OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 8 JULY 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
SHERINGHAM - NNDC TPO (Sheringham) 2010 No. 6, Station Road
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at rear of Station
Road, Sheringham
Background
An application to convert a property at the rear of 22 Station Road into a holiday
home was last considered by the Committee on 11 March 2010. The Committee
considered that the development may threaten the tree and proposed a TPO to
protect the amenity of the area.
The tree is a Tree of Heaven and is one of very few mature trees in this part of
Sheringham and therefore has a major impact on the local landscape. The TEMPO
assessment for trees carried out by the Landscape Officer concluded the tree
merited a TPO.
Representations
Two letters of objection (attached at Appendix 1) have been received from
neighbours. They object to the TPO on the following grounds:
An Ash tree is not a suitable specimen for this area.
The tree is a threat to the foundations of nearby properties and drains.
The leaves and debris from the tree has a detrimental effect on drainage.
The tree is not a rare or unusual specimen.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Development Control Committee
1
8 July 2010
Appraisal
The tree is not an Ash tree, it is a Tree of Heaven and will not achieve the same size
or spread as a mature Ash tree.
The soil in North Norfolk is predominantly glacial deposits and tree problems
associated with clay soils are rare. There is no evidence of the tree causing damage
to drains or buildings.
Problems with leaves and debris are seen as a management issue and should not be
considered as part of a TPO.
The tree does not have to be a rare or unusual specimen to warrant protection under
a TPO, although the Tree of Heaven in this case is unusual on the North Norfolk
Coast.
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the tree makes a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that it therefore has high
amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext. 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
KELLING - NNDC TPO (Kelling) 2010 No. 9, Nos. 3 & 9 Weynor Gardens
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at Nos 3 & 9
Weynor Gardens, Kelling.
Background
A mature Horse Chestnut tree was removed as part of a development without
consultation with the Landscape Section. Weynor Gardens is an ex Ministry of
Defence housing estate that has a significant landscape character. It was
considered that the removal of the Horse Chestnut was detrimental to this landscape
and to protect the other trees and amenity a TPO was served.
The TPO protects four individual Horse Chestnut trees, one Larch and a group of
Silver Birch. All the trees contribute to the landscape character of Weynor Gardens
and the amenity of the area.
Development Control Committee
2
8 July 2010
Representations
One letter of objection and one letter of support (both attached at Appendix 2) for
the TPO have been received.
The letter of objection was from the owners of 9 Weynor Gardens, objecting on the
following grounds:
That they should not be "penalised" for the actions of others.
They would like to reserve the right to carry out any necessary maintenance of the
tree on their property.
The TPO will restrict any plans for an extension or alterations to the house.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
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, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
The removal of the Horse Chestnut tree highlighted the threat to the amenity of
Weynor Gardens and it was considered expedient to serve a TPO.
A TPO does not prevent appropriate management of the trees.
A TPO does not prevent appropriate development it is served to protect amenity.
Main Issues for Consideration
Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that it therefore has high
amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case - Landscape Officer Ext. 6142)
Development Control Committee
3
8 July 2010
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
HOLT - NNDC TPO (Holt) 2010 No. 4, Woodlands Close
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at Woodlands Close,
Holt.
Background
The Landscape Section received an enquiry from the owner of 32 Cromer Road,
Holt, with regard to felling an Oak tree at the property. The tree was assessed along
with two other Oak trees adjacent to Woodlands Close. The three Oak trees are
remnants of Gresham's gardens and have been incorporated into subsequent
housing in the area. The trees are clearly visible from the public highway and
contribute to the mature landscape of the area.
Representations
One letter of objection and tree report (attached at Appendix 3) has been received
from the owner of 32, Cromer Road.
The letter objected to the condition of Oak tree T1 as per a tree report submitted with
the objection which stated that it should be felled.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
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, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
The Landscape Officer considered that the tree report submitted with the objection
was over-critical in relation to the health of the tree and did not take into account the
veteran status of the tree or the appropriate management needed. A later tree report
by the same arborist submitted by the owner with regard to a planning application
stated that the following work should be carried out in relation to T1:
"Undertake crown reduction by the removal of no more than 2m of the outermost
canopy to be measured from the furthest growth. Crownlift canopy on west side
adjacent to building to no more than 4m from ground level."
The Officers agree with this management and would not refuse an application to this
specification.
Development Control Committee
4
8 July 2010
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that it therefore has high
amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case Landscape officer Ext. 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
4.
Sheringham: 10/0143 Land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill, Road
This report concerns the alterations to ground level on land to the rear of 20 Hooks
Hill Road, Sheringham
Background
This report relates to a site upon which two detached single storey dwellings have
been constructed under planning permission 20051110. The dwellings have been
completed but are not occupied. A complaint has been received in respect of loss of
vegetation, damage to a fence and changes to ground levels. Topographically the
site is located on a downward slope from south-east to north-west from Hooks Hill
Road towards Holt Road, Sheringham. There is also an incline running across the
site from north-east to south-west. The site is surrounded on all boundaries by
existing dwellings.
History
In August 2008 an enforcement complaint was received alleging a breach of planning
control insofar as trees and shrubs had been removed from a double hedge along
the boundary between the development site (planning permission 20051110) and 9A
Holt Road, Sheringham. It was also alleged that this work and changes to the ground
levels had damaged a boundary fence. Following a site inspection by the
Enforcement Officer it was concluded that damage to the fencing and the removal of
the trees and shrubs did not represent a breach of planning control. However, in
relation to the altered ground levels the developer was contacted and advised that a
retaining wall of 1.8 metres in height should be constructed along the north-western
boundary of the site as shown on the approved plans of planning permission
20051110. The developer during the following year constructed a 0.5 metre to 1.4
metre high block work retaining wall, along half the length of the boundary. Since the
bungalows were substantially complete, on 28 August 2009 the developer was asked
to provide the date by which the retaining wall would be completed. In reply the
developer stated, (correctly, on detailed inspection of the plans) that the retaining
Development Control Committee
5
8 July 2010
wall marked on the approved plan related to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Road,
Sheringham, not to the rear of the development site and had already been
constructed.
Although there is not a condition requiring the construction of a retaining wall,
between the rear gardens of the two new bungalows and 9A Holt Road Sheringham
the development continued to be the subject of complaints and further investigations
were undertaken, particularly into the alleged works to alter the ground levels.
A comparison of recent photographs of the completed development with photographs
taken in 2005 indicates that there have been substantial alterations to ground levels
throughout the development site not just on the boundary which is the subject of the
complaint. As previously stated the development site is on a slope and there has
been significant excavation into the slope along the south-eastern and north-eastern
boundaries. An invoice has been obtained which shows that on the 27 August 2009
132 cu metres of “stockpiled excavated materials and mixed construction waste”
were removed from the site in 11 lorry loads.
Along the north-western and south-western boundaries the ground levels have been
raised. Along the north-western boundary the difference in ground levels is between
0.4m and 1.4 m. However, a site inspection on unaltered ground levels adjacent to
the site indicates that the ground level of 9A Holt Road, Sheringham was lower by
approx 0.5m at the lowest point. This indicates the ground level has been raised by a
maximum of 0.9 m. Along the south-western boundary the difference in ground levels
is between 0.23m and 0.6 m.
Representations
A letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of neighbouring residents
and is attached as Appendix 4.
Conclusion
It is clear that there has been remodelling of the ground levels on this site due to
excavation and redistribution of the soil. This comprises operational development for
which planning permission is required. The developer has so far declined to submit a
planning application to regularise the development. Whilst it is open to the Local
Planning Authority to serve an enforcement notice, such a notice should not be
issued solely to regularise a development which is acceptable on its planning merits.
An enforcement notice should be served if the alteration of the ground levels has had
a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. At
this stage it is recommended that the Committee inspects the site from adjoining
properties, including 9A Holt Road, to assess the impact of the works on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers. It is intended that a further report will be
presented to the meeting of the Committee following the site inspection and that
further consideration will then be given to the planning merits of this matter.
Recommendation.
That Committee inspects the site and also views it from adjoining properties
including 9A Holt Road, Sheringham.
(Source: Kate Steventon, Planning Enforcement Officer ext 6247)
Development Control Committee
6
8 July 2010
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
5.
BRISTON - PF/10/0497 - Erection of building for processing of shellfish; Land
at New Hall Farm, Mill Road for Mr D Chambers
Minor Development
- Target Date: 29 June 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19951021 PF - Retain unauthorised buildings and use of existing buildings in
connection with fish, game dressing and processing
Approved 02/02/1996
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish buildings associated with the processing of shellfish and replace
with a building measuring approximately 32m in length and 9m in depth with an
eaves height of 3m and a ridge height of 3.8m. The internal gross floorspaces are
indicated to be 210m² (existing) and 265m² (proposed). External materials include
blockwork cavity wall construction and box profile cladding. The existing use of the
site for shellfish and game dressing was authorised in 1996. The replacement
building is to be used for the processing of shellfish.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Wyatt on the following planning grounds:
Visual impact of the buildings and access arrangements.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting Comments
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Section 80 Demolition notice required to remove existing
structures. - Comments awaited in respect of impact on private water supply and
smells/odour.
