OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 8 DECEMBER 2011
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 DECISION
1.
NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187- Material change of use of former Anglian
Water Sewage Works, Marshgate
A report seeking Committee’s approval to defer the formal time period for compliance
with the above Enforcement Notice.
Background
The Committee previously resolved unanimously that the Head of Planning and
Building Control be authorised to serve an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the use of the site to cease within
9 months of the effective date of the Notice. The Notice was served on 23 November
2010 with an effective date of 31 December 2010.
The breach of planning control alleged in the notice is “Without planning permission
the material change of use of former water sewage depot to a mixed use of heavy
goods vehicle operating centre, the siting of portable buildings for office and
administration use, the storage and parking of vehicles, trailers, tankers and plant,
the storage of two liquid waste tanks, the storage and distribution of portable toilets”.
An appeal against the Enforcement Notice was made and this appeal was dismissed
and the Enforcement Notice upheld without variation (see Inspector’s decision dated
28 April 2011 at Appendix 1). The Enforcement Notice compliance period therefore
ends some nine months from 28 April 2011, i.e. 27 January 2012.
The company has been searching for alternative premises for a considerable length
of time and a site was identified off Cornish Way, North Walsham. Planning
application ref: PF/11/0234 for “Erection of industrial unit including four storage tanks
and associated development” was submitted by a third party developer with the
intention that the site be occupied by Enviroco Ltd once completed. Whilst the
planning application was submitted on 18 February 2011, due in major part to
surface water drainage issues affecting the development, the final permission was
not issued until 18 November 2011.
Throughout the application process, the company has indicated a likely 40 week
construction time period for the new premises at Cornish Way. If this anticipated time
period is correct then the very earliest completion date from the date of decision for
the planning application would be towards the end of August 2012, well beyond the
compliance period of 27 January 2012. The company has therefore made a formal
request that the Council considers deferring the time period for complying with the
requirements of the Enforcement Notice. A copy of the company’s formal request to
defer is attached at Appendix 1.
Development Committee
1
8 December 2011
In making its decision the Committee has to balance the private commercial interests
of the company against wider public interest matters. The company is keen to ensure
that the business is not put at risk through compliance with the Enforcement Notice,
particularly as 16 full-time jobs are at stake. Alternative premises have been
identified and, were it not for the surface water drainage issues, the permission would
have been granted much sooner and the time constraints would have been less of a
problem.
In respect of finding temporary alternative accommodation at the same time as the
new facility on Cornish Way is constructed, the applicant has indicated that “whilst
this is a possibility it doesn’t make the best commercial sense for our business due to
control & logistical issues, but due to our commitment to the longer term strategy we
would look into what is actually feasible, in order to support a phased transition from
the Marshgate site”. Clearly finding alternative interim accommodation would be a
very desirable objective, especially when considering the situation for local residents
in and around the Marshgate area, who are impacted through the continued
operations of the company at the Marshgate site.
In considering public interest issues the Committee should also afford appropriate
weight to the decision of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to an earlier Norfolk
County Council waste transfer site application, in respect of which serious concerns
were raised about highway safety implications through the presence of large vehicles
being operated by the company. A copy of that decision dated 7 October 2009 is
attached at Appendix 1 for ease of reference.
Having taken into account the case put forward by the company and balancing this
against the wider public interest issues, it is considered that deferring the time period
for compliance with the Enforcement Notice to 28 September 2012 would not seem
to be justified or proportionate, particularly as the option of a phased transition to the
new premises on Cornish Way does not yet appear to have been fully explored by
the company.
Officers would therefore suggest that a compromise time frame of a further five
months i.e. until 30 June 2012 be agreed. This would allow sufficient time for
temporary interim accommodation to be found and this would also afford necessary
time for substantive completion of hard surfaces and associated infrastructure at the
proposed new Cornish Way site upon which it may be possible to re-locate the larger
vehicles sooner than originally envisaged by the company.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is asked to confirm agreement to vary the Enforcement Notice
under Section 173A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended,
with a new compliance date of 30 June 2012.
(Source: Geoff Lyon – Team Leader Enforcement & Special Cases, ext 6226)
Development Committee
2
8 December 2011
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.
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 November 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Rural Residential Conversion Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090920 PF - Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling
Refused 18/11/2009
PF/11/0098 PF - Extension and conversion of barn to provide residential dwelling
Refused 12/04/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion and extension of a barn currently in a ruinous condition, which
the application suggests has a floor area of 84sq.metres, to a four bedroom dwelling
having a total floor area of approximately 265sq.metres.
The dwelling, which would be linear in form and orientated east west would present a
two storey elevation to Rectory Lane with a single storey element under a catslide
roof to the south elevation. The former building would be rebuilt and extended using
flint and reclaimed red bricks whilst the new roof would be of reclaimed pantile and
the windows and external joinery of oak.
Access to the site would be via a new entrance to the north of the former barn off
Rectory Lane with a driveway of some 100 metres in length running diagonally
across an arable field. The area in the immediate vicinity of the dwelling would
provide a hardstanding with a parking area adjoining the western gable end with a
private amenity area beyond.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support which considers that the restoration and improvement of the
barn would be a great addition to the southern end of Hart Lane.
A letter has been received from the applicant, a copy of which is attached at
Appendix 2, much of which seeks to counter the Council’s previous reasons for
refusal. However the letter also refers to the draft of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and PPG2, together with example of other structures in Lower
Bodham, all within close proximity of the site, which have been rebuilt since 1995 and
are now in residential use.
Development Committee
3
8 December 2011
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control - Seek changes to the access drive and turning area to comply with
the requirements of emergency services. Also the size of the proposed window
openings do not provide adequate means of escape.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Objection on the grounds that the existing ruins make a significant contribution to the
historic environment and the proposal to establish the site as a dwelling would have a
significant impact on the site in terms of domestication and visual amenity.
Furthermore trying to incorporate the ruins into a new dwelling does not sit
comfortably from a conservation perspective; C&D feel the site has more to offer as a
ruinous landscape feature.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Objection on the
grounds that the proposal would introduce a new urban feature into the rural
agricultural landscape, even if reclaimed materials of brick and flint are used.
Currently, the existing barn ruins blend into the landscape and add to the sense of
character and history of the landscape and should be left to decay naturally.
Residential development on this piece of land would change it from a rural context to
a residential/leisure use which would have a negative effect on the landscape
character as identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment, and
would therefore be contrary to Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy 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).
Development Committee
4
8 December 2011
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. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for the Committee to
carry out a site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy, where Policies SS2, HO9, EN2 and EN4 are applicable.
Policy SS2 lists development which it is considered requires a rural location,
including agriculture and forestry, the preservation of listed buildings and the re-use
and adaptation of buildings for appropriate purposes.
As far as Policy HO9 is concerned, the supporting text states that the policy will only
apply to buildings of historic, architectural or landscape value that are suitable for reuse without substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration. Poorly constructed
buildings, those having a negative visual appearance and those that have recently
been constructed for another purpose will not be eligible. The Policy goes on to state
that the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the countryside for
permanent residential purposes will be permitted provided the property lies within a
location subject to the residential conversion designation, and is worthy of retention
due to its appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. In addition the
building should be capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding or extension.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character).
Policy EN4 requires that all development is designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. Development proposals, extensions and alterations to existing
buildings and structures will be expected to have regard to the North Norfolk Design
Guide and be suitably designed for the context within which they are set. 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.
The building, which is situated in a fairly open landscape, is in a ruinous condition
and consists primarily of a modern concrete block wall some 2.7 metres in height and
three sections of brick and flint wall approximately 4.0m in height, all of which are
considered to be in a poor structural condition. As such, although the site is within an
area where the conversion of traditional buildings to residential use would be
acceptable under Policy HO9, it is considered that the proposal fails to comply with
either the supporting text or policy in that this former building is not capable of
conversion without substantial rebuilding or extension. In addition the Council’s
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that a new dwelling in
this location would change it from a rural context to a residential/leisure use which
would have a negative effect on the landscape character as identified in the North
Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and which would therefore be contrary to
Policy EN 2 and also Policy SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
5
8 December 2011
As far as the draft NPPF referred to by the applicant is concerned this is still in draft
form and yet to be adopted. Furthermore it may be revised or altered in light of the
consultation process. As such it is for the Committee to decide what weight to afford
this document as a material planning consideration at this stage. Paragraph 113 of
the draft states that local planning authorities should avoid isolated homes in the
countryside unless there are special circumstances, which include essential need for
a rural worker, ensuring the future of a building of architectural or historic interest or
where the re-use of redundant or discussed buildings would enhance the immediate
setting of the area. In respect of Planning Policy Guidance PPG2 this relates to
designated Green Belts, which the site is not within. However guidance under 3.8 of
PPG2 on the re-use of buildings states that the buildings should be of a permanent
and substantial construction and capable of conversion without major or complete
reconstruction; the Council's Core Strategy Policy HO9 adopts a similar approach.
In terms of other material considerations, the Committee is referred to the ministerial
advice from the Rt. Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning
Planning for Growth dated 23 March 2011. This advice states, amongst other things,
that when deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. However it is a matter for the Committee to decide what
weight to give to this statement.
The applicant also makes reference to three properties in close proximity to the site
which have been rebuilt since 1995. Unlike the structure which is the subject of this
application these properties were either still in residential use or there had been no
intervening use, which meant that they were still considered to be dwellings. As such
they complied with the policy requirements in respect of the replacement or
extensions to dwellings in the Countryside policy area.
In terms of the access arrangements the Highway Authority has raised no objection.
In summary it is considered that the scheme as proposed would fail to comply with
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. This is due to the fact that insufficient of the
existing structure remains to warrant its conversion to residential use without
substantial rebuilding or extension. Furthermore due to its appearance it is
considered to be of little historic or architectural value and not worthy of rebuilding,
since this would not protect or enhance the character the site and would have a
negative effect on the landscape character of the area.
Officers do not consider that the other material considerations put forward on behalf
of the applicant are of sufficient weight to overcome the identified conflict with
adopted policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:The proposal fails to comply with the Development Plan policy owing to the
fact that the building is not structurally sound, could not be converted to a
residential use without substantial rebuilding or extension and due to its
appearance is considered to be of little historic or architectural value and not
worthy of retention.
