the issues that they raised, he considers that a decision to approve the
Weybourne Road application and refuse the Cromer Road application ought to be
legally defensible in principle but the reasons for the Council’s decision must be
proper, adequate and intelligible.
He has emphasised that the determination of planning applications gives rise to a
series of planning judgments by reference to policy which are matters of judgment for
the decision maker (and not matters of law). Planning policy is not statute or a set of
legal rules; the statutory requirement as set out in Section 38 (6) of the Planning and
Compensation Act 2004 is that the Council’s decisions ought to be taken in
accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
However, for these to be considered sound and lawful decisions the Committee’s
reasoning needs to be clear. It is considered that the minutes of the Committee
meeting do not provide the necessary clarity as to the Committee’s reasoning for its
decision.
The terms of reference of the Committee are attached at Appendix 1. Paragraph 2
makes it clear that the Committee may make decisions on planning applications
which may be contrary to policy only when the Head of Planning and Building Control
confirms that the departure is of a minor nature or that there are sound planning
reasons for the said departure. Under paragraph 5 if a determination would in the
view of the Head of Planning and Building Control have major implications for
planning policy or be a significant departure from the Development Plan without
sound reasons for doing so the matter has to be deferred until a subsequent meeting
of the Committee.
In the opinion of the Head of Planning and Building Control the decision to refuse the
Cromer Road development and approve the Weybourne Road development would
conflict with Policy EC 5 of the adopted Core Strategy, particularly in respect of the
application of the sequential test for retail development, and this would constitute a
significant departure from the Development Plan. Sound reasons for such a
departure from policy have not yet been articulated by the Committee.
Under these circumstances it will be necessary for the Committee to meet again to
consider these applications in order to allow the reasoning for its decisions on 4
March to be properly articulated. At that meeting Members will be asked to
determine the applications and will be obliged to consider any further representations
which have been received prior to and at that meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Committee notes the current situation.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Extn 6135 – File Reference Sheringham Supermarkets)
Development Control Committee
2
8 April 2010
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/09/0906 - Use of land for siting timber
dwelling for supervisor of agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry unit;
Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road for Mr Den Engelse
Minor Development - Target Date: 06 November 2009
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
County Wildlife Site
Countryside
Nats Zone (Wind Turbines)
Public Right of Way
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20090398 - (Full Planning Permission) - Siting of timber dwelling for supervisor of
agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry unit.
Withdrawn.
20090467 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings
and wind turbine and construction of roads, terraces and soil bund.
Withdrawn.
20090907 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of agricultural/horticultural
buildings, wind turbine and bund.
Approved, 26 March 2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the siting of a timber dwelling and retention of mobile home for supervisor of
agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry unit.
The proposed timber structure would measure approximately 12m x 7.5m and 4.5m
in height, and would include three small bedrooms, a living room, shower room,
covered deck area, boot room and mezzanine above the bedrooms to provide a play
area for the applicant's children.
The motor home will be located alongside the north site of the timber structure under
a ‘lean-to’ made of a timber frame, with a roof of curved corrugated plastic sheets.
The area of the ‘lean-to’ would measure approximately 10m x 3m and 3.5m in height.
The motor home would provide the kitchen and dining room element of the dwelling.
Amended plans have been submitted to illustrate the living arrangements.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control given the complex policy
issues involved.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Object.
Development Control Committee
3
8 April 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
Sixteen letters of objection have been received, including a petition with 28
signatures. The points of objection raised are as follows:
1. Contrary to policy.
2. Not a viable business therefore no need to live on site.
3. This is an aid to gain a dwelling on a piece of land that without a business he
would never get.
4. Land purchased as arable land at an arable price, now wants to build a dwelling.
5. Applicant living on site without permission.
6. If approved will open floodgates for others who have previously been refused
permission.
7. It seems if go down the eco route you can get away with breaking rules set by
North Norfolk District Council.
8. Mushrooms do not need 24 hour care as systems can be automated. Therefore
living accommodation not necessary.
9. Similar application refused where there has been livestock involved.
10. There is accommodation to buy or rent in the village.
11. Business plan sketchy and optimistic, shows no regard for the actual real world
costs of starting and running a business.
12. No allowance made for the installation costs of buildings/workshops.
13. The greatly increasing cost of declining goods produced does appear to have
been factored into the projections.
14. Visual impact, more visible in autumn.
15. This is a hobby not a viable business.
16. The business is a smoke screen for obtaining a dwelling.
17. Does not need greenfield site for business.
18. Increase in traffic/lorries as result of business.
19. Narrow access to Locks Farm Lane, no vision splays.
20. No evidence of mushroom production.
21. Applicants have said they will need to continue with their current jobs to afford
this lifestyle.
Thirteen letters of support have been received, one of which is from a local business
to whom the applicant supplies mushrooms. Two are from companies, one in
Norwich and one in Wales, whom the applicant is proposing to supply with
mushrooms.
The applicant's supporting statement is attached at Appendix 2, together with
additional information regarding costs of automated systems.
An email has been received from the applicant in support of the application referring
to the bad weather conditions over the winter which made travel difficult. Access to
the site was also restricted. In these weather conditions the heating system would
require monitoring. At temperatures below +3c the fruiting bodies stop developing
and continuity of yield is lost and this has a direct financial implication. The heating
system could also freeze and damage the heating equipment. It is highlighted that
there is a need to be on site to tend to the equipment on a daily basis. This winter
would have resulted in extended periods of loss of income. A full copy of the email is
contained in Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Notwithstanding other
Core Strategy policies and issues in relation to development, the following comments
relate to the impact of the proposed dwelling on the landscape character, the
countryside and biodiversity.
Development Control Committee
4
8 April 2010
The application has been submitted following the withdrawal of a previous and similar
application on the site (20090398). The comments from the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager for that application detail the topography and character of
the site in detail indicating the presence of a County Wildlife Site (CWS) along the
former railway cutting, and reference to the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment (LCA).
Previous Landscape comments regarding the introduction of a timber dwelling at
Woodfruits indicated that there would not be a significant negative impact on the
landscape or negative impact on biodiversity (except for some possible increase in
light levels around the hew dwelling affecting nocturnal foraging fauna). However,
concerns were raised about the permanence of the structure and urbanisation of the
site.
This application does not introduce any new features to the dwelling that would
appear to influence the previous comments. The proposed dwelling remains located
between a copse of coniferous trees and the former railway cutting, obscured from
public view by the topography of the land.