County Council (Highway) - Objection - The existing access to the site is from the
unclassified Mill Road, opposite the village green, where vehicles are restricted to
30mph. Visibility at the access to the site from the recommended 2.4m setback is
severely restricted to 5.0m in the trafficked direction due to the close proximity of the
neighbouring wall, which is situated on third party land. Visibility in the non-trafficked
direction is also restricted to 3.0m, obstructed by the wall and vegetation belonging to
Hall Farm. It is unclear from the site plan whether the Hall Farm wall belongs to the
applicant.
Visibility standards are given in the CLG document "Design Manual for Streets"
which sets out the requirements for a road controlled by a 30mph Order (which is the
case here) as being 43m x 2.4m x 43m. Achievable visibility in the trafficked
direction, at 5m is 11% of the required standard and visibility of 3m in the non-
Development Control Committee
7
8 July 2010
trafficked direction is only 7% of the requirement. The supporting Design and Access
statement states that no increase in production is proposed, implying no increase in
vehicle movements.
It is my opinion that the rationalisation of several small buildings into one larger
purpose built building could increase the potential for an intensification of the
business, and consequently an increase in traffic. An increase in vehicular
movements combined with poor visibility will cause danger and inconvenience to
users of the adjoining public highway. Even if there were to be no increase in traffic
generation, the existing access remains substandard.
Given that the access does not conform to the standards quoted above and that
there would be the potential for an increase in traffic caused by the proposal, I feel
that I have no option but to recommend the refusal of this application on highway
safety grounds for the reasons set below:SHCR 12 Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with
the County Highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining highway.
SHCR 13 As far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant does
not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at the site access.
The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to imposition of condition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
Development Control Committee
8
8 July 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of redevelopment of business in Countryside planning area
2. Impact on amenity of adjacent residents
3. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site lies in the Countryside policy area where extensions to existing business are
considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant
Development Plan policies.
In respect of impact on the amenity of adjacent residents, the closest properties are
approximately 40-50m away from the proposed building. Visually it is considered that
the proposal represents a good opportunity to tidy the site through removal of the
buildings. The proposal would not be visible from Mill Road as it would be screened
by older outbuildings associated with Hall Farm, which is Grade II listed. As such it is
considered that the proposed building, whilst larger (by approximately 55m²) than the
existing structures, would not have any adverse visual impact nor would it have any
impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Hall Farm.
In relation to noise and odour and impact on the private water supply, further
comments are awaited from Environmental Health. However, subject to no objections
from Environmental Health, it is considered that the proposal would not have any
adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.
The proposed building would replace structures on site which are associated with the
existing shellfish processing business. The applicant has stated in the supporting
Design and Access Statement that, although the building would be larger than the
cumulative volume of buildings it would replace, the amount of shellfish processing
would not be increased and the new building is essential to enable the business to
improve productivity in order to cut costs.
It also represents a significant investment in the site and would help to safeguard
existing jobs.
However, the Highway Authority has raised concerns, primarily on the grounds of the
potential to increase the size/output of the business and resultant traffic increase.
This, coupled with the substandard visibility splays at the access with Mill Road has
resulted in an objection.
Whilst the proposal represents an opportunity to invest in the business and tidy the
site, subject to appropriate conditions, and is unlikely to have an adverse impact on
the amenity of adjacent residents, this has to be weighed against the Highway
Authority objection regarding the potential to intensify the use of the building,
resultant traffic increase coupled with the substandard visibility splays at the junction
with Mill Road.
On balance, refusal is recommended solely on highway safety grounds.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development
Development Control Committee
9
8 July 2010
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, inadequate visibility splays are
provided at the junction of the access with the County highway and this would cause
danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway.
As far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant does not appear
to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at the site access. The
proposed development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety.
6.
CROMER - PF/10/0438 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of two one and a
half storey dwellings; 10 Colne Place for Mr & Mrs S Thompson
Minor Development
- Target Date: 17 June 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson\Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of dwelling and erection of two one and a half storey dwellings on a
corner plot adjacent to the junction of Colne Place and Colne Road. One dwelling is
to have access onto Colne Road, the other onto Colne Place. The position of the
former has been slightly revised by submission of an amended plan.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Cabbell Manners in the light of the Minister's recent statement
in relation to development on garden land.
TOWN COUNCIL - Objects on grounds of overdevelopment.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters received from the occupier of bungalow on north side of road referring
to the higher level of the site compared to the north side of the road and the
consequent concern that the roof heights should not exceed those of the existing
properties and that existing trees on the site should be retained. Concerns also
expressed about the method of demolition. Third letter requests that recent
Government statements regarding building on garden plots are taken in to account in
considering this application.
A letter in support of the proposal from the applicants' agent is copied in Appendix 5.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle subject to minor resiting of access (now incorporated in amended plan) and subject to conditions
regarding access construction details, details of gates and provision of parking
facilities.
Sustainability Team - Recommends condition requiring dwellings to be built in
accordance with Level 2 of the code for sustainable homes.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection,
subject to conditions to protect trees on the site which are to be retained and subject
to landscaping being carried out.
Development Control Committee
10
8 July 2010
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Size of plots/housing density
2. Design/impact on character of the area
3. Impact on trees
APPRAISAL
The site is within a designated residential area of the town where the Core Strategy
makes it clear that new housing development is acceptable in principle. The
demolition of one bungalow on this relatively spacious plot and the erection of two
houses would accord with Core Strategy Policy HO 7 in terms of making most
efficient use of land. The density of development produced by this proposal
(equivalent to 16.5 dwellings per hectare) would not be out of character with the
surrounding area where, for instance, on the opposite side of the road there are three
bungalows on a site smaller than the current application site.
The recent Ministerial statement in relation to garden land and housing density states
as follows:
" I am today re-issuing PPS 3 with the following changes:
- the definition of previously developed land in Annex B now excludes private
residential gardens.
- the national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare is deleted from
paragraph 47 (the new text reads `reflecting the above LPA's may wish to set out a
range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range`). The
statement concludes that LPAs "are expected to have regard to the policy in
preparing development plans and, where relevant, to take it into account as a
material consideration when determining planning applications."
This new policy advice was reported to the Council's Local Development Framework
Working Party on 28 June 2010.
In this case the proposal is not contrary to the new advice and the development
accords with the existing character of the area.
Development Control Committee
11
8 July 2010
In design terms the proposed dwellings are designed as cottage style buildings with
low eaves and small gabled dormers at first floor level. Each dwelling would have a
projecting gable on the main elevation which is to be faced with flint. The surrounding
area exhibits a range of building styles and the scale and design of the proposed
dwellings is appropriate to the context. The land in this area slopes generally up from
north to south so the application site is higher than the bungalows on the north side
of the road. However, the distance between the existing and proposed front
elevations (27m) and the degree of existing screening mean that there is not likely to
be any significant adverse impact on the existing bungalows to the north.
The site contains a number of trees, principally on the northern boundary of the site.
A detailed arboricultural impact assessment has been submitted with the application
and indicates that the main trees will be retained and protected during construction.
The proposal will therefore have no adverse impact on the setting of the
Conservation Area or on the character of the street
Granting planning permission would accord with the relevant policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the following conditions:
2 This permission is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the
application (drawing numbers 06.11.2009 03 and 04 and the un -numbered tree
protection plan) and the amended plans (drawing number 06.11.2009 ) received by
the Local Planning Authority on 11th May 2010, unless otherwise first approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3 The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 2 rating or above in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical
Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house design that replaces that
scheme). Neither dwelling shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been
issued and submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that Code Level 2 or
above has been achieved unless an alternative timescale is first agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4 Before the development hereby permitted is begun, all the existing trees
identified on the approved plan to be retained shall be protected from damage during
the course of the development by means of protective fencing in accordance with the
details specified in BS5837 2005 'Trees in Relation to Construction' and in
accordance with the Method statement set out in Section 4 of the submitted
Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Tree Protection Plan dated April 2010, to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Development Control Committee
12
8 July 2010
The protective fencing shall be maintained during the period of construction works on
the site to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Within the
fenced areas no soil, fuel, chemicals or materials shall be stored, temporary buildings
erected plant or vehicles parked or fires lit.
All construction working methods and tree works shall be carried out in accordance
with the recommendations in the submitted report.