Furthermore the alterations and extension would not protect or enhance the
character the site and would have a negative effect on the landscape character
of the area, as identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment
by reason of introducing an urban feature into the rural agricultural landscape.
Development Committee
6
8 December 2011
3.
CROMER - PF/10/1448 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 01/1800 to
permit retail of multi electrical products; Unit E, North Norfolk Retail Park, Holt
Road for Bennetts Electrical
- Target Date: 11 February 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20010784 PO - Erection of tyre and exhaust fitters (unit a), comparison goods
store (unit b - Argos) and two retail warehouse units (units c and d), formation of two
accesses and incidental works
Approved 07/12/2001
PLA/20011800 PF - Erection of two retail warehouse units and one shop
Approved 11/02/2002
PLA/20030239 PF - Variation of condition 3 of permission reference 20011800 to
enable the sale of a broader range of goods
Withdrawn 25/03/2003
PLA/20081671 PF - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 20011800 to
permit sale of pets and pet supplies
Approved 23/01/2009
PLA/20081670 PF - Formation of entrances and extension of walkway to facilitate
conversion to two retail units
Approved 20/01/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the variation of Condition 9 of planning reference 01/1800 to permit retail of
multi electrical products.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Johnson in respect of the following planning issue:
Policy on retailing outside the Town Centre.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection unless selling a wider range of goods than at previous premises.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection and one complaint have been received. Six of the objections
are from the same person. One of the objection letters dated 17 November 2011 has
been sent to all Members of the Committee. The objections received are as follows:
1.The company (now taken over by Hughes) is continuing to trade from the site
without having received planning permission.
2. Such a proposal will set a precedent reducing footfall in town centres as a result of
stores trading on outskirts of towns.
3. The original restriction on sale of goods should be upheld.
4. The company should be made to move back to town centre.
5. Enforcement action should be taken.
Development Committee
7
8 December 2011
6. The proposal will further damage the quality, vitality and economic viability of
Cromer Town Centre.
7. Erosion of the policy will make it virtually impossible to resist further non-centre
retailing.
8. Televisions are not bulky goods.
9. If allowed the shop will sell 60% of small items not 10%.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection
Planning Policy Manager - Comments following receipt of internal layout plan as
follows: - the above unit is part of the Cromer Retail Park where the principle of retail
development has been established and accepted subject to a limitation on the goods
for sale being ‘bulky’ or of a nature that would not be practical being retailed from a
town centre location. I am aware that the original operators required moving from
their town centre location as this was not considered suitable or practical due to the
nature of goods that were sold. It is also noted from the submitted plan that the
majority of the retail floor area is made over to ‘bulky goods’, if it is accepted that
televisions and audio visual systems fall within this category, and that the smaller
appliances are limited, certainly less than the 500sqm indicated within Policy EC 5.
It is therefore suggested that any decision ties the retail of the incidental products, i.e.
the smaller goods, to either a limited floor area of say no more than 10% or perhaps
more appropriately to be in accordance with the submitted plan.
Although the draft National Planning Policy Framework is at the consultation stage it
is nevertheless a material consideration and should be taken into account. The thrust
of this guidance is to advise Local Authorities to be aware of the need to support the
local economy and that there should be a ‘presumption in favour of development’. In
this case where the issues are balanced, including the fact the impact on the viability
and vitality of the town centre must also be taken into account, this guidance is of
particular relevance.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager - Awaiting response
Cromer Chamber of Trade - No response
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Development Committee
8
8 December 2011
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Acceptability of extending product range in an out of town shopping area.
APPRAISAL
The application site is located within an Employment Area as designated in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. In such locations only employment generating
development proposals will be permitted. Retail warehousing and hotels may be
permitted provided that there is no sequentially preferable site available.
Planning permission for this unit was originally granted under application reference
01/1800 for the erection of two retail warehouse units and one shop. That permission
was granted under the former North Norfolk Local Plan as a Retail Warehouse Site,
with the acknowledgement that some forms of retail development, such as bulky
goods retailing, would be difficult to accommodate in Cromer Town Centre due to the
limited availability of servicing and conveniently located customer parking. That
permission limits the range of goods that can be sold from the site and prevents its
use for general purpose retailing.
The principle of the retail use has therefore been established, but it is the range of
goods permitted which is for consideration under this application.
Condition 3 of permission 01/1800 stated that the unit shall not be used other than for
the sale of bulky goods which fall within the following retail categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Carpets
Electrical white goods
DIY
Furniture
Car accessories and cycles
The reason for this condition was to protect the retail vitality and viability of Cromer
Town Centre, as smaller goods should be retailed from a town centre location and
would be subject to the sequential approach. The above categories of products are
deemed to be 'bulky goods'.
The Planning Policy Manager had previously advised that electrical items covers a
broad category of products and includes items which can not be described as ‘bulky’.
A permission which allows for unrestricted sale of all electrical goods would
undermine Development Plan policy as it could result in the sale of items which
should otherwise be sold from a town centre location. The sale of bulky electrical
goods from the site would be acceptable and some sales of smaller items on an
ancillary basis is usually regarded as compatible with a retail warehouse use. In this
case consideration should therefore be given to the imposition of conditions, either by
reference to display areas or product range lists, which would restrict the sale of
smaller electrical items.
Following receipt of the above comments a floor plan of the premises was requested
indicating how much of the floor space is given over to the sale of bulky electrical
items and how much for incidental sales of other electrical items.
The Committee will note the response of the Planning Policy Manager, who
considers that on balance the development would support the local economy. He
suggests that a condition is imposed on any approval that ties the retail of the
incidental products, i.e. the smaller goods to accord with either no more than 10% of
the floor area or to the floor plan layout submitted.
Development Committee
9
8 December 2011
One of the objections received in relation to this application is that televisions are not
'bulky goods'. This point is considered to be finely balanced, but it is still concluded
that the majority of the area is given over to 'bulky goods' and can be conditioned as
such.
At the time of writing this report the comments of the Economic Development and
Tourism Manager were awaited.
Other material considerations include ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March
2011.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the emphasis
identified above is a matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it
is consistent with the previous statements of Government policy set out above.
Development Committee
10
8 December 2011
Whilst the application does not fully comply with Development Plan policy it is not
considered practical for the business to be split into two by only selling 'bulky goods'.
Some ancillary sales of smaller electrical items are, subject to a condition limiting the
floor area given to the sales of these items, considered to be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Economic
Development and Tourism Manager and imposition of appropriate conditions
including limiting the floor area for sales of non bulky goods to that shown on
the submitted plan.
4.
HOLT - PO/11/0978 - Development of approximately 85 dwellings, access,
public open space and associated infrastructure; Land off Cley Road and
Woodfield Road for Landform Holt Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 14 November 2011
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Allocation
Controlled Water Risk
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Contaminated Land Buffer Zone
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19810781 - Residential Development
Refused 09/06/1981
PLA/19810161 - Residential Development
Refused 09/06/1981
THE APPLICATION
This is an outline planning application for residential development of 'approximately'
85 dwellings on a 3.25 hectare (approx) site. Access is the only matter of detail being
formally applied for at this stage, including certain off-site highway improvements.
Additionally the plans submitted for approval include a 'Site Parameters Plan', which
as well as showing details of the access proposals also distinguishes areas of the
site between the housing development and the location of existing and proposed
boundary landscaping, together with the quantity of public open space proposed.
Vehicular access to the site is proposed from two points, Woodfield Road to the east
and Cley Road to the west. It is proposed that Woodfield Road would serve the
majority of the development (up to 80 dwellings maximum) with limited development
served from Cley Road (up to 20 dwellings maximum). There would be no through
route for vehicles (except for emergency vehicles) between the two access points.
Other plans submitted with the application detail the proposed junction arrangements
with Woodfield Road and Cley Road, as well as 'off-site' alterations to the Kelling
Road and Grove Lane junctions with Cromer Road. (Kelling Road and Cromer Road
interconnect with Woodfield Road). These off-site works involve the re-alignment of
carriageway edges and widening of footways, together with provision of a new length
of footway along Kelling Road.
Development Committee
11
8 December 2011
Also included with the application are draft Heads of Terms for a Section 106
Obligation (attached in Appendix 3). These include the following obligations:
£19,000 towards improvements to the King George V recreation ground (Peacock
Lane).
£10,000 towards Holt Playing Fields Association.
£30,000 towards loss of public car parking provision.
£5,300 towards refurbishment works to Holt Community Centre.
£50 per dwelling towards work associated with potential increased visitor pressure
impacts on the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area and Special Area of
Conservation.
County Council education, library and fire contributions.
£10,000 towards Peacock Lane improvements.
45% affordable housing (subject to viability).
The application is also accompanied by the following documentation:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Transport Assessment
Sustainability and Energy Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Services Statement
Ground Investigation
Arboricultural Assessment
Landscape Report
Ecology Report
Historic Environment Assessment
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection, subject to re-negotiation of the S.106 benefits to the community. (Since
issuing this response the Town Council has been provided with the most recent draft
S.106 Heads of Terms submitted by the applicants).
REPRESENTATIONS
A total of 42 individual letters/e-mails have been received objecting to the proposed
development. The bulk of these objections relate to highway issues and several are
concerned with the process reached in the allocation of this site for residential
development. These objections are summarised as follows:
-
-
-
The process by which the planning inspector allocated this site in substitution
with the Gresham's School site was flawed because of the lack of further public
consultation, a fact admitted by the Planning Inspectorate. Whole process
criticised.
Other preferable sites including the Gresham's site and other brownfield sites
elsewhere in the District.
Site is in a Conservation Area and the AONB.
Additional traffic can only increase congestion in the town centre as
acknowledged by NNDC in their response to Inspector’s Matters and Issues par.
3.18.
Predicted vehicle movements in the applicants' submitted Transport Statement
disputed.
Proposed improvements to the junction of Kelling Road/Cromer Road junction
insufficient. Traffic lights and/or mini roundabout needed.