I remain concerned about the introduction of a permanent dwelling in this location,
should a small single-storey timber dwelling not be suitable in the long term.
Therefore, I would reiterate the recommendation that if the application accords with
other Development Control policies, a temporary permission (removing permitted
development rights) is given allowing for a review of the business and impact on the
landscape and countryside in three years.
County Council (Highways) – The siting of proposed dwelling for supervisor
accommodation has the propensity to reduce the number of vehicle movements into
the site by reducing journeys from the site to a home address, which would be
viewed positively. Therefore, there are no highway objections subject to the dwelling
being covered by an agricultural occupancy restriction.
County Rights of Way Officer – No objection.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager – No objection.
Environmental Health – Although the adjacent area to the site is recorded as
contaminated land the location of the proposed timber dwelling is not perceived to be
at risk.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No objection to this application in relation to impacts on the
County Wildlife Site.
Sustainability Co-ordinator – No comment.
Building Control Manager – All works require Building Regulations compliance.
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.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
5
8 April 2010
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Functional and financial tests.
3. Landscape impact.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site following a site visit.
Members of the West Area Committee may recall considering application 20090907
for the erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings, wind turbine and bund in
October 2009. That Committee resolved to give the Head of Planning and Building
Control delegated authority to approve that application on a three year temporary
permission subject to no objections from outstanding consultees. At that time
charcoal production was also intended to be carried out at the site, but the applicant
subsequently confirmed that he was withdrawing this element of the proposal.
Therefore, charcoal production no longer forms part of the application. No objections
were received from outstanding consultees and that application has now been
approved.
Thus the current application seeks a dwelling in relation to the proposed agricultural
business.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where development is limited to
that which requires a rural location. Agriculture and forestry uses are included under
this policy but it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that a dwelling in
association with the proposed agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry business
complies with the functional and financial requirements covered by Policy HO 5 of the
Core Strategy and Annex A of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
regarding Agricultural, Forestry and other Occupational Dwellings in the Countryside.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of Annex A in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in
Rural Areas, 'a functional test is necessary to establish whether it is essential for the
proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at
Development Control Committee
6
8 April 2010
most times. Such a requirement might arise, for example, if workers need to be on
hand day and night:
(i) in case of animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short notice
(ii) to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crops
or products, for example, by frost damager or the failure of automatic systems'.
In the applicant's supporting statement three functional requirements are suggested
to explain why it would be essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for a
worker to be readily available on site at most times. They are in relation to
horticulture, security and mushroom production.
It is considered that horticulture, described in the applicant's supporting statement as
husbandry tasks including seed germination and propagation of salad crops, potting,
planting, pruning weeding, irrigating, pest control, loading and unloading of stock,
deliveries and harvesting, lacks the necessary functional justification that would
warrant the need for a dwelling in this location. Furthermore, security grounds are
also considered to be insufficient to justify a new dwelling.
However, mushroom production requires a combination of changes in the cropping
environment as carbon dioxide levels, temperature and humidity levels to be
monitored and adjusted, as well as the requirement to monitor power and heat
systems. It is considered that this part of the proposal could fulfil a functional need on
the site.
The applicant has advised in the supporting statement prepared by his agricultural
consultants that, owing to the size of the enterprise, a fully automated heating and
irrigation system cannot be justified; therefore someone needs to be on hand to
ensure the systems are working correctly. The applicant intends to install a weather
forecast monitor, which would monitor wind speed/direction, humidity, temperature,
atmospheric pressure and rainfall. This system would allow the applicant to attach
sensors to the mushroom grow room, which would be hard wired into a data
processor which would data log and raise an alarm. The audio alarm would be in the
office and the dwelling, but not outside and would sound if the set parameters are not
achieved or are exceeded. The system should also forewarn of high wind speeds,
which would affect the biomass boiler, and frosts affecting the poly tunnel and
vegetable beds, as well as low wind speeds affecting the power supply.
The applicant has stated that there are no existing dwellings on the site that could
fulfil the functional need, and the applicant has advised that there are no available
dwellings within sight and sound of the unit.
The applicant and his family currently occupy a motor home on the site without the
benefit of planning permission. In principle this could meet the need for temporary
accommodation, but the applicant has indicated that this is very basic and does not
meet the needs of his family. It is proposed that this would be placed alongside the
proposed timber structure.
In terms of alarm systems, the applicant's agent has advised that an alarm system
could be connected to a modem and so monitored remotely. However, the
adjustments are all manual controls and so the need is to be on site to manage to
react to prevailing conditions. The applicant has provided further information in terms
of the cost of installing a fully automated heating, irrigation and alarm system. The
capacity for remote monitoring and necessary infrastructure upgrades and
investment are estimated to cost in the region of £53,300.
Development Control Committee
7
8 April 2010
The applicant's agent has advised that commercial horticulture and mushroom
producers can substantially reduce their labour input by installing fully automated
systems and the financial yield is of a scale that can justify this cost over time. In
these situations these systems are installed as a labour saving tool rather than for
remote monitoring. Whilst a remote monitoring system could inform the applicant if
the conditions are not adequate it cannot adjust the conditions or correct emergency
breakdowns. Although a fully automated system is available it is not an appropriate
system given the scale of the proposed enterprise.
In terms of financial viability the figures provided in the supporting statement are only
based on projections over three years, but indicate an increasing profit. Policy HO 5
states that in relation to newly created enterprises where there has been insufficient
time to demonstrate financial soundness permission may be granted for a temporary
dwelling in the form of a caravan or wooden structure which can easily be dismantled
and removed from the site. The applicant has provided further information in terms of
the proposed temporary structure and it is considered that this information is
acceptable and the structure would comply with the requirements of Policy HO 5.
However, the District Council has sought independent advice from an agricultural
development and land use consultant who has assessed the information submitted
by the applicant. A copy of this assessment is attached as Appendix 2. The opinion
reached is that the proposal would fulfil a functional need on the site given the nature
of the business, but with regard to the supporting financial information the consultant
has queried the Annual Gross Margin figure per fruiting block of mushrooms, and
consequently the Annual Gross Margin Profit Projections as this affects the figures
provided through Years 1, 2 and 3 and the overall viability of the proposal. The
consultant therefore considers that the proposed business is of doubtful viability and
that the ability of the enterprise to meet the Financial Test as set out in Annex A of
PPS7 is questionable.