Reason:
In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN
4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5 None of the existing trees or hedgerows, which are indicated in the approved
scheme to be retained, shall be lopped, topped, uprooted, felled or in any other way
destroyed, within ten years of the date of this permission, without prior consent of the
Local Planning Authority in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6 The landscaping scheme as indicated on the submitted Landscaping Schedule
received by the Local Planning Authority on 22nd April shall be carried out no later
than the next available planting season following the commencement of development
or such further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7 Any new tree or shrub which within a period of ten years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during
the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the Local
Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to any
variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan. Additionally from
the property boundary to the near channel edge of the carriageway the construction
specification shall be in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Arrangement
shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of
separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material
or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9 Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order
revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gate, bollard, chain or other means
of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access unless details have first
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development Control Committee
13
8 July 2010
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access and on-site parking and turning area shall be laid out in accordance with the
approved plan. They shall be retained thereafter for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
11 No development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be
used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the buildings have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
7.
CROMER - PF/10/0490 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to retail units,
infilling of archway and installation of shop front; 53-55, Church Street for
Monument Group Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 29 June 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson\Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
See also LA/10/0491 below
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Primary Retail Frontage
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0013 PF - Erection of single-storey rear extension to retail units and
installation of screen to archway
Withdrawn 2 March 2010
PF/10/0014 LA - Demolition of rear extension, erection of replacement extension,
internal alterations and installation of screen to archway
Withdrawn 5 March 2010
THE APPLICATION
To close an existing archway on to Church Street and infill the area with a new
shopfront, construct extensions into rear yard to provide additional retail area (335m²
additional retail floorspace), and lay out the remaining undeveloped area of rear yard
as car park (9 spaces) and service area linked to the existing access off Louden
Road.
Development Control Committee
14
8 July 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Johnson because of the high level of public interest in the
proposal and the conservation implications of filling in the archway.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects, on grounds that the infilling of the archway would be damaging to the
character and historic interest of the building; loss of car parking spaces; infilling
archway conflicts with LDF site specific proposals for this site as a retail opportunity
site.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society - Objects. Conservation implications of filling in
archway; design and scale of proposed rear extensions; conflict with site specific
proposals. (Full comments in Appendix 6).
Letters of objection received from two nearby property owners principally to the
increased use of the narrow access onto Louden Road and the additional noise,
disturbance and traffic problems this would create, as well as loss of parking on the
site.
Further objection letter received regarding creation of additional retail space when
former green grocer's shop is empty.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection. Considers that the access from
Louden Road is adequate for delivery vehicles, and that there is a slight benefit in
removing the conflict between vehicles using the Church Street access and
pedestrians on the Church Street pavement. Recommends standard condition
requiring parking spaces to be laid out.
Building Control Manager - queries whether pedestrian access from Church Street is
intended to be stepped.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - The proposed scheme is
undoubtedly a significant intervention in the context of the existing listed building.
However as that building is protected primarily for group value, and because the
frontage alterations would actually enhance that contribution Conservation and
Design do not wish to object to this application. (Full comments in Appendix 6).
Environmental Health Officer - Requests conditions requiring a method statement for
demolition, prior approval for any extraction equipment and details of any lighting.
English Heritage - Does not wish to offer any comments. The application should be
determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of
NNDC's expert conservation advice.
Georgian Group - Considers that the infilling of the courtyard would be damaging to
the character of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.
Planning Policy Manager - comments awaited
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
15
8 July 2010
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):
SS 5 - Economy (strategic approach to economic issues)
SS 7 - Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements)
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the Historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings)
CT 5 - Transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of
need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on historic character of listed building.
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Relationship with retail opportunity site
4. Traffic implications
5. Impact on residential amenities of neighbours
APPRAISAL
The site occupies a central position in the primary shopping area of Cromer town
centre where policy supports a broad range of shopping, commercial, cultural and
other uses. The proposal involves enlarging the shop at 53 Church Street by adding
an additional 11m deep extension at the rear, and creating a new shop of similar size
next door at No.55 (former greengrocer's) by filling in the archway which currently
leads to the rear parking area, and extending the building into the car park by a
similar depth.
The main visual impact of the proposal would be on the front (Church Street)
elevation of the former Ship Hotel which is a Grade 2 listed building. The arch at the
west end of the front elevation appears from historical evidence to date from the
immediate post war period. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's
comments that the archway is a relatively modern addition in the history of the host
grade 2 listed building. It therefore has little significance and can be seen as a scar in
the street scene. Consequently it is not considered that the proposal would have any
adverse impact on either the historic character of the building or on the appearance
of the Church Street elevation as a whole.
The rear extensions have been designed with a flat roof concealed behind a pitched
pantile roof, with the rear wall (south elevation) clad in a mixture of flint, brick and
render. Although the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager comments that
the large extent of flat roof is not welcomed in a Conservation Area he accepts that in
this case it would not in practice cause any demonstrable harm. The overall impact of
the proposals on the Conservation Area is therefore not considered to be harmful
and its character and appearance would be preserved.
Development Control Committee
16
8 July 2010
The site is shown on the Local Development Framework Site Specific Proposals as
part of a retail opportunity site (ROS 3) which includes neighbouring buildings and
land (Iceland and the National Westminster Bank and its car park to the west). The
proposal suggests the whole site could be suitable for a mixed use development of
retailing and residential, incorporating affordable housing and provision of a
pedestrian route between Church Street and Louden Road. Detailed comments of
the Planning Policy Manager on this aspect are awaited.
The closing up of the archway onto Church Street would have some benefits in
pedestrian safety terms by reducing the conflict between vehicles entering and
leaving the car park via the archway and pedestrians using the footpath on the south
side of Church Street.
The existing car park would, as a result of the proposed extensions, be reduced in
capacity from the current 24 (approx) spaces to 9 spaces, and the reduced area of
car park would be accessed from Louden Road. This is a narrow (only 2.5m in
places) tarmac service road which passes close to a number of cottages and
includes a sharp right angle bend. Although not ideal, the road has a longstanding
use as the service access to the former Woolworth's (now Iceland) store. The
additional use now proposed to give access to 9 parking spaces is not considered
likely to generate highway safety issues on the public highway and the Committee
will note that no objections have been raised by the Highway Authority.
Objections have been received from residents of two of the cottages at the rear of the
site adjoining the access and car park. These objections relate principally to the
impact of increased use of the service road on their living conditions, on safety of
users of the access and on the structural condition of their houses. Whilst
acknowledging that increased use of the access and car park could result in some
increased disturbance to nearby dwellings the Council has no direct control over the
level of use of this access. Even if this development were not to go ahead the service
road is still used legitimately as a service access for the Iceland store. The additional
traffic and activity likely to be generated by this application is not considered likely to
have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residents.
Subject to the comments of the Planning Policy Manager, it is considered that the
granting planning permission in this case would comply with the relevant policies of
the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection being raised by the
Planning Policy Manager and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
8.
CROMER - LA/10/0491 - Demolition of rear extension, erection of single-storey
extension, infilling of archway and installation of shop front; 53-55, Church
Street for Monument Group Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 29 June 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson\Mr P Took
Listed building consent
See also PF/10/490 above
Development Control Committee
17
8 July 2010
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
LA/10/0014 LA - Demolition of rear extension, erection of replacement extension,
internal alterations and installation of screen to archway
Withdrawn 5 March 2010
THE APPLICATION
To close an existing archway on to Church Street and infill the area with a new
shopfront, construct new extensions into rear yard to provide additional retail area.
Also involves certain internal alterations, principally the removal of internal walls.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Johnson because of the high level of public interest in the
proposal and the conservation implications of filling in the archway.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects, on grounds that the infilling of the archway would be damaging to the
character and historic interest of the building; loss of car parking spaces; infilling
archway conflicts with LDF site specific proposals for this site as a retail opportunity
site.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society - Objects. Conservation implications of filling in
archway; design and scale of proposed rear extensions; conflict with site specific
proposals. (Full comments in Appendix 6).
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
proposed scheme is undoubtedly a significant intervention in the context of the
existing listed building. However as that building is protected primarily for group
value, and because the frontage alterations would actually enhance that contribution
Conservation and Design do not wish to object to this application. (Full comments in
Appendix 6).
English Heritage - Does not wish to offer any comments. The application should be
determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of
NNDC's expert conservation advice.
Georgian Group - Considers that the infilling of the courtyard would be damaging to
the character of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
18
8 July 2010
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the Historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
The proposal involves enlarging the shop at 53 Church Street by adding an additional
11m deep extension at the rear, and creating a new shop of similar size next door at
No.55 (former greengrocer's) by filling in the archway which currently leads to the
rear parking area, and extending the building into the car park by a similar depth.
The main visual impact of the proposal would be on the front (Church Street)
elevation of the former Ship Hotel which is a Grade 2 listed building. The arch at the
west end of the front elevation appears from historical evidence to date from the
immediate post war period. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
comments that the archway is a relatively modern addition in the history of the host
grade 2 listed building. It therefore has little significance and can be seen as a scar in
the street scene. Consequently it is not considered that the proposal would have any
adverse impact on the historic character of the building or on the appearance of the
Church Street elevation as a whole.