Development Committee
12
8 December 2011
-
-
-
-
-
Peacock Lane not the safest place to cycle or walk due to commercial and
service vehicles blocking the road access. It is unlikely that people will walk or
cycle to the town centre despite claims they will.
Surface to Peacock Lane close to the site is in poor condition.
Concerns in regards to access for emergency vehicles.
Unauthorised vehicles may use track that passes existing bungalows in Rowan
way, Woodfield Road, Bryony Court and Heather Drive, creating a hazard and
security risk.
Disruption if regular access through the town is permitted for trucks transporting
heavy construction machinery and building materials to and from the site.
Unsuitability of Cley Road/New Street to accommodate heavy construction
vehicles. Potential damage to sewers etc.
Unsuitability of Woodfield Road to accommodate construction traffic (road
surface already has suffered subsidence).
Request for structural surveys to be carried out on nearby properties before
construction work commences.
Lack of suitable drainage and potential overloading of the sewerage system and
inadequacy in gas and water supplies.
Presence of archaeological sites.
Existing housing estate has a number of elderly and infirm residents, for whom
traffic and children will be traumatic due to safety concerns and loss of peace and
quiet. This will be amplified by construction traffic.
Concerns regarding potential for increased anti-social behaviour.
Devaluation of property may occur as a result of development.
Lack of local employment opportunities and a need to provide added medical and
educational facilities.
Local infrastructure issues (gas and water supplies).
Holt is a unique town and should not be expanded, as urban sprawl will occur.
The balance of farming and tourism industry, together with service industries is
about right, further housing may have a detrimental effect upon this, and will
change the character of the High Street. We should be preserving/protecting our
agricultural land.
Increased levels of pollution may occur, including light pollution caused by street
lighting and security lighting.
The existing tree-line and hedgerows should remain in place, the site is subject to
two designated Conservation Orders and is within the AONB.
Style, height and density of development not in keeping with current low-level,
low density housing. Some may block out skyline and natural light.
Safety and well-being of children using George V Playing Field will be at risk as
there are no pavements to the playing field.
The footpath and playing field will be used as a dog toilet due to a lack of dog
fouling bins.
Photographs shown in the Historic Environment Assessment are not true
reflections of the immediate vicinity.
A number of species of wildlife seen on sight which are not accounted for in the
Ecological Assessment.
Affordable housing should be exclusively for local people.
Concern over who has responsibility for maintaining the ditch?
Concerns that the development is not viable.
81 individually signed copies of a duplicated letter have been received. The letter
raises objections to the application on grounds relating to construction traffic using a
route via Cley Road, New Street and Holt town centre. Specifically these relate to
pedestrian and road safety, structural damage to buildings, damage to road surfaces
and underground services, town centre disruption and the substandard nature of the
New Street/High Street junction to cater for heavy goods vehicles.
Development Committee
13
8 December 2011
In addition the Highway Authority has forwarded 50 individually signed copies of a
duplicated letter which they have received. The letter raises concerns regarding
increased traffic levels in Holt, in particular upon the town centre and along Cley
Road/New Street. The letter suggests that if the development is to go ahead these
problems would be lessened by reducing the number of dwellings permitted on the
site and the amount served off Cley Road. Additionally concerns are expressed
regarding construction traffic. Also with these letters is a copy of a traffic survey
accompanied by photographs, undertaken by local residents between June and
August this year.
5 letters/e-mails have been received which whilst not objecting to the application
raise the following comments/concerns:
-
-
-
Changes to sight lines at junction of Cromer Road/Kelling Road are insufficient,
mini roundabout would be better.
Will Woodfield Road be re-constructed prior to use by developer’s vehicles (a full
survey of road condition should be undertaken)? Access for developer’s vehicles
should be via Cley Road.
Will all existing trees/hedgerows be retained and will new trees/hedgerows be
included where possible?
Delays in building a new car park should be resolved before development is
started.
Are local services/utilities adequate for additional homes, including local school,
doctors surgery, chemists dispensary and sewage works?
Can double yellow lines be included at a number of highlighted roads/junctions?
Parking at both ends of Pearsons Road causes access concerns. A new
pedestrian footway will narrow this considerably and make access extremely
difficult and dangerous. Cars parked opposite the entrance to Gresham's School
create a visual barrier when exiting left from Grove Lane and are an obstruction
to traffic in the opposite direction.
Developers should provide more for the town itself. In regards to the George V
playing field, should provide a decent playground.
Comments and results of the various traffic surveys provided by the applicant at
junction of Kelling/Cromer Roads are inconsistent with real experiences.
Slowing/traffic calming on Cromer Road will have little or no effect on congestion.
King George V playing field and Woodfield Road playing field/sports club are
already adequate and do not require further cash. Cash to resurface Peacock
Lane cannot be justified as there will be no increase in traffic. Funding should
benefit everyone, for facilities such as the Holt Medical Practice, Citizens Advice
Bureau and Holt Community Centre.
5 letters/e-mails of support have been received on the following grounds:
-
-
Development will deliver additional housing, including much needed affordable
housing in an area prevalent with second homes and holiday lets, in a low impact
and sustainable manner.
Site is within easy pedestrian reach of the town centre.
Will have little visual impact upon the surrounding area and is sympathetic to the
characteristics of Holt in layout, style and density.
Access proposals will offer wider Holt improvements at both the Cromer
Road/Kelling Road and Cromer Road/Grove Lane junctions.
Financial contribution to be made towards car park at Thornage Road.
Parking restrictions could be imposed on Cley Road.
Increased population will help support shops, businesses and the school, and
create employment opportunities.
Will ensure more local people can remain in the town who would otherwise be
forced to move away.
Development Committee
14
8 December 2011
Letters have also been received from the following:
Holt Allotments Society - Raises concerns regarding the potential loss of the
existing hedgerow around the allotments and the need for security fencing.
Holt Chamber of Trade - Comments as follows:
- Traffic down Cley Road and New Street is very congested and the New
Street/High Street junction is unable to cope. Parking also exacerbates the
problem. More houses will add to this.
- Visibility splay will not solve Cromer Road/Kelling Road problem – miniroundabout may help?
- The financial contribution towards Thornage Road Car Park is low, needs more.
- Support enterprising house designs, however the proposed housing layout is
unimaginative and could be visually more appealing.
The Holt Society - Alarmed to read in the Transport Statement that construction
access will be via Cley Road. This could damage the fabric of the Conservation Area.
Parked cars along New Street restrict the width of the highway, causing cars to
mount the pavement.
CPRE Norfolk - Objects on grounds that it considers the Transport Statement
submitted with the application is inadequate and misleading regarding the degree of
traffic congestion in the town that would arise from the development. Concludes that
the application should be refused for these reasons. Also states dismay regarding the
process in which the site was allocated by the planning inspector.
Letter received from agents acting for another allocated site in Holt (land at Heath
Farm/Hempstead Road) suggesting that future upgrades to the sewage network in
the town should be shared proportionately between the developers of both sites.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Advises that Holt sewage treatment works along with the local
sewerage network currently has capacity available to accommodate foul drainage
from the proposed development. Recommends a condition in respect of surface
water drainage.
Environment Agency - Confirms no objection to the application subject to a condition
requiring the submission and approval of a detailed surface water drainage scheme,
prior to the commencement of any development on the site. Recommends that the
local planning authority should be satisfied that the existing drainage ditch which
passes through the site would not be liable to flood in a 1 in 100 rainfall event.
Environmental Health - No objections in respect of contamination and drainage/flood
risk issues. Requests consideration be given to refuse storage areas as part of future
detailed proposals. Comments that there is no historical evidence to indicate that the
drain which passes through the site has ever flooded. Considers that the threat of
flooding from the drain should be disregarded, provided that riparian responsibility for
it is clearly defined once the properties are built, to ensure its long term maintenance.
Sustainability Team - Recommends that planning permission should only be
approved subject to conditions requiring compliance with (at a minimum) level 3 of
the code for sustainable homes and at least 10% renewable energy to accord with
Core Strategy Policy EN 6.
Development Committee
15
8 December 2011
Norfolk Constabulary (Crime Prevention Design Advisor) - As this is an outline
application there is little detail which can be commented on. However is encouraged
that the proposed masterplan (part of the design and access statement) appears to
have been put together with some thought and care to some of the Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Recommends early consultation
with the advisor when detailed plans are being prepared.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Advises that all the supporting evidence has
been assessed and negotiations with the developer has resulted in a package of
highway improvements that it is considered adequately addresses the likely transport
impacts of the development. The highway mitigation package includes:1) Removal of on-street parking in the locality of the Cley Road access and in Kelling
Road near to the Cromer road junction.
2) Localised widening of Cley Road to 4.8m wide within the visibility zone of the site
entrance.
3) Improvement of the Cromer Road/Kelling Road/Grove Road junction including a
30mph Vehicle Actuated Sign if deemed necessary.
4) Provision of a continuous footway along the west side of Kelling Road from
Woodfield Road to Kelling Close.
5) Improvement to the surfacing of Peacock Lane up to footpath number 4 if the land
can be shown to be public highway).
It is considered that construction traffic could cause problems within Holt if not
properly managed and so various conditions are suggested to address any potential
issues.
Advises that there is no objection to the application subject to conditions in relation to
the following:
-
-
Submission and approval of full detailed plans in relation to roads, footways,
cycleways, visibility splays, access arrangements, and parking provision.
Details of construction worker parking provision.
Submission and approval of a construction traffic management plan and access
route.
On-site construction vehicle wheel cleaning facilities.
Submission and approval of detailed schemes for the off-site highway
improvement works.
Timing of the off-site highway works. (Cley Road improvements to be completed
within 3 months of the commencement of development; Cromer Road/Kelling
Road/Grove Road improvements and Kelling Road footway improvements to be
completed before the occupation of any dwellings to be served off Woodfield
Road; Peacock Lane improvements to be completed before the occupation of the
30th dwelling served off Woodfield Road).
Securing of Traffic Regulation Orders on parts of Cley Road and Kelling Road.
In separate correspondence the Highway Authority has provided the following
statement:
"There have been various objections made including that of the CPRE essentially
saying that Holt cannot cope with the extra traffic. However it has to be recognised
that the site has been allocated in the LDF and as such the general impact of traffic
has to be taken as already considered and acceptable.