This matter has been brought to the attention of the agent and a response received.
The agent advises that the Gross Margin figures and the financial projections for the
first three years contained within the Business Plan are correct. The agent is of the
opinion that there has been some confusion over terminology and has explained in a
letter why they believe their figures to be correct. This has been passed to the
consultant for further comment and at the time of writing this report a response was
awaited.
In terms of landscape impact the Committee will note that the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager has no objection to a temporary dwelling on the site. It is
considered that the proposed location of the temporary dwelling is well screened by
existing mature trees on the site which would have limited visual impact.
No objections have been raised by the Highway Authority.
Whilst it is considered that the applicant can satisfy the requirements of Policy HO 5
in terms of the temporary structure proposed and meeting the functional requirement,
the further opinion of the consultant is required in response to the agent's comments
in order to clarify whether the proposal is financially viable. This factor is crucial to the
determination of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
Development Control Committee
8
8 April 2010
3.
HINDOLVESTON - PF/09/1062 - Raising of roof and alterations to provide first
floor accommodation, erection of two-storey front extension and detached
double garage/store; 5, Melton Road for Mr Boyle
Target Date: 22 December 2009
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the raising of the roof and alterations to provide first floor accommodation, the
erection of a two-storey front extension and a detached double garage/store.
The first floor extension would bring the overall height of the dwelling to 8.1m to the
ridge and would have a coloured rendered finish.
The two-storey front extension would be timber clad.
Amended plans received would rotate the garage by 90 degrees and amend the
proposed materials from timber cladding to render and the roof from hipped to
gabled. The garage/store would have a total overall width of 10.2m and a projection
of 5.6m. Its height to ridge would be 5.5m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Combe having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact of the garage on the street scene.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection to the original plans, however raise an objection to the amended plans
on the following grounds:
The Parish Council is still concerned that the new front extension is to be clad in
timber, which it feels to be out of keeping with housing in the area.
The Parish Council is also concerned that the change in roof pitch (of the house) will
make the building seem bigger than before. However the councillors feel that the
planning officer is better placed to decide this issue.
The Parish Council objects to the new position of the garage, and its increased
height due to the change in pitch. It is too close to the pavement, and therefore
would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside (Policy HO 8).
So to sum up, the Parish Council objects to the amended proposal in the positioning
of the garage, as it is contrary to North Norfolk District Council Policy HO 8.
Furthermore the Parish Council is concerned that the timber cladding and increase in
pitch will result in a disproportionately large increase in the height and scale of the
original dwelling.
It was also noted that the house to the immediate south of the property (No.3) has a
ground floor window facing the proposed garage site, and due attention should be
given to this when siting the garage.
Development Control Committee
9
8 April 2010
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 2: 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 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on neighbouring amenity.
2. Scale and design.
3. Impact on the character of the area.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area, where the extension of existing
dwellings is acceptable subject to compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
In this case, whilst the proposed extension seeks an increase in the floor area of
109%, given its siting within a row of dwellings (both two-storey directly either side of
the application site) the proposal is not considered to increase significantly the impact
of the dwelling on the countryside. It is therefore considered to comply with the
objectives of Policy HO 8 of the Core Strategy.
In terms of design, whilst the first floor extension would cover the entire ground floor
area of the dwelling, the eaves and ridge height proposed would broadly match those
of the existing two-storey dwellings adjacent to the site. The projecting two-storey
timber clad extension to the front would add some visual interest to the front
elevation of the building. Furthermore the overall two-storey style with the dormers in
the roof would reflect the design of dwellings further along the street. The proposal is
therefore considered to have no adverse visual impact on the street scene.
With regard to neighbouring amenity, the northern and southern gable elevations of
the proposal would be left blank, therefore removing the potential for overlooking
from these elevations, and this can be controlled by condition. First floor dormer
windows are proposed on the front and rear elevations; given their orientation in
relation to neighbouring dwellings, no overlooking would result towards the adjacent
dwellings. Whilst the rear dormer windows would result in some overlooking over the
rear gardens of the adjacent dwellings, this is not considered to be significantly
detrimental to the privacy of those dwellings. Furthermore given the orientation of
the dwelling with the adjacent dwellings, no adverse loss of light would result.
Development Control Committee
10
8 April 2010
With regard to the detached garage, this element of the scheme has been amended
so as to improve its impact on the street scene. The amended orientation of the
garage would ensure that the elevations visible in the street scene are more
appropriate, with the gable elevations being visible from the street to the north and a
blank elevation facing the road. The materials have been amended so as to match
those of the existing dwelling and so would be more appropriate to the dwelling and
street scene. Subject to conditions ensuring a suitable red brick is used for the dentil
work and base wall and a recessive, muted colour for the render (beige or cream),
along with a clay pantile, the proposed materials are considered to be acceptable.
The amended garage design would have gabled elevations rather than a hipped roof.
Whilst the garage would now be closer to the pavement, this would replicate the
relationship of that of the house to the south with the street scene. Both would be
close to the footpath and this siting is considered to create suitable enclosure.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, given the relative siting of the garage to the
dwelling to the south, no adverse loss of light is considered to result. Furthermore
given that the adjacent dwelling has a blank gable (with some secondary windows
further along the elevation) and there is a sufficient distance between the garage and
the adjacent dwelling, no adverse overbearing impact on the adjacent dwelling is
considered to result. The proposed garage is therefore considered appropriate in its
design and setting, in compliance with Policy EN 4.
On balance, the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of conditions including the removal of
permitted development rights for additional first floor windows and precise
details of materials.
4.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/0025 - Erection of single-storey
extension and conversion to form one unit of holiday accommodation; The Old
Potting Sheds, Bayfield Hall for Bayfield Farms Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 08 March 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to extend the existing single-storey building and to change the use
of the former potting shed into a one-bed holiday unit.
The single-storey extension proposed would infill a gap between the building and
former kitchen boundary walls. The extension would create a sitting room measuring
approximately 5.1m wide with a depth of 6.6m and a maximum height of 4.75m.
Materials proposed include red faced brick and pantiles to match existing.
The proposed holiday unit would use the existing Bayfield Hall access off the
Blakeney Road and internal roads across farmland. The site is set approximately
300m east of the main hall among mature woodland.
Development Control Committee
11
8 April 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Highways reasons for refusal should be weighed against the benefits of bringing the
existing building into use.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection or comment.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection providing
the imposition of conditions requiring a detailed landscape proposal and details of the
proposed access track.