The rear extensions have been designed with a flat roof concealed behind a pitched
pantile roof, with the rear wall (south elevation) clad in a mixture of flint, brick and
render. Although the Conservation and Design Officer comments that the large
extent of flat roof is not welcomed in a Conservation Area he accepts that in this case
it would not in practice cause any demonstrable harm.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposals would not be harmful to the overall
character of the listed building and consequently the proposals accord with relevant
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to appropriate conditions.
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0530 - Erection of workshop; 84 Brick Kiln Road for
Mr T Bacon
Target Date: 14 July 2010
Case Officer: Miss K Hall
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a domestic workshop located in the south east corner of the rear
garden of a detached dwelling.
The size of the workshop would be 5.4m x 3.6m and 2.8m high. Proposed materials
are to be timber shiplap boarded walls and concrete roof tiles to roof.
Development Control Committee
19
8 July 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Pat Ford and Peter Moore for the following planning
reasons;
Size of proposal close to boundary with neighbour's garden and concerns by
neighbour that the workshop would be used for motor bike repairs.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports.
REPRESENTATIONS
5 letters of objections, raising the following issues:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Height of building would result in a section being visible over the fence (approx
1m, 0.2m of wall).
Length of building would mean it runs along 3 of the 5 fence panels adjacent to
number 90, beginning from next to 90's back door.
Concerns regarding noise levels from the workshop, mainly if used to repair
motorcycles.
Storage of potentially dangerous materials.
Inaccuracies in the application form.
Concerns regarding the impact of building a workshop over pipes and future
maintenance (inspection cover sited at 90 Brick Kiln Road).
Concerns re impact upon future saleability of number 90.
Concerns if use becomes commercial - increased traffic flow, noise nuisance and
other pollution/contaminants.
2 letters commenting, raising the following issues:•
•
•
No objection regarding the development but would not want to see it used
commercially
Would not want the development to facilitate noise nuisance
Planning conditions could be used to prevent commercial use
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - 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 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).
Development Control Committee
20
8 July 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on neighbours
2. Design
APPRAISAL
The proposed workshop would be on an existing concrete slab at the south east
corner of the applicant's rear garden. It would be set 0.3m from an existing 1.8m
high timber fence which forms the southern and eastern boundaries of the garden.
The proposed workshop would measure 2m to the eaves, and 2.8m to the ridge line.
Planning permission is required in this case because the height of the building would
exceed 2.5m (by 0.3m) within 2.0m of a boundary.
The proposed workshop would be constructed using brown stained timber shiplap
boarding on the walls, red concrete roof tiles to match the applicant's dwelling and
white uPVC windows, also matching the dwelling. All windows and doors would face
into the garden. Within the immediate residential area there are several timber sheds
and outbuildings, including a small shed within the applicant's own garden.
The visual impact of the proposed workshop would be relatively minor in view of the
surrounding boundary fences. To the east of the proposed site the neighbour has a
shed and leylandii hedge that serve as additional site boundary treatment ensuring
the workshop would be hardly visible. The workshop would be more prominent from
the adjoining property to the south which has its side garden boundary adjacent to
the applicant's rear boundary. However, essentially only the roof of the building
would be visible over the boundary fence. This would be due north of the neighbour,
so there would be no prospect of any overshadowing. The impact of the building is
considered to be minimal.
The potential for the workshop to facilitate noise nuisance has been mentioned in
more than one letter of objection. The applicant appears to own a motorbike and
concerns have been mentioned that more work would be carried out to the motorbike
if a workshop is erected. As with the use of any domestic outbuilding, there are
provisions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the Council to take action
against any statutory nuisance. A condition can be imposed on proposals such as
this to limit the use of the building incidental to the domestic use of the dwelling.
In conclusion the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of
residential development which complies with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to a condition restricting use of the workshop to domestic
use that is incidental to that of the dwelling.
Development Control Committee
21
8 July 2010
10.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0536 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of
A1 (retail) and A3 (restaurant) with outside seating area; 2-6 Station Approach
for Mr Morris
Target Date: 06 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19840516 HR - Proposed formation of new shop front and glazed canopy
Approved 04/05/1984
PLA/19921757 PF - Extension to retail unit
Approved 08/01/1993
PLA/20020291 PF - Erection of front extension
Approved 30/04/2002
PLA/20020164 PF - Erection of extension
Approved 26/03/2002
PLA/20040203 PF - Removal of window and installation of doors
Approved 24/03/2004
THE APPLICATION - Seeks to change the use of A1 (retail) premises to a mixed use
of A1 (retail) and A3 (restaurant) with outside seating area. The application
description has been amended to reflect exactly what was being proposed by the
applicant. Amended plans have been received identifying the location of the outside
seating area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE - At the request of Cllr Hannah on the
grounds that the proposal involves the creation of additional cafe facilities in an area
which already has a high number of such facilities and the possible impact of the
outside seating area on highway safety.
TOWN COUNCIL
Original Application - Objection - opposed to the loss of a prime retail outlet. There
are more than sufficient hot food outlets, extremely concerned at the ratio of nonretail in comparison to retail outlets in the town.
Amended Application - Comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received on the grounds that there are a lot of cafes
and restaurants already well established and trading in this area already.
In support of the application the applicant has advised that the profit margins of his
business are being squeezed partly since the arrival of Sainsbury’s and partly
because of newspaper margins being reduced. He was also concerned about the
potential impact of Tesco if it gets planning permission. The applicant stated that he
would like to retain the existing shop and café/takeaway elements but remove some
of the outside sales stands which are prone to shoplifting and instead provide
outdoor seating under the front canopy (five tables). This would help to diversify his
business and spread the risk.
Development Control Committee
22
8 July 2010
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Comments awaited.
Environmental Health - A suitable kitchen extract system would be required at this
site as would a waste storage area.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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 of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of mixed retail use, including loss of A1 use
Impact on Conservation Area
Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of
Sheringham within which there would be no objection in principle to proposals that
would contribute positively to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre.
The eastern frontage of the site is also located within the defined Primary Retail
Frontage of Sheringham, the key policy aim (EC 5) being to ensure that no more than
30% of the defined frontage is used for non A1 (retail) purposes. In this case, whilst
the proposal would involve the change of existing well-established A1 retail premises
to a mixed use of A1(retail) and A3 (restaurant) with outside seating area, the eastern
frontage has been used as part of a sandwich bar with ice cream sales for some
years and the applicant is not proposing to change this part of the premises. It is
therefore considered that the proposal would not conflict significantly with Policy EC
5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
23
8 July 2010
The premises are located in a highly prominent location on the edge of Sheringham
Conservation Area. It is considered that the proposal would preserve the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In respect of highway safety considerations, the view of County Council (Highways)
has been sought in respect of the impact of the outside seating area on
pedestrian/vehicular traffic flow. Committee will be updated orally on this matter.
In summary, whilst the proposal slightly reduces the amount of available A1(retail)
sales area, subject to no objection from the Highway Authority and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposal would accord
with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new
grounds of objection from the Town Council or from the Highway Authority
and the imposition of the following conditions:2 This permission is granted in accordance with the amended site plan received by
the Local Planning Authority on 08 June 2010.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0639 - Change of use from A1 retail use to A5 hot food
take-away; 6 Station Approach for Mr Miah
Target Date: 29 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use from A1 retail use to use as a hot food take-away.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah on the following planning grounds:
Proliferation of food outlets and highway safety.
TOWN COUNCIL
Strongly objects on the grounds of loss of an important retail outlet adjacent to the
core retail area of the town. The provision of food waste removal is unacceptable. In
addition the trading hours should be restricted to 23:00 as other outlets in the town.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from a local resident which raises the following concerns
(summarised):
Too many takeaways in this small town already - particularly in this road.
Development Control Committee
24
8 July 2010
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – Although having some concerns regarding the
possibility of on-street parking/waiting occurring along Station Approach, as the road
is well controlled by the existing ‘At any time’ Waiting restrictions and there is
availability of appropriate parking in the vicinity of the site on the adjacent public car
park, there is no highways objection to the proposal.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission
of details in respect of the mechanical ventilation system.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of proposed use in this location.
2. Highway impact.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in an area identified as Town Centre, but is outside the areas
designated as Primary Shopping Area and Primary Retail Frontage. On the basis that
Policy SS5 of the Core Strategy supports a broad range of uses, including shopping,
commercial and cultural, a change of the use of the premises from A1 (retail) to A5
(hot food take away) is acceptable in terms of adopted Core Strategy policy.
As far as the proposed opening hours are concerned the applicant has indicated that
the intended hours of trading would be 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight on Mondays to
Fridays, 12:00 noon to 1:00 am on Saturdays and 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight on
Sundays and Bank Holidays. Although the Town Council have objected to these
hours, given that Environmental Health have raised no objection and the number of
residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the site is few it is not considered
that refusal of the application could be justified on these grounds.