Development Committee
16
8 December 2011
The application envisages a split of the development site such that some 15
dwellings are served of Cley Road and some 70 dwellings off Kelling Road.
Guidance for Transport Assessment (2007) recommends that for less than 30
dwellings no assessment is needed so that in traffic terms the development off Cley
Road can be considered inconsequential subject to safe access. The 70 dwellings off
Kelling Road would require a Transport Statement which majors on non-car modes
and junction safety. Junction capacity assessments are not necessarily required as
part of a Transport Statement.
Notwithstanding the views expressed by the CPRE and the points of detail it makes,
the Highway Authority considers that the Transport Statement contains sufficient
information for the Authority to fully understand the likely impacts of the development
and make the formal recommendation of no objection."
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligation Requirements) - Advises on the
authority's standard charges in relation to securing a financial contribution towards
education where there is a shortfall in local schools capacity. In this case there will
need to be a contribution towards a shortfall in provision at Sheringham High School.
In addition advises that a contribution towards library provision is required (£60 per
dwelling).
Norfolk County Council (Countryside Access Officer) - No objections on grounds of
public rights of way. Comments that a public right of way runs along the southern
edge of the site and that it is proposed to re-surface this section of route. Requests
consultation on the precise details of the re-surfacing. Would welcome further
surfacing of this footpath to the east of the site which is well used.
Norfolk County Council (Historic Environment Service) - No objection subject to a
condition requiring a programme of archaeological investigation.
Strategic Housing - Advises that there are 683 households on the housing register
who require to be rehoused in Holt. This is a significant level of housing need. The
type of affordable housing required to meet this housing need is:
1 and 2 bedroom flats
2 bedroom bungalows
2 and 3 bedroom wheelchair bungalows
2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom houses.
At the reserved matters stage it will be necessary to agree with the applicant the type
of affordable housing to be provided on the site to meet the identified housing need.
The site is allocated in the Site Specific Development Plan Document as being
capable of accommodating 100 dwellings. Policy HO2 of the Core Strategy requires
that 45% of all dwellings on sites in Principal and Secondary Settlements are
provided as affordable housing, subject to viability. The current outline application for
85 dwellings means that up to 7 less affordable dwellings will be provided on this site
as the site is to be developed at a lower density, although a lower density may be
preferred for other reasons.
Concludes that Housing Services is supportive of this application being approved,
subject to signing of a Section 106 Agreement which will protect the affordable
housing which will be delivered on this site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - In
terms of the site's location within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, comments as
follows:
Development Committee
17
8 December 2011
"....the land helps mark the transition from town to country. It therefore makes a
contribution to the northern fringe of Holt. However, it is clearly a fairly plain
agricultural field which has very few features of interest. By virtue of its essentially
‘landlocked’ position, the main body of the site also occupies a secluded position
relative to the main approach routes. As a result, we can conclude that the site’s
contribution to the wider landscape is somewhat limited.
Irrespective of this, it has to be accepted that introducing approx 85 dwellings onto an
undeveloped field must have some landscape impact. However, provided the scale
and form of that development is compatible with the surrounding area (as it appears
to be), and provided also that the landscaping and planting reinforces the existing
landscape character, much of this impact can be ameliorated. Therefore, given the
site’s rather peripheral position relative to the River Glaven, it is not considered that a
cogent argument can be put forward which concludes that the development would
harm the Glaven Valley CA."
Whilst appreciating that the application is only outline at this stage, makes a number
of comments regarding the submitted Design and Access Statement. Finds the
contents of the statement encouraging in that it appears to envisage a development
of 'real streets' and makes reference to achieving 'high quality design', implying that
real thought will go into creating bespoke designs which will reinterpret traditional
built forms in a more contemporary way. "This is exactly the kind of honest approach
espoused by the Design Guide and is to be broadly welcomed. Certainly it is far more
likely to make a positive impact to the District’s built environment than the pastiche
schemes seen elsewhere. However, to sound a cautionary note, contemporary
certainly must not equate to alien as this is unlikely to be received well locally."
Makes a number of detailed comments which should be taken into account at a
detailed planning stage, including that the majority of development on the site should
not exceed two storey height.
Concludes that in terms of the development’s impact upon existing and future
heritage assets, there is nothing within this outline submission which gives obvious
grounds for concern. "Yes a development of this scale would inevitably have some
impact, but not to the extent of creating material harm".
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Does not object in
principle to the proposed development; however the site lies within a sensitive and
designated landscape of high quality and therefore any proposed development
should reflect this. Comments are provided for the detailed design stage should
outline approval be granted. Before this application is determined recommends that a
number of issues relating to the submitted Site Parameters Plan need to be clarified
or addressed to ensure that the impact of the development on the AONB and
landscape character can be minimised or mitigated for at the detailed design stage.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Objects on grounds that the site is within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the proposal would be contrary to the
guidance contained in PPS7 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas'. (Full
response attached in Appendix 3).
Natural England - Refers to clause (f) of Policy H01 of the Site Allocations DPD
which requires prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts
on the North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC arising as a result of increased visitor pressure,
and on-going monitoring of such measures. Considers that this requirement could be
satisfied if the applicant contributes financially towards the Council's ongoing work
Development Committee
18
8 December 2011
regarding these impacts. This would need to be secured through a legal agreement
prior to planning permission being issued. Advises that if this is secured there would
be no requirement for the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment (Habitats
Directive) of this proposal before determining the application.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Considers that the proposals in relation to open
space provision are now acceptable in terms of the on-site amount and off-site
contributions. In reaching this conclusion acknowledges the intention of the
developer to provide new security fencing and gates around the adjacent allotments.
English Heritage - awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February
2011):
Policy HO1 (Land allocated for residential development of approximately 100
dwellings)
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their 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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Planning policy background (principle of development)
2. Extent of current application (amount of development)
3. Highway issues
4. Planning obligations
Development Committee
19
8 December 2011
APPRAISAL
Planning Policy Background
The site is allocated for residential development in the Site Allocations Development
Plan Document (DPD) which was adopted by the Council in February 2011. Policy
HO1 of the DPD allocates this 3.25 ha site for approximately 100 dwellings. By
implication the principle of developing the site for residential development is therefore
acceptable. A copy of Policy HO1 is attached in Appendix 3. However, a number of
the letters of representation received have raised objections to the process which led
up to the site being allocated and it is therefore important that the Committee has an
appreciation of these events.
Preparation of a DPD is a highly regulated process which requires the completion of
detailed technical appraisals relating to site suitability, availability and delivery of
development. Key stages in Plan preparation must be subject to public participation
so that all parties with an interest in the development of land can both understand
and influence the content of the Plan. The final stage of Plan preparation is an
independent examination held by an Inspector appointed by Government to consider
the soundness of the Plan.
Site H01 (the application site) was identified by the Council as a potential housing
allocation in one of the early stages of the plan preparation, and during a subsequent
public consultation exercise in 2006 was identified as a ‘Preferred Site’. Following
representations made in response to the public consultation both by promoters of
other sites (particularly Gresham’s School) and by local residents, challenging the
suitability of H01, the Council decided not to include the site in the Draft Plan (the
following stage in the process). Instead the Council included land south of Cromer
Road in Holt (owned by Gresham's School). This Draft Plan was subject to further
public consultation prior to its submission for independent examination by an
Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. The examination took place in
July/August 2010.
The remit of the Inspector was to reach a judgement on the 'soundness' of the Plan
starting from a presumption that the Plan was sound unless it was demonstrated to
be otherwise. Only persons who made objections to the Plan were entitled to appear
at the examination proceedings. In respect of Holt, objections were made against the
Cromer Road site on behalf of developers with an interest in developing the H01 site
(who in turn argued the merits of H01). Similarly the Council defended the proposed
Cromer Road allocation and argued against the inclusion of H01. The Inspector did
not hear representations from either Gresham's School or from residents close to site
H01 on the basis that they were supporters of the submitted Plan and consequently
had no right to appear. Their views were represented by the Planning Authority in its
role as advocate of the Plan.
The Inspector issued a report on the examination in November 2010. The report was
binding. In his report the inspector reached the conclusion that, firstly, the Cromer
Road site was not suitable for development and, secondly, that site H01 was suitable
and should be allocated. The relevant extract of the inspector's report is attached in
Appendix 3. On the basis of the binding report the Council formally adopted the
DPD in February this year.
Following adoption of the DPD local residents who live close to site H01 raised
concerns through the local MP regarding the handling and outcome of the
examination process which had excluded their opportunity to make any
representation against the subsequent inclusion of H01. The Inspectorate responded
by issuing an apology, accepting that there had been a deficiency in the process and
Development Committee
20
8 December 2011
a deviation from the principles of fairness and natural justice, resulting from the
Inspector not requiring further consultation with affected parties. After this
correspondence between the Planning Inspectorate, the MP and the local residents
had been brought to the attention of the Council, the Council's Strategic Director
wrote to the Inspectorate seeking clarification on the implications of their admission
of these failings, given that the Council had since adopted the Site Allocations DPD
which included site H01. The Inspectorate subsequently wrote back giving the
opinion that there is 'no legislative impact on your Authority resulting from our
apology'. Copies of this correspondence between the Inspectorate, the Council, the
MP and local residents are copied in Appendix 3.
Notwithstanding this situation the fact remains that the Council now has an adopted
Site Allocations DPD which allocates site H01 for residential development. As part of
the consultation process for this planning application and in recognition of the
Planning Inspectorate’s admission over the shortcomings regarding earlier public
consultation, a public exhibition of the planning application was organised by the
Council at Holt Community Centre on 14th September. The event was very well
attended.
It should also be acknowledged that since the receipt of the Inspector's report there
has been considerable engagement with the current applicants regarding
development proposals for the site, and they clearly have an expectation that the
principle of developing the site for housing development is established through
adoption of the DPD.