County Council (Highways) - Objection on the grounds of highway safety, comments
as below:
I inspected the application site on 27 January 2010. The site is served by the existing
access to Bayfield Hall and after examination by a visual survey I found that visibility
at the access to the site from the recommended 2.4m setback is severely restricted
in both directions, being limited to 23m to the north and only 15m in the opposing
direction to the south. I also took measurements from a minimum 2m setback and
found no appreciable increase in sight line provision.
Visibility standards are given in the CLG document "Design Manual for Road and
Bridges" which sets out the requirements for a road controlled by the National Speed
Limit for a single carriageway (60 mph/100kph) as being 215m x 2.4m x 215m
I accept that traffic speeds are reduced as a direct consequence of the alignment of
the road; however, I would still require sight lines of 120m to the north and south,
both from a setback of 2.4m
In the circumstances, inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the
access with the County highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to
users of the adjoining public highway.
As I understand matters, the intention is to erect a single storey extension to the
outbuilding and convert into holiday accommodation. This will engender an increase
in vehicle numbers accessing this property and an increase of 4 vehicle movements
per day.
Given that the access does not conform to the standards quoted above and that
there would be an increase in traffic caused by conversion of the outbuildings into
holiday accommodation, I feel I have no option but to recommend the refusal of this
application on highway safety grounds for the reasons set below: Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining
public highway. Contrary to North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy CT 5.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Proposal complies with Policy EN 6. Recommends
standard condition.
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.
Development Control Committee
12
8 April 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy 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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of 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).
Saved North Norfolk Local Plan
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of holiday unit in this location.
2. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as designated in the adopted
Core Strategy where proposals for the extension and re-use of existing buildings for
holiday use are considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
relevant Core Strategy Policies.
The extension to the building is considered to be acceptable in terms of design,
materials and layout. The site is not located in a prominent location and the proposal
would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Due to the
secluded location of the site it is not considered that the proposal would be
significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
The building is considered to be soundly built, suitable for the proposed conversion
and appropriate in scale and nature for the location and therefore acceptable in
principle for holiday use. However, the Committee will note the objection of the
Highway Authority on the grounds of highway safety.
Under these circumstances refusal has to be recommended.
Development Control Committee
13
8 April 2010
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development.
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
Highway. This would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the access and the
adjoining public highway. The proposed development would therefore be detrimental
to highway safety and contrary to Policy CT 5 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5.
NORTHREPPS - PF/09/1082 - Removal of conditions 1 and 3 of planning
permission ref: 20081434 and variation of conditions 4, 5 and 8 to continue use
of land as aerodrome with a phased increase in aircraft movement from 1780 to
3500 per annum and to permit take-off and landing at any time in an emergency
and limited banner towing; Northrepps Aerodrome, North Walsham Road for
Mr C Gurney
Target Date: 28 December 2009
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson/Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20081434 (Temporary Planning Permission) Change of Use of Land to Aerodrome
Approved 7 January 2009
THE APPLICATION
A temporary one year planning permission was granted in January 2009 for the
change of use of agricultural land to an aerodrome on land at Winspurs Farm. The
reason for the temporary permission was 'to enable the effects of the development
on the residential amenities of the surrounding area to be properly established'. A
full copy of the temporary planning permission notice, which includes the conditions
imposed, is attached in Appendix 3.
The application is to remove and vary a number of conditions imposed on the earlier
planning permission.
Condition 1 restricts the life time of the permission until 31 January 2010. The
current application seeks removal of the condition to permit a permanent permission
for the use of the land as an aerodrome.
Condition 3 requires cessation of an agricultural contractors operation on the site by
the end of February 2009.
Development Control Committee
14
8 April 2010
Condition 4 limits the total number of aircraft movements per year to 1780, with no
more than 659 movements during the months of June, July and August. It is also
specific to the proportion of particular types of aircraft usage. The current application
as originally submitted was to amend this condition to permit an annual total of 5,000
aircraft movements. This figure has since been reduced to a maximum of 3,500
movements.
Condition 5 limits-take offs and landings of aircraft to times between 7.30am and
8pm. The current application is to vary this condition to permit activity outside these
hours in cases of emergency.
Condition 8 prohibits use for parachute operations, aerobatics, banner towing and
hosting of public displays. Variation is sought to allow limited banner towing (six days
per year) and two public events annually.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Jones on grounds of complaints of nuisance of various
kinds and issues concerning compliance with previously imposed conditions.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the continued use of the airfield, but feels that the actual number of flights
during the first year (which the applicants acknowledge exceeds the permitted 1780)
should be taken as the maximum annual number.
REPRESENTATIONS
Supporting statement by applicant's agents, see Appendix 3.
Letters received from approximately 60 residents of nearby parishes objecting to the
renewal of the application mainly on the grounds that the use causes noise and
disturbance from low and slow flying aircraft, particularly microlights, and that the use
of the site during the first year has breached the original conditions.
In addition a lengthy letter has been received from the owner of the former airstrip on
New Road, Northrepps, explaining in some detail how the aerodrome is attracting
large numbers of car borne and airborne visitors and is increasing the degree of
noise and disturbance in the area.
Petition from 28 residents of Roughton objecting to the renewal because of the noise
experienced over the last year as a result of aircraft which now use a flight path
across the parish.
Letters and e-mails from approx 375 people supporting the retention of the airfield as
a valuable facility for recreational flying which also has benefits for the tourist industry
in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
Civil Aviation Authority - Confirms that neither the original airfield nor the current
Winspurs farm airfield are CAA licensed airfields and as such the CAA does not have
regulatory oversight of the aerodrome itself.
County Council (Public Rights of Way) - There is a public footpath adjacent to the
application site, but proposal does not appear to compromise right of passage.
Development Control Committee
15
8 April 2010
County Council (Highways) - Initial comments received raised a strong objection on
grounds of the intensification of an existing access which has inadequate visibility in
a southerly direction at its junction with the A149 North Walsham Road. The visibility
requirement is 175m in each direction from a 2.4m setback. Current (southerly)
visibility is obscured by a line of trees and other vegetation limiting visibility from a
2.4m setback to 88m and even at the minimum permissible setback of 2m, to 112m.
Subsequent comments received repeat the original concerns but are made on the
understanding that the applicant owns land over which the visibility is restricted.