In terms of the impact of the development on highway safety, the Highway Authority
has indicated that although it has some concerns regarding the possibility of onstreet parking/waiting occurring along Station Approach, given the fact that the road
Development Control Committee
25
8 July 2010
is well controlled by the existing ‘At any time’ Waiting restrictions and the site is
adjacent to the large public car park serving the area, it is unable to sustain an
objection to the scheme.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to appropriate conditions.
12.
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 09 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Wensum Valley Project Area
County Wildlife Site
Countryside
Gas Pipe Buffer Zone
Archaeological Site
Special Area of Conservation
Conservation Area
Historic Park and Gardens
Contaminated Land
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Landfill Gas Site
Flood Zone 3 1:200 chance sea/1:100 chance river
Flood Zone 2 - 1:1000 chance
THE APPLICATION
Is for the construction of an underground cable system from Weybourne through to
Little Dunham in Breckland District. The underground cable system is required to
connect the proposed Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm to the national electricity
distribution network.
The total distance of the cable route through both Districts is 45km. However, the
length of the cable route for consideration in North Norfolk is 27.7km from
Weybourne to Gt Ryburgh, passing through the parishes of Weybourne, Kelling,
Salthouse, Cley, Letheringsett with Glandford, Field Dalling, Brinton, Thornage,
Gunthorpe, Hindringham, Thursford, Fulmodeston, Stibbard and Gt Ryburgh.
This application covers two stages of development. Stage 1 is for the onshore works
required in relation to the Offshore Wind Farm application currently being considered
by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). That is seeking consent
to construct and operate the Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm with an output of up to
560MW. Stage 2 is for the onshore works which are anticipated for an additional
Development Control Committee
26
8 July 2010
offshore wind farm project next to Dudgeon. This could increase the output in the
Dudgeon area up to a maximum of 1,400MW. Proposals have been initiated for
these further offshore works and will be subject to a further application to the DECC.
The application has been submitted on the basis that the electricity generated by the
offshore wind farm will be transmitted through the underground cables to the point of
connection to the grid by an alternating current (AC).
Up to four trenches would be proposed for the entire length of the route if both
Stages 1 and 2 were to proceed. If only Stage 1 were to proceed there would be up
to two trenches. The working corridor within which all works would take place would
be 40m wide, due to the trench widths required, distances required between
trenches, vehicular access, sub soil storage and topsoil storage. However, in certain
locations the working corridor width may need to be reduced to 20m where
necessary for environmental reasons.
The electrical cable system would comprise the following components:
•
•
•
•
•
A buried cable system, approximately 45km in length, consisting of up to 8
circuits (AC system) if both Stages of the onshore electrical connection are
developed.
Fibre optic communication cables (one per circuit).
Earth continuity cables (one per circuit).
Cable joint bays.
Cross bonding pits and/or cross bonding pillars.
The voltage of the cable export system would be dependent upon the final design,
but will be at Extra High Voltage (EHV) levels (i.e. 120kV or above).
Whilst the application has been submitted on the basis of an AC connection, with
plans indicating the location of cable joint bays and cross bonding locations, it is
possible that a DC (direct current) connection could be used. If a DC connection is
used cross bonding pits or pillars would not be required. The buried cable system
would then consist of up to 4 circuits if both Stages of the onshore electrical
connection are developed.
The applicants are also yet to establish whether the cables would be ducted or buried
directly, but if the DC connection is used they would be buried apart from under the
highways where they would be ducted, for technical reasons.
Amended plans have been received in relation to the following:
1. Changes to the cable route alignment to:
a) reduce disruption to agricultural practices;
b) reduce impacts on drainage systems; or
c) for site access reasons.
2. Alterations to the alignment and length of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)
locations.
3. The removal of an HDD location (disused railway south of the River Wensum).
4. The addition of a new HDD location (land at Kettlestone, containing tributaries to
the River Wensum).
Development Control Committee
27
8 July 2010
5. Revisions to the construction main and satellite compound locations.
6. Revisions to the location of a number of cable jointing bays, cross bonding
pits/pillars.
7. Inclusion of number of areas where the working cable corridor width would be
reduced to 20m to minimise impacts on hedgerows, individual trees, archaeological
sites and a watercourse.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred for a site visit at earlier meeting
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
The comments below are on the amended plans unless stated otherwise.
Weybourne Parish Council - No objection
Kelling Parish Council - Comments on the original plans as follows:
1. We understand that the width of the trench will be in the region of some twenty to
twenty five metres. This would obviously impact greatly on the countryside, and
cause great concern.
2. We understand that the route is not yet finalised and this in itself would affect our
discussion on this proposal.
3. We believe that the duration of the work could be some three to four years, which
would be unacceptable.
4. It is proposed that twenty four hour working may be a possibility, which would
cause disruption to locals and an increase in traffic flow.
5. We understand that the trench, when being excavated at the Beck that runs
through the village, will simply pass through the Beck, which will of course cause
flooding on both sides.
6. It is hoped that if the project should go ahead, then the standards employed would
be as high as the present wind farm project, the Sheringham Shoal Farm.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
Salthouse Parish Council - No objection
Cley Parish Council - Comments on original plans.
No objection.
Awaiting response on amended plans.
Letheringsett with Glandford Parish Council - Comments on original plans.
No objection.
Awaiting response on amended plans.
Field Dalling Parish Council - Comments on original plans.
Support.
Awaiting response on amended plans.
Brinton Parish Council - No objection
Thornage Parish Council - No objection
Development Control Committee
28
8 July 2010
Gunthorpe Parish Council - Object. The amendments we requested by letter dated
1st February have been completely ignored and I am instructed to repeat the request
that cabling proposed to affect Bale is re-routed. Reference is in particular made to
the route shown close to Folly Cottage, Common Lane, as it is thought that the line
could quite easily be further north through a scrubby grass area without detriment to
the environment. Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd, seem to be listening to landowners but
ignoring residents of houses close to the route of the cabling. Just because the
landowners have not asked for a route amendment in this case should not mean that
no notice is taken of those representing the local residents. If there are any perceived
technical or environmental constraints to our suggested route amendments please
therefore inform this Council.
Hindringham Parish Council - No objection
Thursford Parish Council - No objection
Fulmodeston Parish Council - Object. For the same reasons as stated previously,
which are as follows:
Although this is a big project, there seems little communication between the company
and landowners. The route seems to be undecided, and it seems to have an open
timescale with little thought gone into the effect on farming practices and soils. There
is a better route, we believe, along side of the old railway line. This is especially if a
super grid cable along the East coast materialises.
Stibbard Parish Council - Object. It is detrimental to the landscape and has an
adverse environmental impact.
Ryburgh Parish Council - Object on the following grounds:
1. There is no provision for a footpath in Little Ryburgh.
2. The proposed cable runs close to the Little Ryburgh Cemetery and ruins.
3. The route cuts through the road into Great Ryburgh.
Pudding Norton Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Original Proposal
Twenty two letters of objection have been received from local residents, landowners
and tenants. Twelve of those are follow up letters received from five objectors in
response to the applicants' comments on their earlier correspondence. The
objections received are summarised as follows:
1. Route would have a significant detrimental impact upon the landscape
2. Will cause significant detrimental impact/damage upon soil structure
3. Will create a significant detrimental impact upon field drainage
4. Cable depths too shallow
5. Significant detrimental impact upon livelihood of local farmers
6. Highway safety/access
7. Health implications from Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF's)
8. Close proximity of route to residential properties
9. Cable should be run along coast to a coastal sub-station, or run under the sea bed
10. Lack of consultation
11. Overground excavations proposed where thought horizontal direction drilling
would be employed
Development Control Committee
29
8 July 2010
12. Compound location at Stibbard not discussed with landowners
13. Two stages of cable laying not acceptable. Cable laying should be completed at
same time or at the very least ducting for all the phase two cabling should be
trenched in same time as building phase 1.
14. Concerns over trenches remaining open for an excessive period of time
15. Cable route not what proposed or discussed with landowners
16. Concerns over locations of Cross bonding pits being located in fields
17. Bio security
18. Route cuts through heart of Kelling Estate
19. Impact on agriculture, tourism and shoots at Kelling Estate
20. Heat and radiation from underground cables
21. Additional cables to be added in years to come
22. Long term effect of large gaps in mature hedge lines
23. Detrimental impact upon farming practices
24. Detrimental impact on crop production
25. Concerns over impact on footpaths
26. Impact on local businesses close to route
27. Route not sustainable
28. Unsuitable road network for traffic associated with cable route
29. Cable route should be realigned at Bale as too close to residential properties
30. Nothing in application to suggest alternative route considered
31. Financial implications to local farmers regarding productivity
32. Application is not precise in terms of type of electrical connection to be used
33. Inaccurate information provided regarding route, cable jointing bays and cross
bonding pit locations
Amended proposal
Four letters of objection have been received, raising the same issues as above and
the following:
1. The cable route has not been realigned at Bale as suggested.
2. No information submitted regarding the construction programme. Conditions
should be imposed detailing when works can be undertaken to certain sensitive
locations along the route.