Extent of the current application
As submitted the application is for 'approximately' 85 dwellings. Officers have
expressed some reservation regarding the lack of precision of this description. In
response the applicants have said that they would be willing to accept a condition of
planning permission limiting the development to no more than 90 dwellings. Clearly
at this outline stage, when no detailed plans have been drawn up, it is not possible to
establish exactly the amount of development which can be accommodated on the
site. However, bearing in mind that the policy relating to this site in the adopted DPD
refers to 'approximately 100 dwellings', it is not considered that there can be any
objection to a limit of 90 dwellings. This would equate to a density of 27 dwellings per
hectare.
As referred to previously the only specific detail applied for at this stage relates to
access, and this together with associated highway details is discussed in more detail
below. Accordingly details relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale
would have to be the subject of subsequent application for reserved matters in the
event of outline permission being granted. Notwithstanding this, the applicants have
submitted a 'Site Parameters Plan' for approval at this stage. This plan includes
certain details which the Committee should be aware of because these would have a
bearing on the nature of any subsequent reserved matters application.
The Site Parameters Plan, as well as indicating the various points of access
(considered below), distinguishes between the area of the site to be developed and
indicative areas of perimeter landscaping. The reference to landscaping shows
existing boundary planting (trees and hedgerows) to be retained (i.e. those along the
southern and northern boundaries, around the adjacent allotments, and along the
eastern boundary beyond which there is existing housing development). The plan
also indicates new tree planting where there are currently open gaps along the
northern boundary. The principle of retaining and supplementing landscaping along
these boundaries accords with the requirements referred to in Policy HO1 of the
DPD.
Development Committee
21
8 December 2011
Except for land taken up by road entrances to the site, the Site Parameters Plan
annotates the remainder of the land for housing development with a reference that
0.29 ha. of this area would be in the form of open space. The open space would
equate to 9.5% of the total site area. Originally the Plan made reference to building
heights of up to 2.5 storeys. Following concerns that this reference could prejudice
the assessment of future detailed plans, the applicants have now removed it from the
plan. It is now considered that the extent of detail included on the Site Parameters
Plan is acceptable as a basis for informing any future application for reserved matters
should outline planning permission be granted.
Highway issues
The Site Parameters Plan shows that vehicular access to the site would be from two
points, Woodfield Road (a residential estate road) to the east and Cley Road to the
west. The plan also shows that there would be no through route for traffic between
these access points. The plan states that a maximum of 80 dwellings would be
served off Woodfield Road and a maximum of 20 dwellings from Cley Road. The
Design and Access Statement submitted with the application includes an illustrative
masterplan for the site which shows a possible road and building layout. This
masterplan illustrates only 12 dwellings being served off Cley Road. The Committee
will also note that in the response from the Highway Authority reference is made to it
being envisaged that 15 dwellings would be served off Cley Road. The Highway
Authority has since confirmed that its formal response raising no objection to the
application would not differ if up to 20 dwellings were served off Cley Road.
The off-site highway improvements proposed are represented by detailed drawings
submitted with the application. These include improvements to the junction of Cromer
Road and Grove Road which are in fact programmed to be undertaken by the
Highway Authority during the current financial year, irrespective of the decision of this
planning application. Locally there has been the suggestion that a mini-roundabout
should be constructed at the junction of Cromer Road with Kelling Road. This is not
something which is supported by the Highway Authority and the applicants' transport
consultants have provided a note explaining the reasons why their proposal for realigning the footways adjacent to this junction is the preferred highway solution. This
note is attached in Appendix 3. The Committee will note that in the response from
the Highway Authority, in which it confirms no objection to the application, a number
of conditions are recommended, including the timing of these off-site highway works.
One of the main concerns expressed by objectors relates to construction traffic
during the course of developing the site. The submitted Transport Statement states
that it is anticipated the construction access for the site would be via the Cley Road
access. It is understood that this is the applicants' preferred route because of the
substandard construction of Woodfield Road to accommodate heavy goods vehicles.
Objectors’ concerns regarding the Cley Road access being used relate to the nearby
densely built up part of the town, existing traffic flow issues because of on-street
parking, and the junction of New Street (a continuation of Cley Road) with High
Street and Holt town centre.
Construction traffic by its very nature will cause a degree of additional heavy vehicle
movements and potential inconvenience during the course of site development, but is
a temporary issue and can be mitigated against by certain measures. Potential
problems arising from construction traffic is not a reason to refuse planning
permission, but nevertheless should be managed. In this respect the Committee will
note that the Highway Authority has suggested conditions requiring the prior
submission and approval of a construction traffic management plan and access
route.
Development Committee
22
8 December 2011
Planning Obligations
Circular 05/2005 provides guidance on Planning Obligations (or "S106 Agreements").
Their purpose is to make acceptable development which would otherwise be
unacceptable in planning terms. One role of planning obligations is to prescribe the
nature of a development (e.g. to secure a given proportion of affordable housing),
and another role is to mitigate against a developments impacts. There is the
fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold.
Consequently there are five tests which planning obligations must meet. They should
be:
1) relevant to planning;
2) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms;
3) directly related to the proposed development;
4) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and,
5) reasonable in all other respects.
Under the S.106 Heads of Terms now submitted with the application (Appendix 3),
the financial payments being offered towards local recreational provision,
improvements to the community centre, education, library and fire services are
intended to reflect the additional demands which the proposed development would
have locally. The payment in lieu of the loss of public car parking relates to 10 onstreet parking spaces which would be lost on Cley Road as a result of the new site
access and visibility splay requirements. As the Committee is aware, public car
parking is at a premium in Holt and it is envisaged that this payment would go
towards future provision/improvement of parking facilities in the town. The payment
towards improvements to Peacock Lane would help to enhance what would be the
principal pedestrian/cycle route between the site and the town centre. The payment
towards work associated with increased visitor pressure on the North Norfolk Coast
is a policy requirement for this and a number of the other DPD site allocations. Finally
a planning obligation is the normal means to secure the agreed level of affordable
housing on a residential development, including details of its type of tenure and
phasing of its provision.
In terms of the Council's adopted Core Strategy the reference in the Heads of Terms
to 45% of the dwellings to be affordable (subject to viability) complies with Policy
HO2.
In terms of public recreation provision, the combination of 0.29 ha. open space on the
site together with the financial contributions towards nearby playground and
recreation ground facilities, has been agreed by the Council's Countryside and Parks
Manager as being reasonable in the context of the development proposed and the
Council's interim practice guide for open space requirements. In agreeing to this,
account has been taken of a separate commitment which the applicants have made
to the Holt Allotments Society to provide secure fencing around the perimeter of the
allotments, which in itself represents a contribution towards local recreational
facilities.
Overall the various matters now included in the submitted Heads of Terms are
considered reasonable in the context of this application and are consistent with the
advice contained in Circular 05/2005. If the Committee resolves to grant planning
permission, this would need to be subject to these Heads of Terms being converted
into a formal S.106 Obligation.
Development Committee
23
8 December 2011
Other Issues
The site forms part of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
The Committee will note the objection raised to this application by the Norfolk Coast
Partnership. This site is not the only DPD allocation which lies within the AONB.
This was a matter which was considered during the examination process, the
conclusions of the Inspector being that, if housing needs of certain of the District’s
towns are to be met, some allocations within the AONB must be made. The
Inspector went on to say that “it goes almost without saying that those few should be
in the least sensitive locations, generally on the urban fringe or within existing
settlement boundaries”. Notwithstanding the views expressed by Norfolk Coast
Partnership (and some objectors), it is considered that development of this site would
not have a significant impact on the AONB.
The site also lies within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. This is a large rural
Conservation Area which extends northwards through the AONB and consequently
issues relating to protecting its character and appearance are shared within the
AONB. The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager on this topic. Because the proposal involves land over 1000
sq.m. in a Conservation Area, English Heritage have been consulted and their
comments are currently awaited.
Other issues associated with housing development on the site (eg. design, scale and
relationships with adjoining development) would be addressed at the submission of
reserved matters stage, when there would be the further opportunity for the public to
make representations.
Other Material Considerations
Other material considerations include ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March
2011.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession;
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing;
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity);
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date;
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
Development Committee
24
8 December 2011
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the emphasis
identified above is a matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it
is consistent with the previous statements of Government policy set out above.
Conclusions
The site is allocated for residential development in the adopted Site Allocations DPD
and consequently there is substantive case to agree to the principle of this outline
planning application, notwithstanding the legitimate criticisms which have been made
regarding the public examination process undertaken last year.
As with the determination of any planning application account needs to be taken of
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 Act which states as
follows:
"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination
to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance
with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
In other words, when determining planning applications, where a Plan is up to date
and contains specific policies in relation to the proposed development, the
development plan must be the primary consideration of the decision maker.
However, the reference to ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’ allows
for the possibility that in some circumstance a decision which does not accord with
the Development Plan may be justified. What constitutes a material consideration for
planning purposes and the weight to be attached to such considerations lies at the
heart of the decision making process.
The planning history of this site, including the allocation process, is a material
consideration to the determination of the application. However in considering this
issue care needs to be taken to distinguish between procedural flaws on the one
hand and land use considerations on the other. Whilst the process by which the
Inspector reached his decisions has been criticised it does not inevitably follow that
his conclusions in terms of land use and the suitability of the site are wrong.
Underlying the criticism of the Inspector’s decision to allocate site H01 is a
presumption that, had he allowed for a further period of consultation and heard from
those who live near the site, there is a possibility that he might have reached a
different conclusion and not allocated the site for development. Clearly it is not
possible to know for sure what the outcome would have been had such
circumstances occurred. However it is clear from the Inspector's decision letter that
he took into account a number of the substantive issues raised in the objections to
the current planning application. Specifically he is mindful of issues relating to
landscape impact and the AONB, traffic/highway concerns, and the general suitability
and sustainability of the site location. Furthermore these considerations and his
Development Committee
25
8 December 2011
conclusions were reached in the light of evidence which was before him in terms of
Committee reports, a sustainability appraisal, a traffic impact assessment, other
technical appraisals, and from his site visit.
It is the view of Officers that that issues relating to the examination process as
opposed to those relating to the land use merits of the site being developed should
be afforded only limited weight in the decision. Furthermore if consideration were to
be given to refuse the current application, the reasons for refusal would need to be
based on substantiated land use planning grounds alone.