Advises that if the applicant is able to provide detailed proposals of improvement to
the access visibility over land in their ownership and information relating to the 'fly in'
visitors to Cromer and surrounding areas and the level of traffic generated, the
Highway Authority would re-consider its response. (Full response attached in
Appendix 3).
Thorpe Market Parish Council - Supports.
Southrepps Parish Council - Objects - use produces unacceptable levels of noise
and disturbance to residents of Southrepps (full comments at Appendix 3).
Sidestrand Parish Council - Objects. Residents are already aware of aircraft
movements and increasing the number to 5000 is unacceptable. Suggests formal
agreement to limit number, duration and flight paths of microlights/paragliders.
Cromer Town Council - No comment.
Hanworth Parish Council - Objects. Increase in noise disturbance over a listed
landscape. Increased likelihood of conflict with users of landing strip in Gunton Park.
Network Rail - No objections.
Defence Estates - No safeguarding objections.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection in
principle but concerned that increasing the amount of aircraft movement will have
some impact on the perception of the landscape surrounding the site and the
increased activity represented by the proposal, although primarily an environmental
pollution issue, could be seen as intrusive within the landscape.
Further comments awaited on the assessment in relation to impact on the coastal
wildlife sites.
Environmental Health - Condition 1 (temporary condition) - No noise complaints
received prior to the application being submitted in November. Environmental Health
will monitor for statutory noise nuisance during 2010 and take action if necessary. On
this basis no objection to permanent permission.
Condition 4 (numbers of aircraft movements) - Considers that the limit should be set
at 2,100 movements per year (excluding charity and open days) and that no more
than 777 take place over the months of June, July and August.
No objection to variation of condition 5 to allow out of hours emergency use.
No objection to variation of condition 8 to allow banner towing on six occasions per
year, together with two public days per year. Suggests additional conditions to
include closing the airfield for one day a week and to regulate circuit flying. (See full
comments in Appendix 3)
Development Control Committee
16
8 April 2010
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Recognises that an aerodrome has been in use nearby
for many years and does not consider a continued use as being inconsistent in
principle with the objectives of the area's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
designation.
However, raises concerns regarding the proposed changes to
conditions 4 and 8. The increase in the number of flights suggests that the impacts
on the areas tranquillity would be likely to increase significantly. Increased flight
movements is also likely to affect Special Protection Areas (in respect of birds) along
the Norfolk coastal region. Advises that the most prudent course of action would be
to follow the precautionary principle and maintain the use at the present consented
levels (see full comments in Appendix 3).
Natural England - Objects to the development which is likely to have a significant
effect on the internationally important interest of the North Norfolk Coast Special
Protection Area/Special Area of Conservation/Ramsar site. Advises that an
appropriate assessment should be carried out to enable these implications to be
considered, and Natural England to be re-consulted.
Further comments awaited in respect of subsequently submitted assessment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the countryside (specifies those types of uses which
are, in principle, acceptable in the countryside - includes recreation, tourism and
transport).
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Impact on residential amenity through noise and disturbance.
3. Landscape impact.
4. Transport impact/highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site occupies 2.6ha of land located between the A149 and the Norwich to
Cromer railway line. The site is in a countryside location and within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Development Control Committee
17
8 April 2010
Policy SS 2 is permissive towards developments which require a rural location and
which are for one of the purposes specified in the policy. An airfield use by its nature
requires a rural location, and the use falls within the recreation and tourism category
of permitted uses.
The previous planning application had been recommended for refusal following an
objection raised by the Highway Authority on the traffic impact of the proposed use.
However the permission was granted on a temporary one year basis. The reason
given for this was for the effects of the development on the residential amenities of
the surrounding area to be properly established (see original Committee report Appendix 3).
During the first year of operation no complaints about noise were received. However
many of the representations received objecting to the renewal of the permission refer
to the noise and disturbance which the use has caused during its first year of
operation. The temporary permission included a condition limiting the number of
aircraft movements to 1,780 during the first year, although the agents in the
supporting statement freely admit that this number was exceeded.
In his first response the Environmental Health Officer suggested that the number of
annual aircraft movements to and from the site could be limited by a planning
condition which would set an initial limit of 1,780 movements for the first year
following the grant of planning permission, rising by 10% annual increments to a limit
of 3,500 movements by 2017 - 2018. In the event of noise activity from the airfield
being found to constitute a statutory noise nuisance, the limit would revert to the
maximum number allowed for the previous year.
Following discussions and legal advice, it is not considered that such an approach
would be appropriate, either in terms of properly addressing the public concerns
about the level of noise within the vicinity of the site or in terms of the tests that a
planning condition should properly meet.
As an alternative it is considered that if planning permission is to be granted then it
should be subject to a condition with a specific limit on the number of annual aircraft
movements. The Environmental Health Officer suggests this should be set at 2,100
movements. The applicant would in the future be at liberty to apply for a variation of
such a condition. As the application is currently to allow 3,500 movements, the
applicant will need formally to amend the proposal, if permission is to be granted on
this basis.
It is not considered that the use has any significant adverse impact in the landscape.
However as the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager points out, increasing
the amount of aircraft movement and the type of activity (banner towing and
aerobatics) could change the perception of the landscape surrounding the airfield.
This could contribute to an erosion of the sense of quiet and tranquillity in this part of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However with the limited banner towing (6
occasions per year) and the prohibition on aerobatics now proposed by the applicant
this is not likely to be a matter of concern.
Natural England shares the concerns of the Norfolk Coast Partnership about the
potential increased overflying of protected and sensitive areas of the Wash and North
Norfolk coast, particularly during the sea bird breeding season, by aircraft and
microlights based at this (and other) airfields. It objects to the proposal as submitted
and recommends an 'appropriate assessment' is undertaken to quantify and seek to
ameliorate this impact. The applicant has commissioned such an assessment of the
Development Control Committee
18
8 April 2010
impact of the increased use of the airfield on the sensitive coastal habitats. This
concludes that with appropriate mitigation measures the additional use now proposed
should have no adverse effects on the integrity of the North Norfolk Coast and The
Wash SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites. However, under S.48 of the Habitats Regulations
1994 a 'competent authority' has to undertake an 'appropriate assessment' where a
plan or project could have a 'significant effect' upon an internationally important site.
A local planning authority is defined as a 'competent authority'. In this case the
internationally important site is the North Norfolk Coast SPA (Special protection
Area), SAC (Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site.