3. Following the revised plans increasing the length of the directional drilling site at
Bayfield Estate will increase traffic movements associated with these works on a
minor country road which is not acceptable.
4. The applicants totally fail to grasp any idea of how much this would impact on
either farming operations or soil destruction and consequential problems.
5. The application is at odds with the licence granted by Crown Estates.
6. Alternative routes have been suggested to the applicants that are either shorter or
have less environmental impact, but the applicants have refused to consider them.
7. The solution is to reject the plan.
8. The alternative for the applicants which is also very much in the National interest
and Norfolk is the East Coast Transmission Route. It is envisaged that by 2020 this
will develop into part of the European super grid.
An Environmental Statement has been submitted in support of the application. A
copy of the Non-Technical Summary is attached as Appendix 7.
The applicants have sought to provide detailed responses to local residents,
landowners/tenants and consultees objections and concerns in order to attempt to
address the matters raised and have accordingly submitted amended plans as
outlined above.
Development Control Committee
30
8 July 2010
CONSULTATIONS
All of the below have been consulted on the original application. Those whose
interests are affected have been consulted on the amended plan. Therefore, the
comments below are in relation to the original or amended plans as appropriate,
unless stated otherwise.
Environmental Health - Comments on original application.
No objection. Environmental Protection are in agreement with the proposed working
hours of 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, and would like to see this conditioned.
However, it is also recommended that conditions are imposed regarding: no working
on Sundays or Bank Holidays, and limited working on Saturdays from 08:00 to 13:00,
unless agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing. Detailed
noise mitigation is to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of work as detailed in Section 12.5 of the Environmental Statement.
Dust control should be implemented in line with mitigation detailed in table 13.2 of the
Environmental Statement. An advisory note is also requested that if any potential
contaminants are found that construction work should cease, the District Council's
Pollution Control Team should be contacted and contact details of the site manager
and an out of hours contact are provided before works commence.
Comments area awaited regarding the objections received in relation to Electro
Magnetic Fields (EMF's).
County Council Highways - Original comments.
No objection. Conditions required including the submission of a Traffic Management
Plan prior to the commencement of development in order to clarify frequency of
deliveries for construction traffic, location of compounds and the direct effect these
will have on traffic movements, details of road crossings as the Highway Authority
would not wish to see any road closures on the A or B road network.
No additional comments to make in relation to amended plans.
Environment Agency - Original comments.
We have inspected the application and supporting Environmental Statement (ES), as
submitted, and have no objection to planning permission being granted for the
proposed work. However, comments have been made in relation to the following,
which have been summarised:
Ecology - Decision to agree with Natural England an appropriate depth and lateral
distance to perform the horizontal drilling of the cable under the Wensum Specific
Area of Conservation (SAC) is supported. A condition regarding mitigation measures
in relation to the risk of bentonite being released into the rivers Wensum and Glaven
as a result of the horizontal direction drilling is required. Mitigation measures for
trenching the smaller watercourses in accordance with the ES is appropriate and
must be adhered to. Mitigation measures for water voles, as detailed in the ES are
adequate and must be adhered to. Whilst it is generally agreed that there is
potentially no impact on otters during the works, we would request that the site
compound is fenced securely to prevent inquisitive otters from coming to harm.
Contaminated land (risk to controlled waters) - We are pleased to see that careful
consideration of mitigation measures has been made in order to try to preclude any
detrimental impact on groundwater and surface water quality. An investigation into
whether landfill gas is present at the historic landfill site should be made, and if so,
the possibility of the trenching and cabling acting as a pathway for the gas should be
Development Control Committee
31
8 July 2010
engineered our via the design of the works. Having reviewed the ES we consider that
a condition should be imposed on any planning permission granted regarding the
submission of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination on the
site. Without this condition the proposed development on this site poses an
unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the application.
A further condition is required regarding any unidentified contamination being found
and development ceasing on the cable route until the applicant has obtained written
approval from the Local Planning Authority for an amendment to the Method
Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. An
informative regarding relevant advice and guidance on land contamination
investigations is required.
Pollution Control - A condition is required for a permanent scheme to install pollution
prevention and control measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.
Dewatering - Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior agreement
of the Environment Agency is required for discharging dewatering water from any
excavation or development to a surface watercourse. An informative note is required
in relation to the prior written consent of the Environment Agency being given for any
proposed works or structures in, under, over or within nine metres of the top of the
bank of any main river.
No further comments to make in relation to the amended plans.
Natural England - Original comments, no objection to landscape impact but some
concerns in respect of protected species (see Appendix 7). Following the receipt of
amended plans, have no objection and agree with the relocation of the satellite
construction compound within the Muckleburgh Collection as having a reduced
landscape and visual impact to the original location. The two new proposed HDD
crossings are supported as likely to reduce impact on vulnerable soils. The reduction
in the working width for the crossing of the River Stiffkey is welcomed. Natural
England have also confirmed that the Ecological Mitigation Summary Final Report
submitted by the applicants addresses their concerns with regard to impact on
protected species. Conditions in relation to pre-construction surveys, a mitigation
scheme for protected species and soil treatment are required.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to conditions (original
proposal). No objection to amended plans.
Government Office for East of England - No response.
English Heritage - Original comments summarised - Do not wish to comment in
detail, but have some general observations to make. Because this is mainly a buried
cable route, care has been taken to avoid direct impacts on Scheduled Ancient
Monuments and Listed Buildings. English Heritage has no objection in principle to the
proposed route and considers the main impact of this development therefore to be on
undesignated historical assets and palaeoenvironmental remains. These issues can
be dealt with by using a PPG 16 paragraph 30 condition. Norfolk Landscape
Archaeology should be consulted as a matter of course. We would urge you to
address the above issues and recommend that the application should be determined
in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your
specialist conservation advice.
Development Control Committee
32
8 July 2010
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Original comments.
Made detailed comments relating to construction time, tree and hedgerow
replacement and cycleways (see Appendix 7).
Comments on amended plans awaited.
National Grid UK Transmission - No comments received
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) - Following the receipt of comments
from the applicant in relation to initial concerns raised by the CPRE, the CPRE feel
that the points raised have been well addressed by the applicants. There are no
outstanding matters on our side (original comments see Appendix 7). In relation to
the amended plans CPRE welcome the changes made.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection to the
amended plans subject to the provision of suitable conditions to safeguard
biodiversity and landscape. See Appendix 7.
Norfolk County Council (Public Rights of Way) - Original comments.
No objection. If planning permission granted the applicants should contact us at the
earliest opportunity to ensure the mitigation measures are effectively carried forward.
Norfolk Badger Group - No comments received.
Norfolk Biological Records Centre - No comments received.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Original comments
No objection to the application in relation to ecology on condition that mitigation
measures are put in place as recommended in the Environmental Statement. In
particular, we support the proposal for direct drilling beneath the Wensum and
Glaven rivers.
Awaiting comments on amended plans.
Norfolk County Council (Planning) - Original comments. Generally OK - detailed
comments in respect of lighting etc. See Appendix 7.
In relation to amended plans no further comments to make.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Development Control Committee
33
8 July 2010
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Landscape and visual impact
3. Impact upon nature conservation
4. Impact upon archaeology and cultural heritage
5. Impact upon residential properties/landowners
6. Highway safety
7. Health concerns
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at an earlier meeting in order for the Committee to
carry out a site visit.
The application has been submitted in order to help meet the UK Government's
targets that 15% of the UK electricity supply should come from renewable sources by
2015 and an aspiration of 20% of renewable energy supply by 2020. The Dudgeon
Offshore Wind Farm is expected to contribute approximately 3% of the total amount
of energy required to meet these renewable targets.
In accordance with Policies SS1 and SS2 of the Core Strategy, renewable energy
projects are permitted within the Countryside policy area. The principle of this
application in terms of the provision of associated infrastructure in relation to a
renewable energy project is therefore acceptable.
However, in accordance with Policies SS4 and EN7 the applicant is required to
demonstrate that any impacts on amenity, wildlife and landscape are acceptable, and
that there would not be significant adverse affects on the surrounding landscape,
townscape or historical features/areas, residential amenity, highway safety, or
designated nature conservation or biodiversity considerations.
Development Control Committee
34
8 July 2010
The applicants have therefore submitted an Environmental Statement (ES) to support
the application in relation to these policy requirements. In Section 4 of the ES the
applicants have demonstrated why and how the final cable route was selected. It was
considered that the route chosen is the 'best fit' taking into account a balance of
environmental, technical, financial and risk factors. Residual impacts to the natural,
physical and human environment are assessed within the ES, with the identification
of suitable mitigation and/ or monitoring in order to further reduce or to remove
potential impacts.
The majority of the route is located through agricultural land and would be installed
by a method of open trenching. In 7 locations in North Norfolk it has been assessed
that open trenching would not be appropriate for environmental or technical reasons.