With regard to the other issues relating to this application, the access details
combined with the proposed off-site highway improvements have raised no objection
from the Highway Authority and as such are considered acceptable. Similarly the
other matters which are subject to agreement at this stage, notably the quantum of
development, open space provision (and contributions) together with the other issues
and contributions referred in the S.106 Heads of Terms are all now considered
satisfactory.
Accordingly delegated
recommended.
authority
to
grant
outline
planning
permission
is
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to:
1) Completion of a S.106 Obligation based on the latest draft Heads of Terms
referred to in this report.
2) No objections raised by English Heritage.
3) The imposition of conditions as considered necessary by the Head of
Planning and Building Control. These conditions to cover the following
matters:
-
Submission of reserved matters for approval of layout, scale, appearance
and landscaping.
A maximum of 90 dwellings.
Full details relating to the construction of roads, footways, cycleways,
visibility splays, accesses and parking provision.
A construction management plan and access route.
Construction worker parking provision.
On-site wheel cleaning facilities.
Timing of off-site highway works.
Surface water drainage.
Code for Sustainable Homes compliance.
10% renewable energy provision.
Boundary treatments (including full details of security fencing around the
allotments).
Programme for archaeological investigation.
Management of open space.
Development Committee
26
8 December 2011
5.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1201 - Change of use from residential to A1
(hairdresser); 36A Vicarage Street for Mr S Marshall
- Target Date: 08 December 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
See also LA/11/1202 below
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade I Consultation Area
Conservation Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740699 PF - Shop & living accommodation
Approved 09/12/1974
PLA/19781620 PF - Conversion of former vicarage into 4 dwellings for residential
use
Approved 14/11/1978
DE21/11/0298 ENQ - Change of Use from Residential to Hair Studio
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use from residential to retail (Class A1) use, as a hairdressers.
The property is one of four units that previously were the former Vicarage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Peter Moore having regard to the following planning
issues:
Impact of A1 use in relation to the encouragement of use of empty A1 units in the
Town Centre; impact on residential amenities; impact on integrity of the Listed
building.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application on the grounds that the Housing List is extremely long and
evidence should be given to substantiate that all endeavours have been met to let
this property. There are plenty of empty shops in the town for this purpose.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received raising the following points
(summarised);
1. The former vicarage was restored by the Norfolk Historic Building Trust in the late
1970s into four residential units. A change of use would detract from the original
aim of the Trust of preserving something of North Walsham's heritage within the
town centre. It would not be in keeping with the character of the building or
Conservation Area.
2. Covenants covering all units of the former vicarage do not allow them to be used
commercially.
3. Any signage would presumably require listed building consent; it would be
visually unacceptable, and NNDC should not grant permission.
4. The property includes a garage and a parking space in a shared area with the
other units of the former vicarage. It is considered likely that a commercial use
would result in the abuse of this area by people associated with the business.
5. Existing empty retail units in the town centre should be used in preference to
applying for a change of use on a residential unit.
Development Committee
27
8 December 2011
6. There are an existing 8 hairdressers within North Walsham, with 2 within 20m of
the site; is an additional hairdressing establishment required?
7. A change of use would deplete the housing stock.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection. It is situated within easy walking distance
of the town centre, with public parking opposite. As the private parking space and
garage relating to the property is to be used by the owner/employee only, no concern
is caused regarding potential intensification of use.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
holds a prominent position within the street scene and also lies in the designated
North Walsham Conservation Area. The building has a strong historical connection to
the town and makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the
area.
Whilst Conservation and Design (C&D) understand the concerns over land-use and
the historic dwelling connection as the former vicarage, these do not represent
sufficient grounds for refusal. By virtue that the proposal would not impact upon the
significance of the designated heritage asset, C&D raise no objection to the
application.
Environmental Health - No objection offered. However two conditions should be
added if the proposal is approved; one restricting hours of business and one ensuring
that a trade waste contract is adopted. The proposed condition regarding the opening
hours would restrict the hours to 10.00 to 17.30 Monday to Friday and 09.00 to 16.00
on Saturdays.
Planning Policy Manager - The site falls within North Walsham's Conservation Area
and Town Centre. However it does not fall within the Core Retail Area or form part of
the Primary Shopping Frontage.
Town centres have been defined on the Proposal Map with the express intention of
providing a focus for retail development. In this areas Policy SS 5 states that a 'broad
range of shopping, commercial, cultural and other uses will be supported'. There is
therefore a strong policy presumption that retail use is acceptable.
Policy EC 5 seeks further to define the types of location which will be suitable for
different scales of retail development with the underlying objectives being to ensure
that the scale of the development is proportionate to the size and character of the
town and that development is located on the best sequentially available site (ie in a
town centre rather than on the edge or out of the town centre). This proposal is very
small scale and is within the town centre and therefore, in terms of both location and
scale of development, would comply with adopted policies.
Adopted policies do not include a requirement to protect existing residential units in
town centres and therefore there would be no policy grounds to refuse this
application on this basis.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
28
8 December 2011
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact upon Conservation Area and Listed Building
APPRAISAL
The site is within North Walsham's town centre and Conservation Area where
adopted policy confirms that retail uses are acceptable in principle. The property is
currently used as a dwelling, which appears to date from the late 1970s following
restoration. It was formerly part of the vicarage, which has now been subdivided into
four units. All the other units are currently in residential use.
Located along Vicarage Street, the property's frontage abuts the public footpath. To
the rear there is a garden which backs onto the grounds belonging to St Nicholas'
Church. Adjacent to the property is a chiropodists, which was previously used for A1
purposes.
The principle of A1 use is considered acceptable. Both policies SS 5 and EC 5
support retail use at the site. Town Centres are intended to be a focus for shopping,
commercial, cultural and other uses. Under the sequential test applied to new retail
and commercial leisure development, town centres are the preferred site. As such
both these policies support the proposal.
The impact of the change of use upon the former vicarage as a whole in terms of
heritage is considered acceptable; the proposal would not impact on the significance
of the designated heritage asset. At present the only physical alteration is to an
internal stud wall, which is considered under application LA/11/1202 below. The
proposal is considered to preserve the character and appearance of both the Listed
Building and Conservation Area and to comply with Policy EN8.
Provided opening hours are restricted by condition the development is not anticipated
to have a significantly detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the
neighbours, thus complying with Policy EN4.
In conclusion, the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to a condition restricting opening hours.
Development Committee
29
8 December 2011
6.
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/1202 - Removal of internal wall; 36A Vicarage Street
for Mr S Marshall
- Target Date: 08 December 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Listed Building Alterations
See also PF/11/1201 above
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade I Consultation Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the removal of an internal stud wall in a property which is one of four units that
previously were the former Vicarage (all Grade II Listed).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Peter Moore having regard to the following planning
issue:
Impact on the integrity of the Listed Building.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application on the grounds that the Housing List is extremely long and
evidence should be given to substantiate that all endeavours have been met to let
this property. There are plenty of empty shops in the town for this purpose.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received raising the following points
(summarised);
1. The former vicarage was restored by the Norfolk Historic Building Trust in the late
1970's into four residential units. A change of use would detract from the original
aim of the Trust of preserving something of North Walsham's heritage within the
town centre. It would not be in keeping with the character of the building or
Conservation Area.
2. Covenants covering all units of the former vicarage do not allow them to be used
commercially.
3. Any signage would presumably require listed building consent; it would be
visually unacceptable, and NNDC should not grant permission.
4. The property includes a garage and a parking space in a shared area with the
other units of the former vicarage. It is considered likely that a commercial use
would result in the abuse of this area by people associated with the business.
5. Existing empty retail units in the town centre should be used in preference to
applying for a change of use on a residential unit.
6. There are an existing 8 hairdressers within North Walsham, with 2 within 20m of
the site; is an additional hairdressing establishment required?
7. A change of use would deplete the housing stock.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
holds a prominent position within the street scene and also lies in the designated
North Walsham Conservation Area. The building has a strong historical connection to
the town and makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the
area.
Development Committee
30
8 December 2011
The only alteration to the building fabric is the removal of a single stud partition. The
partition is of no historic or architectural merit therefore its removal raises no heritage
cause for concern.
Whilst Conservation and Design (C&D) understand the concerns over land-use and
the historic dwelling connection as the former vicarage, these do not represent
sufficient grounds for refusal. By virtue that the proposal would not impact upon the
significance of the designated heritage asset, C&D raise no objection to the
application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on Listed Building
APPRAISAL
The site is within North Walsham's Conservation Area and the property is Grade II
Listed. Alterations to Listed Buildings are acceptable in principle as long as they
preserve or enhance the designated asset.
The stud wall proposed to be removed is of no historic or architectural value. As such
the impact of the alteration on the former vicarage, in terms of the historic
environment, is considered acceptable; the proposal would not impact on the
significance of the designated heritage asset. As an internal alteration, there would
be no impact on the wider Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
Development Committee
31
8 December 2011
7.
THURSFORD - PF/11/1344 - Installation of solar panels to roof of outbuilding;
Old Coach House, Fakenham Road for Mrs A R Green
Target Date: 30 December 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of 16 No. 245 watt solar panels, each measuring approximately
1m x 1.7m. The solar panels would be fixed in two tiers, to the south eastern roof
slope of the host building, a small barn the walls and roof of which are of grey
corrugated steel construction, which is situated immediately to the west of The Old
Coach House, a Grade II listed building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is a Member of the Council
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection
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).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
32
8 December 2011
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the adjacent listed building.
3. Impact on the landscape character of the area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy, where in principle the introduction of solar panels would be
acceptable subject to complying with Core Strategy Policies EN2, EN4, EN7 and
EN8.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character. Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all
development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness.
Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. In addition
development proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
the designated asset, in this case the adjacent Grade II listed building, and its
settings through high quality, sensitive design.
As far as Policy EN7 is concerned, this supports proposals for renewable energy in
the context of sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the
wide environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District. Proposals
for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration of
renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on the
surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features areas residential amenity.