Prior to the formal determination of this application the Council would need to
undertake an 'appropriate assessment', to consider whether the proposal would have
any 'significant effect' upon these international important sites. This would be
undertaken in liaison with Natural England.
The Highway Authority is concerned that the visibility available from the site access is
inadequate for this location where traffic speeds require 175m splays from a 2.4m set
back. The available visibility in a southerly direction is only 88m (only about half of
the required distance). In addition there are concerns about the amount of stopping
and turning traffic which the agents have not been able to quantify. It is clear from the
approximately 375 letters in support of the retention of the airfield that a significant
number of users fly in to the airfield and take a taxi into Cromer or other points in the
surrounding area. Each such occurrence would generate four vehicle movements,
and it is this activity which gives rise to concern. The applicant has indicated that he
controls additional land which will enable the required visibility splays to be provided
and that a detailed survey plan will be submitted to demonstrate this. Once received
this will be forwarded to the Highway Authority for comment.
It is apparent from the level of support and from comments made by the supporters
of the application that the presence of the airfield does bring visitors in to the area,
and that many of them contribute to the economy of the area during the course of
their visit. There are therefore potential economic benefits to the area in retaining the
airfield use.
At the time of preparing this report a number of outstanding matters remained to be
resolved, including the anticipated submission by the applicant of visibility
improvements to the site access and further comments from Natural England in order
for an 'appropriate assessment' to be undertaken. Provided that these matters are
satisfactorily resolved and subject to the imposition of conditions recommended by
the Environmental Health Officer to limit the use of the airfield controls relating to
aircraft using it and the applicant confirming agreement to these, it is considered that
granting permission on a permanent basis would accord with the relevant policies of
the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the following:
1) The applicant confirming agreement to amend the application to a limit of 2,100
aircraft movements per year.
2) The submission of satisfactory plans illustrating improvements to the visibility at
the site access and no subsequent objection being raised by the Highway Authority.
3) Natural England removing its original objection and the completion of an
'appropriate assessment' pursuant to S.48 of the Habitats Regulations by the District
Council which concludes that there will be no significant effect caused as a result of
the airfield on sites of international importance.
Development Control Committee
19
8 April 2010
4) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include those recommended by the
Environmental health Officer, namely:
- a limit of 2,100 aircraft movements (one movement equating to a take off or landing)
per calendar year (excluding open days) with no more than 777 movements during
the months of June, July and August.
- no take offs or landings outside the hours of 7.30am to 8.00pm except in the case
of emergencies.
- the airfield to be closed one day per week (except in case of emergencies).
- no use of the airfield in association with aerobatic displays, aerobatic training or
parachuting.
- no more that 6 'banner towing occurrences' per year.
- a maximum of 2 open days per year.
- circuit flying from and in the vicinity of the airfield to be only in accordance with a
route to be agreed.
- only one aircraft to fly agreed circuit route at any one time.
- no more than 4 hours of circuit flying to take place on any one day.
- no circuit flying to take place after 7.00pm or before 7.30am on any day.
- no circuit flying on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
- the maintenance of a log of all flying activities to be made available for inspection by
the Council at any reasonable time.
6.
SCOTTOW - PF/10/0172 - Erection of 70 metre high wind monitoring mast; Land
at Coltishall Airfield for Partnership for Renewables
Minor Development - Target Date: 15 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Contaminated Land
Section 106 Planning Obligations
Archaeological Site
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0063 - Erection of 70 metre high wind monitoring mast
Withdrawn
THE APPLICATION
To erect a 70m mast, supported by 7 pairs of guy wires extending 33m from the mast
base. A small 'anemometer' and wind vane would be fixed at the top of the mast.
The mast is applied for a temporary period of three years.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilkins having regard to the following planning issues:
Local interest and concern over potential conflict with future use of the former air
base.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received from the Chair of 'CETAG' objecting on grounds that the Ministry of
Justice is currently working on a master plan which will confirm how disposal of the
site should be taken forward. Such a structure may significantly restrict potential
Development Control Committee
20
8 April 2010
future uses such as aviation. A wind turbine development could conflict with current
interest in the site by TAG Aviation Ltd. Whilst construction of a wind turbine on the
site is linked to a Section 106 Obligation could an alternative wind turbine scheme be
considered as an acceptable alternative?
Further letter received commenting upon the details submitted and the application
procedures.
CONSULTATIONS
Coltishall Parish Council (neighbouring Broadland District Council Parish) - No
objection provided it does not compromise the further use of the remaining site.
Tunstead Parish Council - No objections.
Swanton Abbott Parish Council - Green power generation is to be supported but
balanced also against social and economic benefits. A wind turbine could block
future aviation proposals for the former airfield. The application should be deferred
pending publication of a master plan for the former base. Objects as it may lead to an
application for a wind turbine. The wind turbine scheme is linked to a Section 106
Obligation which could be renegotiated for alternative off-site provision.
Broadland District Council - No objection on the basis it does not prevent or prejudice
the re-use of runway and/or hangar buildings.
Environmental Health - No objection. As no foundations would be required for the
mast, contaminated land is not considered an issue. Suggest an advisory note if
permission is granted.
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appearance.
2. Renewable energy.
APPRAISAL
The application site is located in the south-eastern corner of the former RAF base
close to the boundary fence and the administrative boundary with Broadland District
Council. The site lies within the Core Strategy Countryside policy designation.
Development Control Committee
21
8 April 2010
This application arises out of a Section 106 Obligation entered into by the Ministry of
Justice as part if the planning permission for the new prison (HMP Bure) on part of
the former RAF base. The Section 106 Obligation secures the equivalent minimum of
10% renewable energy needs of the prison in order to comply with Core Strategy
Policy EN 6. Initially the Obligation allows for an investigation period to discover
whether a wind turbine is feasible within the area of the former airbase. A vital
element of the feasibility study is the collection of wind data, hence this application
for the erection of a meteorological monitoring mast.
This is a revised application to one submitted in January 2010 relocating the mast
approximately 300m further away from the existing runway.
Visually the mast would be a narrow pole with a small wind measuring instrument on
the top, and with no foundations it would be supported by several pairs of guy wires.
The proposed siting is in a remote corner of the former airfield in a position where the
mast would not be intrusive and it would be reasonably well-screened from a few
scattered dwellings around the southern and eastern perimeters of the airfield by
trees close to those properties. The nearest property is a little under 0.5km away
from the proposed mast.