These locations are as follows:
1. A149 (Kelling road crossing)
2. Hare flights (Woodland at Bayfield Park)
3. River Glaven (Bayfield Park)
4. A148 (Parr Plantation/disused railway road crossing at Thursford)
5. Wetland pasture land at Merryweather Farm between Fulmodeston and Stibbard
6. A1067 (Little Ryburgh road crossing)
7. River Wensum (Great Ryburgh)
In these locations a technique know as ‘horizontal directional drilling’ (HDD) would be
used to install the cables to avoid or minimise any impact on surface features.
The cable route would cross 31 water courses, two of which are classified as main
rivers by the Environment Agency, the River Glaven and the River Wensum. The
cable route would also cross the River Stiffkey upstream of the point at which it is
designated a main river.
The cables would be delivered in lengths and would need to jointed together on site.
Where the cables are jointed together a process known as cross bonding would also
be necessary. The cross bonding points would need to be permanently accessible for
maintenance purposes. Where possible these points would be located at field
boundaries. At each of the jointing locations a wider trench of 3m would be required.
The cross bonding locations can be located 10m from the jointing locations and it is
envisaged that the cross bonding would be placed in buried pits with a surface
manhole. However, in certain places it may be necessary to install an above ground
inspection pillar.
The depth of cover between the protective cable tiles in the trenches and the surface
within any agricultural land would be agreed with the landowner in order to allow
sufficient depth for the land to be ploughed safely.
The cable route would cross the public highway in 35 locations, 20 in North Norfolk.
Depending on the width of the roads, either a full or partial closure would be required.
The cables would be laid via ducts at the road crossing points and the working width
reduced to approximately 20m. Temporary closures and diversions of public
footpaths would also be necessary. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to
the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition requesting the submission of a
Traffic Management Plan for the route. The County Council Public Rights of Way
Officer also has no objections to the proposal.
In terms of timescales the applicants are planning Stage 1 of the onshore works to be
undertaken between 2011 - 2013 and Stage 2 between 2013 – 2015.
Development Control Committee
35
8 July 2010
Parts of the cable route would pass through the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) for 8.11km between Weybourne and west of Letheringsett, 2.79km of
Undeveloped Coast from Weybourne to Salthouse Heath, the Glaven Valley and
Great Ryburgh Conservation Areas, the Wensum Valley SAC, SSSI 1km south east
of Great Ryburgh, Bayfield Historic Park and Garden. It would also pass close to the
Bale and Sharrington Conservation Areas and 3 Grade II listed buildings. The setting
of 6 other Grade II listed buildings may also be affected but to a lesser degree. No
trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) would be affected.
The Committee will appreciate that as the completed cable route would be buried
underground (apart from cross bonding points) there would only be a temporary
visual impact while the line is being constructed, and once constructed the land
would be reinstated to its former condition. The only visible element left of the cable
route would be at the cross bonding locations. It is therefore considered that the
finished underground cable route would have a minimal visual and landscape impact.
The route has sought to protect, mitigate and minimise against any impact on nature
conservation. The Committee will note that Natural England has raised no objection
to the proposal, neither have any other technical consultees in respect of landscape,
ecology or historic environment issues.
The Committee will note that Environmental Health is raising no objection subject to
the imposition of conditions in relation to noise, hours of working, dust. Therefore, in
view of these comments and that the construction works would be for a temporary
period it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the privacy or amenities of the residential properties along the route.
With regard to the concerns raised over the possible health risks, whilst such
concerns can be a material planning consideration Section 3 of the Environmental
Statement confirms that underground cables, which have grounded armouring
(shielding), as opposed to overhead power lines, do not produce any external electric
fields. The magnetic fields produced at ground level directly above an electricity
cable would be within World Health Organisation guidelines and less than the natural
background EMF produced by the Earth's magnetic field. These levels rapidly
decrease within 5m of the cable centre line.
Confirmation is awaited from Environmental Health that there are no objections to the
proposal from a potential health risk aspect.
With regard to the representations made, a number of points have already been
addressed in this report and also through the submission of amended plans and
direct correspondence that the applicant has had with the objectors. However, in
respect of some of the more specific points raised such as soil structure, drainage
and livelihood the applicants have advised that further discussion with landowners
and technical experts will take place to address any issues.
The applicants have confirmed that they have conducted detailed studies and
assessments on the impacts of the proposed cable system construction and are
confident that, following careful reinstatement of the cable working corridor, including
any affected land drains, there would be no long term damage to soil structure and
normal agricultural practice would be able to resume.
Development Control Committee
36
8 July 2010
The applicants have also stated that landowners would be fully compensated for the
loss of agricultural productivity during the construction period, in accordance with
normal principles applying to such activities. The applicants will carry out pre and
post construction agricultural surveys to inform any further compensation on claims
relating to crop yields.
They have also indicated that information from landowners relating to any
underground land drains will be sought prior to excavations. Should any unknown
underground drainage systems be encountered during the excavations these would
be fully reinstated.
Whilst it is accepted that there will be some short term disruption to local residents
this will be on a temporary basis. Subject to Environmental Health raising no
objection on possible health risks it is considered that the proposal would be
acceptable in relation to impact upon the amenities of occupiers of residential
properties.
With regard to concerns raised over the need for additional horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) sites the applicants have responded to these comments and the
scheme has been amended to include additional HDD sites in those locations where
HDD is considered appropriate for environmental and technical reasons.
Although the proposal is a significant development in terms of the length of the cable
route through the District it is considered that the impact of this proposal would be
largely short-term during the construction phase. Once constructed the development
would have minimal impact as it would be underground. The proposal is therefore
considered to be acceptable.
Subject to no objections from outstanding consultees the proposal is considered to
accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those
required by consultees.
13.
APPLICATIONS 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 application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0577 - Use of land for the stationing of 14 woodland
lodges; Weybourne Hall Holiday Park, Sheringham Road for Merton Park Ltd
Development Control Committee
37
8 July 2010
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issues:
Visual impact and effect on trees.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit in order to be
able to assess the visual impact of these proposals.
14.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/10/0502 - Alterations to barn to provide habitable
accommodation; Red Barn, Red Barn Loke, The Green for Mr and Mrs Gadsby
(Householder application)
ANTINGHAM - PF/10/0418 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Crossing
Cottage, The Hill for Mrs Bailey
(Householder application)
ANTINGHAM - NMA1/10/0115 - Request for non-material amendment for
installation of window and French door; Brooklands, Bradfield Road,
Southrepps for Mr and Mrs Pike
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ASHMANHAUGH - PF/10/0446 - Demolition of existing car port and erection of
sun room and double garage; The Old Rectory, Rectory Road, for Mr Dodge
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - NMA1/09/0692 - Request for a non-material amendment for
installation of roof light; Durian House, 12A Beechwood Avenue for Mr J Pitcher
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
AYLMERTON - NMA1/09/0604 - Request for a non-material amendment to relocate window; 1 Laurel Farm Cottages, Holt Road for Mr D Youngan
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BACTON - PM/10/0318 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent Mera
Ghar, North Walsham Road for Mr A Starkings
(Reserved Matters)
BACTON - NMA1/10/0039 - Non-material amendment for installation of
temporary gate and fencing; Shell (uk) Ltd, Paston Road, Bacton, Norwich,
NR12 0JE for Shell UK Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0396 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Heron
Wyke, Berry Hall Road for Mr and Mrs Davison
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0488 - Construction of raised roof section to provide first
floor living accommodation; Old Mill Bungalow, Smallburgh Road for Mr K
Swetman
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
38
8 July 2010
BINHAM - PF/10/0483 - Installation of 3 antennae and replacement equipment
cabin; Arqiva Transmitting Station, Old Airfield, Cockthorpe for Arqiva Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - NMA2/01/1632 - Non-material amendment request to permit
installation of additional window to Barn 1 & roof light to Barn 2; Westgate
Barns, Warham Road for Mr A Perren
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0471 - Erection of side extension and carport; Cones, Back
Lane for Gwynne
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/10/0479 - Internal alterations and installation of internal and
external spiral staircases; 1 The Granary, High Street for Janus Investments
(Listed Building Alterations)
BODHAM - PF/10/0451 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 3 Rose Acre
for Mrs C English
(Householder application)
BRINTON - PF/10/0423 - Erection of attached car-port; Lily Cottage, Bunns Yard,
The Street, Sharrington for Mr Griss
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/10/0428 - Erection of two-storey front extension; 60 The Lane for
Mr Smith
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0506 - Erection of one and a half storey side
extension, single-storey rear extension and detached garage; 2 Hilltop for
Wright
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/10/0381 - Conversion of garage/workshop to one unit of holiday
accommodation; The Orchards, Long Lane for Mrs G Riddleston
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/10/0462 - Erection of first floor side extension and single storey
rear extension; Hillside, Long Lane for Wilson-North
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/0457 - Construction of raised deck; 33
Mountains Road, Corpusty for Ms D Staphnill