As far as the impact on the adjacent listed building is concerned, although the barn is
in fairly close proximity to the main house it is considered that the solar panels, which
would virtually cover the eastern roof slope, would have a utilitarian appearance not
dissimilar to the existing grey corrugated steel roof. Furthermore, when compared to
the scale and massing of the main listed building, the barn which measures 12
metres x 6 metres with a ridge height of 4 metres, is fairly recessive in nature and
does not have the same visual impact. As such it is considered that in the context
proposed the solar panels would not adversely affect the setting of the listed building,
a view confirmed by the Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
In terms the appearance of the solar panels in the wider landscape, the principal
views of The Old Coach House and its associated outbuildings are from the A148,
some 200 metres to the south. However from here, owing to the topography of the
land and the combination of roadside trees and hedgerows within the site, views of
the property are fairly limited. It is therefore considered that the solar panels would
hardly be discernible from this distance and would not detract from the wider
landscape character of the area.
It is therefore considered that as the proposed development would contribute to
sustainable development and renewable energy without adversely affecting the
setting of the listed building or wider landscape character of the area and that it
would therefore accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
Development Committee
33
8 December 2011
8.
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0750 - Formation of parking and turning area and
erection of fencing; Land at rear of 31 High Street for Cleaves Trust
- Target Date: 18 August 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to form a parking and turning area including the erection of fencing within the
site for two residential dwellings, numbers 29 and 31 High Street.
The properties have rear gardens which are accessed off a shared private access to
the north of Station Road and the proposed parking area would be served off this
access. The proposed parking and turning area would utilise the existing access on
to the site and two dilapidated garages would be demolished to allow space for the
proposed parking and turning areas.
The parking area proposed is land within the ownership of 29 and 31 High Street and
would be utilised as residential parking for those two properties.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor FitzPatrick having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. Misuse of a garden
2. Access to site is poor and in a state of disrepair.
3. Access drive is a private road.
3. No detail of how many cars are to be parked.
4. There are already two large car parks in the village.
5. Access on to highway is hazardous.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Given the site's location and use, as the proposal does
not affect the current traffic patterns, there is no objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Do not object to the
above proposals. A number of semi-mature to mature trees of differing species are
found within the site, including a semi-mature cedar. The tree will need to have
some facilitative pruning undertaken to raise the crown of the tree to allow parking
underneath. In addition ground protection is proposed to protect the roots of the tree
from the vehicles, although the ground level will need to be raised which may cause
some compaction due to the extra weight of the soil. A Section 211 notification has
Development Committee
34
8 December 2011
already been received by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Department
notifying of the proposed tree works to which the Council has responded with no
objection. This effectively implies consent for the proposals identified in the planning
application and the predicted impacts and works to the trees. I would recommend
that a condition is attached to any permission given requiring the development to be
carried out in accordance with the approved plans (drawing no. 2/408/2A).
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - Given its relatively secluded
position, the reworking of this backland site raises few implications for the built
environment in this part of Walsingham’s Conservation Area. Certainly it would not
harm the setting of any of the listed buildings fronting onto the High Street. Therefore
there can be no Conservation objections to this application.
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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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 the historic environment, including listed buildings and the Conservation
Area.
3. Landscape impact.
4. Highway impact
5. Impact on residential amenity.
APPRAISAL
The principle of the creation of private parking for the existing residential properties is
acceptable subject to compliance with other Core Strategy policies which in this case
would include policies EN4, EN8 and CT5.
Policy EN8 states that proposals should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of designated assets (including listed buildings and conservation areas)
and their settings through high quality, sensitive design and development that would
have an adverse impact on their special quality or architectural interest will not be
permitted.
Development Committee
35
8 December 2011
Policy EN4 requires all development to be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness. It advises that any car parking should be discreet and accessible
and that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential
amenity of nearby occupiers. 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.
Policy EN2 requires development proposals to protect, conserve or where possible
enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)and the setting of and views from
Conservation Areas.
Policy CT5 advises that development proposals should be capable of being served
by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character
of the area.
In terms of impact on the designated Conservation Area and listed buildings fronting
the High Street, since the parking facility is to be located to the rear of the buildings
and accessed via an existing shared track, it is not considered that the proposal
would detract from the special qualities of the listed buildings or of the character or
appearance of the Conservation Area.
In respect of the impact on the landscape, a number of semi-mature to mature trees
of differing species are found within the site, including a semi-mature cedar. The
trees would require some facilitative pruning undertaken to raise the crown of the tree
to allow parking underneath. In addition ground protection is proposed to protect the
roots of the tree from the vehicles. Subject to any appropriate conditions, no
objection is raised on this ground.
In terms of impact on the highway, the Highway Authority has advised that, given the
site's location and use, since the proposal does not affect the current traffic patterns,
there is no objection.
The proposed parking area is served off a shared track and the access to the site
runs between two other properties. In terms of neighbouring amenity, whilst the
access to this area is narrow and passes in close proximity to neighbouring
properties’ windows, there is an existing vehicular gate and two old garage buildings
which could currently be utilised for parking by the applicant without any further
consent. As such, and subject to a condition ensuring that the parking area is for the
parking of vehicles in association with the residential use of 29 and 31 High Street
only, it is not considered that the proposed parking area would result in any
significantly adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of adjacent properties.
Overall the proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, subject to
conditions including one limiting the use of the parking area to the residential use of
29 and 31 High Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
restricting the use of the parking area to the residential use of numbers 29 and
31 High Street.
Development Committee
36
8 December 2011
9.
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 application 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 applications are
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.
HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2 flats;
site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given that it will
be necessary for the Committee to reconsider the application and Members of the
former Committee have previously visited the site.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/11/1137 - Erection of single-storey front extension; White
Beam, School Road, Thurgarton for Mr & Mrs H Fell
(Householder application)
ANTINGHAM - NMA2/10/0374 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dormer roof, installation of additional dormer, installation of roof light, removal
of proposed timber cladding and installation of aluminium windows instead of
timber windows; Honeysuckle Cottage, Church Lane for Ms C Reynolds
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/11/1151 - Erection of side conservatory; 9 Stonefield
Road for Mr Husar
(Householder application)
BACTON - PM/11/1034 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling; Hurst
Cottage, Church Road for Mr & Mrs P Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - PF/11/1090 - Construction of rear balcony and erection of cart shed
garages with storage loft above (amendment to 20091054PF for renovation and
conversion of barn to ancillary residential accommodation); Pear Tree Cottage,
Water Lane, East Barsham for Mr & Mrs S Scarlett
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - NMA1/11/0457 - Non-material amendment request for reduction
in size of rear extension, revised rear roof design and alterations to window,
door and roof positions; Primrose Cottage, Common Road The Common for Mr
Sizmur
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
37
8 December 2011
BARTON TURF - PF/11/1049 - Erection of rear conservatory; 7 School Road for
Mr & Mrs C Wilson
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1187 - Erection of front conservatory; 13 Hillside Road
for Mr D Holloway
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1216 - Erection of front porch; 26 Langham Road for Mr D
Dewson
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/11/0987 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; Plots 35 and 36
Old School Road for Necton Managements Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/11/1148 - Erection of front, side and rear extensions; The
Bungalow, 71 Church Street for Mrs Blackburn
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/11/1102 - Erection of side conservatory; Wood Farm, Wood
Street for H E Drake & Sons
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/1115 - Erection of first floor side extension; West
Cottage, New Road for Mr P Cawthorn
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - NP/11/1307 - Prior notification of intention to erect
agricultural storage building; Hammer Hill, Bridgefoot Lane for Mr M Sheridan
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/1117 - Erection of double garage with
room in roof space; Tan Office Farm, Briston Road, Saxthorpe for Mr Schilling
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - NP/11/1337 - Prior notification of installation of
solar panels to agricultural building; Great Farm, Croft Lane, Little London,
Saxthorpe for C J C Lee (Saxthorpe) Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CROMER - PF/11/1038 - Extension of rear dormer window; Upton House, 2 St
Margarets Road for Yodude Limited
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/1065 - Variation of condition 2 of planning ref: 03/0855 to
permit revised side extension with raised eaves level.; W M Morrisons, Holt
Road for W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/1127 - Erection of detached garage; 11c Court Drive, Cromer
for Mr Rosier
(Householder application)
Development Committee
38
8 December 2011
CROMER - PF/11/1209 - Construction of front dormer window (extension of
period for commencement of permission reference: 08/1320); 101 Overstrand
Road for Mr R Weaver
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/11/0773 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 10/1192 to provide for the installation of air source heat pumps; Land off
The Furze, East Ruston for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - LA/11/0982 - Replacement of existing metal framed windows at
rear with wooden framed windows; Old Farm House, Butts Common,
Banningham Road, Ingworth for Mr Suckling
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PM/11/1206 - Erection of six residential units, two shops and two
offices (landscaping scheme); 8 Norwich Road for Mr A Rivett
(Reserved Matters)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1212 - Installation of photovoltaic panels; 14 Queens Road
for Mrs J Feneley & Mrs L Rivett
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1272 - Change of use from a mixed use of residential & B1
(electrical repair business) to residential; Koloma, 13 Warren Avenue for Mr A D
Warnes
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/11/1045 - Retention of wood storage shed; Pinewood House,
Pinewood Caravan Park, Holt Road, Cromer for Mr C Forster
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - NMA1/11/1121 - Non material amendment request to reduce part
of the full height glazing to the north/east elevation to use brick/flint wall and
insert single window; Fen Farm House, Sandy Lane, Trimingham for Mr
Harrison
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GUNTHORPE - PF/11/1076 - Erection of replacement shed/garden room; Ivy
Cottage, Sharrington Road, Bale for Mr C Lee
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0782 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 05/0489 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Yeoman Barn,
Grub Street for Mr J Dean
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/1085 - Variation of Condition 6 of permission ref:
95/0109 to permit permanent residential occupation of Barron Lodge Cottage;
Barron Lodge Cottage, Grub Street for Mr & Mrs D Corble
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/1140 - Erection of rear extension; 3 The Paddock,
Lighthouse Lane for Mr and Mrs Taylor
(Householder application)
Development Committee