The mast is simply a measuring tool to determine whether or not in meteorological
terms the area is suitable for a wind turbine. Granting temporary planning permission
for a wind monitoring mast in no way presupposes the outcome of any subsequent
planning application for a wind turbine development. Nor in this case would it
necessarily influence decisions affecting the future of the former RAF base.
In summary, within the visual context of the airbase and its existing structures the
landscape impact of the mast for a temporary period would be minimal. The
proposal complies with the terms of the Section 106 Obligation and is not considered
to conflict with adopted Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve for a temporary period of three years.
7.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BRISTON - PF/10/0143 – Change of use of land to private travellers site for 6
number pitches including amenity blocks, hardstanding and parking on land at
53 Reepham Road for Mr and Mrs Kidd
Development Control Committee
22
8 April 2010
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wyatt on grounds of visual impact on the area.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/10/0089 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling;
Carlton, Chapel Road for Mrs K Tipple
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/0024 - Sub-division of dwelling and annexe to provide 2
separate dwellings; 2 Eden Hall Cottages, North Walsham Road for Ms J Elliott
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - LA/10/0047 - internal alterations including re-location of staircase,
installation of replacement windows and enclosing of porch; Edingthorpe Hall,
Church Lane Mr and Mrs Baggi Sisini
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACTON - PF/10/0086 - Erection of three dwellings and garages; Hill Top, Mill
Lane for East Anglian Property Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/10/0090 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling; 2
Hindringham Road for Mr and Mrs M Bond
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0027 - Erection of side extension, removal of roof and
erection of first floor extension; 2A Langham Road for Mr L G Berrisford
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0094 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling and
garage; Plot 3, Land rear of 59 New Road Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0098 - Construction of rear facing dormer window;
Staplewood, Back Lane for Mr and Mrs A Shelton
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/10/0032 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Meadow
View, Holt Road for Mr G Poole
(Householder application)
BRISTON - NP/10/0139 - Prior Notification of Intention to Erect Agricultural
Storage Building; Land at Roper Farm Saxthorpe Road for E E Rudd and Sons
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LA/10/0035 - Internal alterations to outbuilding,
installation of rooflights and entrance door; The Old Manor House, High Street
for Mr D Goodman
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
23
8 April 2010
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/0067 - Variation of Condition 3 of
20080491 to enable approved holiday unit to be occupied as an agricultural
employee's dwelling; Hill Farm, Briston Road for Mr D Perry-Warnes
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0031 - Conversion of ground floor from D2 (club) to two
residential flats; Surrey House, Surrey Street for Nowbond Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0041 - Change of use from 1 dwelling to 3 flats; 9 Cabbell
Road for Mr and Mrs C Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0081 - Removal of condition 3 of 20061898 to permit
residential occupancy; 1 Bailey Road for Mr P Mills
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0093 - Installation of shop front comprising sliding/folding
doors; The Melbourne, New Street, Cromer, NR27 9HP for Mr B Parkin
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0101 - Change of Use from A1 (retail) a mixed use of A1 and
Tattoo Studio; 2c Mount Street for Miss Bamkin
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - PF/09/1227 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear
extensions; 13 Tatterford Road for Mr and Mrs G Warnes
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/0049 - Erection of garden shed and greenhouse; Curve
House, Ramsgate Street for Mrs D Mitchell
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0083 - Conversion of existing garage and first floor side
extension with ancillary paved driveway; 18 John Franklin Way for Mr Scott
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - LA/10/0099 - Installation of replacement windows; Saracens
Head Inn, Wall Road for Mr R Dawson-Smith
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/09/1192 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
two-storey rear extension; 32 Sandy Lane for Mr and Mrs M Smith
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0040 - Two-storey side extension; 58 Queens Road for Mr
Morrison
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - PF/10/0066 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Eastcot,
North Walsham Road for Mr D Pearse
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
24
8 April 2010
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/0076 - Enlarge an existing dormer window to rear of
house to provide enough internal height to make into a bathroom.; The White
House, The Street for Mrs Peabody
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - NP/10/0154 - Prior notification of intention to erect general
purpose agricultural building; The Old Lime Works Broomsthorpe Road for Mr
A Duckworth-Chad
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HEMPTON - PF/10/0061 - Erection of
Stubbs
(Householder application)
rear extension; 7 Horns Row for Ms
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0046 - Erection of front and rear dormer windows and
first floor extension to garage; 39 Pineheath Road Mr and Mrs S Burns
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0059 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The Old
Bakery, The Street for Mr Everard
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0106 - Erection of Detached Annexe; 1 Bale Road for Mr
Courbage
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/10/0033 - Formation of designated car park; Land at Holkham
Hall for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0001 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; 38 Cley Road for Mr R Rogers
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0017 - Erection of Extension and Pitched Roof to Garage and
Conversion to Provide Habitable Accommodation; Quietways, 9 Eccles Road
for Mr Tipling
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0060 - Erection of first floor extensions to north and south
wings; Britten House, Greshams School, Cromer Road, Holt, NR25 6EA for
Greshams School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/10/0072 - Internal alterations and installation of advertisements; 23
Market Place for Joules Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/10/0149 - Change of use from B1 (office) to D1 (massage therapy
treatment room); Suite 7, 35-37 High Street for Mrs G Sallows
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/10/0026 - Construction of dormer window; Gable Cottage, 61
Lower Street for Mr M Dunford
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
25
8 April 2010
HOVETON - PF/10/0056 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 72 Stalham
Road for Mr and Mrs Meacock
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - LA/10/0102 - Internal Alterations, Installation of Replacement
Windows and Alterations to Outbuildings; The Old Rectory, The Street for Mr
and Mrs Little
(Listed Building Alterations)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/09/1240 - Alterations to barn to
house swimming pool; Hall Farm, Church Lane for Mr and Mrs R Carter
(Listed Building Alterations)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/09/1241 - Alteration to barn to
house swimming pool; Hall Farm, Church Lane for Mr and Mrs R Carter
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0028 - Erection of replacement rear conservatory; 91
Cromer Road for Mrs B A Talbot
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PM/10/0038 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
57 Seaview Road for Mr J Wilson
(Reserved Matters)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/09/1171 - Erection of two dwelling houses and four
flats; Land at Black Swan Loke for Mr C Elliott
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0022 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 15
Happisburgh Road for Mr Halliday
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0069 - Erection of two-storey front extension and