39
8 December 2011
HICKLING - PF/11/0697 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extension and
front porch; Rosedale Cottage, Heath Road for Mr P Peake
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/11/1133 - Installation of photovoltaic solar panels to agricultural
building; Willow Farm, Stubb Road for Mr Tallowin
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - NMA1/11/0176 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
solar panels and alterations to rooflights and paving; Land at Staithe Road for
Mr T Newman
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1111 - Erection of single-storey extension and relocation of garage; 41 Pineheath Road for Mr A Taylor
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - AN/11/1129 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisements; Land at Bridge Road and Warren Road for Mrs L Davies
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HINDOLVESTON - LA/11/1131 - Installation of solar panels; 14 The Street for Ms
E Goldfinger
(Listed Building Alterations)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0800 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0959 to permit installation of 3 bollard lights, oil tanks and rearrangement of outbuilding facilities; 1 - 8 Bowling Green Lane for Flagship
Housing Group Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/1219 - Erection of replacement shed; 2 Grange Farm
Cottages, Harvest Lane for Mr Glover
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/11/1097 - Change of use from D1 (chiropractor) to A1 (retail); 6 Old
Stable Yard, High Street for Mrs T Grint
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/11/1123 - Erection of rear conservatory; 4 Queens Road for Mr & Mrs
Yarham
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/11/1196 - Removal of conservatory and erection of garden room; 3
Rowan Way for Mrs J White
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/11/0988 - Erection of front conservatory; Silver Birches, 20
Pinewood Drive for Mr E Absolom
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/11/1142 - Erection of three-bay car port and alterations to
outbuilding; The Grange, Grove Road for Mr Taylor
(Householder application)
Development Committee
40
8 December 2011
LANGHAM - PF/11/1174 - Alterations to vehicular access, new gates and posts
and retention of timber boundary fence with reduced height; Manor Cottage,
Cockthorpe Road for Mr J Blackwell
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/11/0836 - Erection of four bay cart-shed garaging; Chenies,
The Street for Mr Reynolds
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/1161 - Installation of air source
heat pumps; The Old Barn, Blakeney Road, Glandford for Mr W Osborne
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0949 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Romara,
Norwich Road for Mr Playfair
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/11/1087 - Variation of condition 3 of planning ref: 97/0999 to
permit permanent residential occupation; Dove Barn, Barn 11, Fritton Road for
Ms Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/11/1118 - Erection of three bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr J Barnes
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/11/1122 - Erection of three bay garage; Culpits
Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr J Barnes
(Listed Building Alterations)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0946 - Erection of two-storey front/side extension, first
floor rear balcony and conservatory; 28 Paston Road for Mr R Hall
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/1136 - Continued siting of residential caravan; 12 Cromer
Road for Mr H C Truoung
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/1163 - Erection of single-storey and first floor extensions;
25 Cromer Road for Mr R Unsworth
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0234 - Erection of industrial unit including four
storage tanks and associated development; Land off Cornish Way, Cornish Way
Business Park for Southrepps Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0807 - Change of use from auction room to A1 (retail)
and erection of extension and pitched roof to office; Auction Building & Car
Park, Midland Road for Mrs Horner Glister
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/0900 - Installation of direction sign; 31 Market Place
for North Norfolk District Council
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
41
8 December 2011
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0930 - Erection of first floor front extension and
single-storey rear extension and installation of first floor side window; Glaven
Lodge, 26A Bacton Road for Mr & Mrs R West
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0969 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 21
Queensway for Mrs Cossey-Hicks
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1039 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 11
Wells Avenue for Ms Wright
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1210 - Erection of replacement garage; Sunnyside,
5B Marshgate for Miss L Nockolds
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1211 - Erection of extension to provide gas storage
and 2 storage cages; North Walsham Cottage Hospital, 62 Yarmouth Road for
Norlife
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/10/0987 - Non material amendment request to
change conservatory roof material from glass to clay pantiles and insert four
rooflights; Mountnessing, 29 Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Thomas
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0745 - Change of use of redundant agricultural buidings
to 2 units of holiday accommodation (extension of period for commencement of
planning permission ref: 08/0742); Farm building at The Old Rectory, Rectory
Road for Mr & Mrs Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0766 - Erection of replacement building for use as D2
(gymnastics club); North Norfolk Business Centre Ltd, Crossdale Street for
North Norfolk Business Centre Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0888 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Barn at New Road, Crossdale Street for Mr & Mrs M Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/11/1107 - Erection of front conservatory; 5 Beach Close for
Mr Bedford
(Householder application)
PLUMSTEAD - LA/11/1191 - Installation of 16 photo voltaic panels on west
facing roof; Plumstead House, Little Barningham Road for Mr T Wormald
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - LA/11/0974 - Removal of chimney, installation of windows and ensuite shower room and blocking up of doorway; Hillside Cottage, The Street,
West Raynham for Mr & Mrs A Robson
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
42
8 December 2011
RAYNHAM - PF/11/1022 - Installation of first floor side window; Hillside Cottage,
The Street, West Raynham for Mr & Mrs A Robson
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1128 - Erection of three bay cartshed garage with storage
above; Primrose Barn No. 1, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs D Hickling
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1149 - Erection of stable block and store/tack room; Land at
Heath Farm, Norwich Road for Mr G Zelos
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1290 - Installation of stand alone photovoltaic array; Pine
Hurst, Felbrigg Road for Mr B Stops
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PM/11/0721 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Cambria, 53 Sandy Lane for Grocott and Murfit Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
SEA PALLING - PF/11/0970 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Land at
Clink Lane for Mr Robinson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1041 - Change of use from A2 (financial & professional
services) to A3 (coffee shop); 45-47 High Street for Mr P Marriott
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AN/11/1042 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement on gable
wall; 45-47 High Street for Mr P Marriott
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1132 - Erection of front garden room extension; 3
Orchard Close for Mr & Mrs Scott
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - AN/11/1200 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 56
Cromer Road for Gordon White & Hood
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/1061 - Alterations to rear dormer windows and
construction of balcony; 3 Chapel Road for Mr & Mrs P D Briggs
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/1069 - Construction of two rear dormer windows; 17 Pit
Street for Mr & Mrs Dawes
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/11/0916 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Adjacent to
Homelands, Camping Field Lane for Mr L Rice
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/11/0952 - Removal of condition 2 of planning ref: 06/0532 to
allow full residential occupancy; Barn 14 West End Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel
Field Road for Mr Tann
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
43
8 December 2011
STALHAM - PF/11/1119 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
08/1164 to permit revised scheme incorporating installation of windows, side
entrance door, increased roof height and reduced glazing to rear extension,
replacement roof covering and installation of air source heat pump; The Chapel,
St Johns Road for Mr J MacMillan
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/11/1153 - Erection of 8 trolley bay shelters; Tesco Stores
Limited, Old Market Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - PF/11/1178 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Evermore Farm, Wood Norton Road for Mr & Mrs B Rose
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/11/1152 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Millside, Mill
Road for Mr & Mrs J Rosser
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/11/1170 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 10/0876 to permit revised scheme for erection of two-storey front and
rear extensions and first floor side extension; 2 Hall Farm, Station Road for Mr &
Mrs B Laws
(Householder application)
THURNING - PF/11/0902 - Erection of 18m wind turbine; Rosewood Farm,
Craymere Beck Road for Mr C Barrett
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/1084 - Erection of Side extension; The Bungalow, Mill Lane
for Mr & Mrs Richardson
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/11/1058 - Erection of conservatory; The Rookery, Rookery Farm
Road for Janith Homes Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/11/1116 - Erection of conservatory; Ivy Cottage, St Helens Road
for Miss Webdale
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/1159 - Erection of parapet wall and railings to facilitate
formation of roof terrace and application of cladding to existing single-storey
new extension; 11 Egmere Road for Mr and Mrs Parker
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/1125 - Installation of replacement front and rear
doors; Woodgets End, 22 Chapel Yard for Mr M Seaton
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/1185 - Internal alterations and installation of
roof light; Hollybank House, Standard Road for Mrs Gower
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
44
8 December 2011
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1190 - Erection of replacement garage; The
Gables, 2 Church Street for Mr C Hall
(Householder application)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/11/1114 - Erection of garden room/double carport/workshop/garden store with room in roof space, repositioning of gated
vehicle access and insertion of window to ground floor west gable; William's
Barn, Church Road for Mr & Mrs McNeil Wilson
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/11/1186 - Conversion of garage to games room; Home Farm,
Holt Road for Mr & Mrs Middleton
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/11/1236 - Erection of steel framed building to accommodate
restaurant and meeting room; The Muckleburgh Collection, Sheringham Road
for The Muckleburgh Collection
(Full Planning Permission)
WICKMERE - PF/11/1223 - Erection of five stable units and one tackroom; 19
Regent Street for Mr Barker
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - PF/11/1157 - Installation of airsource heat pump and two roofmounted wind generators; Temples Barn, High Street for Mr N Shackleford
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/11/1292 - Installation of photovoltaic panels; Rookery Barn, Mill
Common Road, Ridlington for Mrs Yerrill
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/11/1023 - Change of use of land from agricultural to permissive
pedestrian footway; Bell Paddock, Blakeney Road for B P Ramm and Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/1165 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions,
increasing height of roof with dormer windows to provide first floor habitable
accommodation and erection of a front porch; Rongene, Station Road for Mr D
Barnes
(Householder application)
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - PF/11/1099 - Erection of conservatory; Flat 1, Kingswear, 30 Cliff
Avenue for Mrs Gibbons
(Householder application)
HOVETON - NMA1/11/0360 - Non-material amendment to change conservatory
to garden room with tiled roof and reduction in glazing; Annex at 140 Stalham
Road for Mrs Gourlay
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
45
8 December 2011
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0986 - Erection of car port; The Poppies, Thorpe Market
Road for Mr O Read
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/11/0937 - Erection of double garage, attached two bay cart shed,
storage areas at ground level and in roof space; 3 The Horseshoe, The Street
for Mr Cutting
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1371 - Change of use of land and field shelter from
agricultural to D2 (leisure); Land at The Quay for Mr W Sankey
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BODHAM - PF/11/0190 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
SITE VISIT:- 01 December 2011
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1111 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43
Sculthorpe Road for Mr Patrick & J Brady
SITE VISIT:- 02 November 2011
SUSTEAD - PF/11/0804 - Conversion of building to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No items
Development Committee
46
8 December 2011