entrance porch for a mixed use of residential and physiotherapy treatment
room; 14 Spenser Avenue for Mr and Mrs Beacham
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0073 - Erection of rear conservatory; 6 Cherry Tree
Lane for Mr Doyle
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/10/0078 - Erection of single-storey extension to control room;
Amoco Ltd, Paston Road for Perenco (UK) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/10/0004 - Erection of boundary walls and garden shed; The
Greyhound, The Street for Mr and Mrs C Currell
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - LA/10/0075 - Demolition of existing single storey extension to the
north of the building and erection of two-storey extension in its place.; The
Gatehouse for Mr Oldfield
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
26
8 April 2010
RAYNHAM - PF/10/0107 - Erection of two-storey side extension.; The
Gatehouse for Mr Oldfield
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0030 - Erection of replacement toilet block; Manor Farm
Caravan Park, Top Common for Manor Farm (East Runton) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - PF/10/0070 - Erection of two-storey extension; The Annex at 63
Fakenham Road for Mr and Mrs James
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - LA/10/0132 - Installation of replacement windows and doors;
Melody House, 29 Station Road for Mrs H Simcock
(Listed Building Alterations)
SALTHOUSE - PF/09/1209 - Erection of replacement single-storey side
extension; 19 Sandy Hill Estate, Bard Hill for Mrs A Bishop
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0091 - Erection of single-storey extension to outhouse
and single-storey link extension; Church Lane Cottage, Cross Street for Mr R
Bagley
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0082 - Proposed erection of extension and replacement
conservatory; 4 Hadley Road for Batten
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0096 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 5
Salisbury Road for Mr G Marriott
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0104 - Construction of Front Dormer Window; Flat 1,
East Court, 2 Abbey Road for Mr Moore
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0111 - Installation of Roof Edge Protection; 19-21
Station Road for Natwest
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/0057 - Erection of general purpose agricultural building
suitable for the storage of grain and potatoes incorporating the extension of
an existing sugar beet pad.; Land at Chapelfield Lane for H A Overton & Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/0108 - Insertion of doorway into shop unit; Unit 17, Archway
Shopping Centre, Upper Staithe Road for Mr Woolsey
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0045 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Mill Pightle House,
Hollow Lane for Ms R Husain
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
27
8 April 2010
SUTTON - PF/10/0050 - Erection of replacement rear conservatory; 16 Laxfield
Road for Mr M Mitson
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/10/0077 - Raising of the existing roof to include
internal alterations.; Swanton Cottage, The Street for Papa Architects ltd
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/10/0134 - Re-Instatement of Fire Damaged Buildings;
Swanton House Care Home Dereham Road for Barchester Health Care
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - LA/10/0135 - Re-Instatement of Fire Damaged Buildings;
Swanton House Care Home Dereham Road for Barchester Health Care
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0053 - Erection of agricultural building; Church
Farm, Church Road for Mr B Laws
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/10/0015 - Erection of replacement garage; The Manor House,
Brewery Road for Mr J Mason
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/10/0052 - Erection of three-bay garage; Park Barn, Knapton Road
for Mr and Mrs Bennett
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/09/1128 - Construction of Dormer Windows and
Erection of Replacement Garage; Corwell House, East End for Mr C
Wordingham
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/09/1129 - Up-Grading of Roof, Construction of
Dormer Windows and Installation of Replacement Doors and Windows;
Corwell House, East End for Mr C Wordingham
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/09/1162 - Alterations to Vehicular Access and
Partial Re-building of Boundary Wall; The Old Rectory, Church Street for Mr R
Griffiths-Jones
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/09/1166 - Erection of Single-Storey Detached
Annexe; Armeria, Warham Road for Mrs C Crawford
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0036 - Erection of two-storey rear extension
and front boundary wall; Westend House, 26 Dogger Lane for Mr and Mrs A
Dixon
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0042 - Installation of two rear dormer windows;
8 Mindhams Yard for Mr and Mrs Fullwood
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
28
8 April 2010
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0010 - Continued use of land for siting of two storage
containers; Land South of Sheringham Road for Weybourne Community Fund
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0068 - Rendering of external walls and erection of side
extensions; 39 Pine Walk for Mr J Game
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - PF/10/0064 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation
and erection of screen wall; No 3, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton Park for Mr and
Mrs N G Webster
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - PF/09/1185 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (revised design); Plot
1, Wells Road for Bunting & Son Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/10/0044 - Erection of rear conservatory; The Birches, Badger's
Wood, Heath Road for Mr Churchwood
(Householder application)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - NP/10/0242 - Prior Notification of Intention to Construct
Reservoir; Land off Church Road for East Beckham Produce
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0012 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Heron
Wyke, Berry Hall Road for Mr G Davison
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0023 - Conversion of barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road for Norfolk County
Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PM/10/0058 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning reference
20041723 to enable approved holiday units to be occupied as two residential
dwellings; Two Saints Barn, Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363
(Reserved Matters)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/09/1126 - Retention of 1.8m Boundary Fence; 15
Legrice Crescent for Mr D Gotts
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PO/10/0100 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling; Land at Rear
of 2 Church Close for Gravy Developments Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
29
8 April 2010
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0714 – Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling; 43, Nelson
Road for Mr A Holbrook
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to
Two Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey
Dwelling; Former Red Lion Public House, The Street for John Ashton's
Children's Settlement Trust
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 April 2010
GREAT RYBURGH – Mill Field, Mill Lane for Mr Cook
The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 Replanting Notice
PUBLIC HEARING 6 July
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - PF/09/0214 - Erection of One-and-a-Half-Storey Side Extension;
73, Norwich Road for Mrs Rose
RYBURGH - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission:
20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling Unit; 29,
Station Road for Mrs Buxton
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 – Conversion of A1 (Retail Shop) to Two-Storey
Dwelling and Re-location of Bin-Store; Barber’s Shop to Rear 22, Station Road,
Sheringham for Museum Cottages
SUTTON - LA/09/0806 - Reconstruction of Fire Damaged Dwelling Including
New Roof and Erection of Extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr and
Mrs Jolly
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road for Mr Gilligan
Development Control Committee
30
8 April 2010
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
FAKENHAM - PO/08/1510 - Residential Development; Land North of Parker
Drive for Newhall Properties Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HOLT - PF/09/0053 - Use of Land for Siting of Victorian Gallopers; North
Norfolk Railway, Holt Station, Cromer Road for Miss Jones
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee
31
8 April 2010