(Householder application)
CROMER - CL/09/1137 - Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use of Property as
Two Dwellings; Band Of Hope Hall, Cross Street for Miller
(Certificate of Lawfulness - Existing Use)
CROMER - PF/10/0363 - Conversion of dwelling to 3 flats; 23 Mount Street for Mr
J Sanderson
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
39
8 July 2010
CROMER - PF/10/0417 - Erection of conservatory; Ronan, Meadow Road for Mr
Chesterfield
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0455 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 2 St Margarets
Close for Mr & Mrs R King
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0461 - Change of use from B1 (offices) to single residential
unit; Belmont House, Cadogan Road for Mr Seaman
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/10/0398 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; North Cottage,
Mill Common, Honing Road for Mr Cooper
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/0403 - Erection of garage/trailer shed with storage loft
above and change of use of land from agricultural to garden; Furze Cottage,
Long Common for Mr Kirby
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/08/1046 - Request for non-material amendment for erection
of conservatory (revised design); Ramsgate House, Ramsgate Streetfor Mrs S
Neall
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0431 - Erection of two-storey side extension, single-storey
front extension and detached garage; Keepers Cottage, Blacksmiths Lane for
Mr R Haynes
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0492 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Monterey,
The Street for Mr and Mrs I Barnard
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - BX/10/0391 - Change of use from industrial (B1) to learning centre
(D1): County reference: Y/1/2009/1025; 1a George Edwards Road for Fakenham
High School and College
(County General Reg 3)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0442 - Erection of external lift; Creswick House, 77-79
Norwich Road for Jeesal Residential Care Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0473 - Change of use from B8 (storage) to domestic garage;
Rear of 7 Oak Street for Mr M Boucher
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/08/1411 - Request for non-material amendment for
increased dimensions of staircase housing; The Grove Veterinary Group, Holt
Road for CVS (UK) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Control Committee
40
8 July 2010
FAKENHAM - NMA1/08/1202 - Non-material amendment for increased height of
warehouse/distribution building, installation of door and revised door with
canopy over; Land at Enterprise Way for GJL Animal Feeds
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0528 - Erection of two-storey extension; Little Blen, Metton
Road for Mr T Stiles
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - PF/10/0456 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation (replacement of planning reference: 07/0427); The Snug, Ruggs
Hall Barns, Ruggs Hall Farm for Albanwise Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/10/0458 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation and new access (replacement planning permission reference:
07/1423); Ruggs Hall Barns, Ruggs Hall Farm for Albanwise Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0334 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
formation of vehicular access; 35 The Street, Barney for Mr S Bloy
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0538 - Erection of detached garage/greenhouse; Old
Station House, The Street, Barney for Miss Astin
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - PF/10/0412 - Construction of two dormer windows to front roof
slope; Blacksmiths Cottage, 31 Holt Road for Mr Dalton
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/10/0335 - Change of use of barn to meat processing unit;
Woodhouse Farm, Holt Road, Bale for P & P Professional Farmers Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/0416 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 1
Raynham Road for Mr Anderson
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/0515 - Erection of extension to agricultural building;
The Old Limeworks, Broomsthorpe Road for Mr A Duckworth-Chad
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/10/0513 - Formation of vehicular access; 2 Lodge Cottages,
The Street for Mr K Stone and Ms K Mulligan
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/10/0393 - Erection of first floor side extension; 12 The Green for
Mr Hutchinson
(Householder application)
HICKLING - NMA1/07/0759 - Non-material amendment request to permit
reduction to single-storey extension and installation of flint facing to east gable
wall; Grosvenor Cottage, Stubb Road for Mr & Mrs M Hodgson
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Control Committee
41
8 July 2010
HINDRINGHAM - LA/10/0477 - Alterations to outbuilding to provide annexe for
holiday accommodation use; 2 Grange Farm Cottages, Harvest Lane for Mr &
Mrs S Glover
(Listed Building Alterations)
HINDRINGHAM - LA/10/0504 - Installation of French Doors; 2 Grange Farm
Cottages, Harvest Lanefor Mr S Glover
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/10/0386 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; 4 Queens Road
for Mr Yarham
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0392 - Erection of front porch and cloakroom; 49 New Street for
Mr and Mrs Upward
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0402 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions; 32
Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs Furniss
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0448 - Erection of attached garage; Barn 1, Lodge Farm, Norwich
Road for Mr N Gray
(Householder application)
HOLT - AI/10/0499 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 29 Market Place for
Santander
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOLT - PF/10/0507 - Installation of two rooflights; 8 The Beeches, Station Road
for Mr R Foster
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/10/0466 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 6 Church
Cottages, Upper Street for Dr & Mrs Bird
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/10/0469 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 5 Church
Cottages, Upper Street, for Mr & Mrs Doncaster
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/10/0390 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling and
outbuilding and change of use of former agricultural land to garden; Hill House,
Belaugh Road for Mr D Woods
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/10/0436 - Continued use of former shop as dog grooming salon;
Pink Paws, Grange Close for Miss Donges
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/10/0452 - Erection of single-storey front extension and pitched
roof to garage; 8 Summer Drive for Mr D Sabberton
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
42
8 July 2010
HOVETON - PF/10/0464 - Erection of detached garage/store; Keepers Cottage
15/16, Carrs Loke, Stalham Road, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8RW for Deane
(Householder application)
KELLING - NMA1/09/1122 - Non-material amendment to permit revised eaves,
glazing system and cladding to reception building; Kelling Heath Holiday Park,
Sandy Hill Lane, Weybourne for Timewell Properties
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
KETTLESTONE - LA/10/0444 - Alterations to outbuildings to facilitate
conversion to a residential annexe; The Old Rectory, The Street for Mr and Mrs
Little
(Listed Building Alterations)
LANGHAM - PF/10/0445 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Cockle
Cottage, 18 Holt Roadfor Edgington
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/10/0459 - Raising of height of rear extension; 26 and 28 Holt
Road for Mr Newman
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - LA/10/0475 - Alterations to rear extension to provide increased
height; 26/28 Holt Road for Mr M Newman
(Listed Building Alterations)
LESSINGHAM - PF/10/0421 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference:82/1585 to permit all-year occupation for holiday purposes; Windy
Ridge, Beach Road, Eccles-on-sea for Mr Robarts
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/10/0351 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension;
Richmond Cottage, The Green for Mr Feistner
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0355 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail) & tattooist's studio; 43 Briston Road for Mr M Richards
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0498 - Change of use from a mixed use of A3
(tearoom)/residential to residential; 6 High Street for Mr J Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0270 - Retention of Display Conservatories; Bakers
Of North Walsham, 9 Norwich Road for Mr Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0332 - Change of use of part ground floor from A1
(retail) to residential flat; 11 Mundesley Road for G & P Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - BX/10/0415 - Installation of replacement windows; Millfield
Primary School, Recreation Road for Director of Children's Services
(County General Reg 3)
Development Control Committee
43
8 July 2010
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0465 - Erection of Front Porch Extension; 20
Mayfield Way for Gray
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/09/0480 - Request for a non-material amendment for
re-location of disabled parking bay and road to service area and lowering roof; 6
Bainbridge Close for Orbit Homes 2020 Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/91/0190 - Non-material amendment for re-positioning
of acess road, re-siting of dwellings on plots 1, 5 & 6 and revised materials;
Former Garage, Happisburgh Road, White Horse Commonfor Wright Properties
E A Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/09/0743 - Non-material amendment for omission of
triangular windows, revised finishes and reduction in height of rear extension
and removal of hipped gable to plot 2.; Land rear of 6 New Road for Glaramara
Estates Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
PASTON - PF/10/0478 - Variation of condition 3 of planning reference:01/0768 to
enable occupation of annexe as holiday accommodation and erection of garden
store.; The Old Forge, The Green, Edingthorpe for Mr R Mooney
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PO/10/0228 - Erection of agricultural worker's dwelling;
Land at Glebe Farm, Marsh Road for Mr & Mrs R Hall
(Outline Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - LA/10/0453 - Internal alterations and remedial works; Dove
House Farm, Dove House Lane for Mrs D Whyatt
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - PF/09/1276 - Erection of building to house energy plant; Econ,
Oxborough Square, West Raynham for Enco Energy Utilities Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PM/10/0295 - Erection of Ten Dwellings; 39 - 52 Renwick Park, West
Runton for A G Brown
(Reserved Matters)
RUNTON - PF/10/0487 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Cutlers
Cottage, Lower Common, East Runton for Mr and Mrs Robinson
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/10/0359 - Extension and conversion of outbuilding to provide
annexe; The Manor House, 9 Station Road for Mr McFarlane
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0554 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Barn 4, Manor Farm,
Cross Street, Salthouse, NR25 7XH for D and M Hickling Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0555 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Barn 2 Manor Farm,
Cross Street for D and M Hickling Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
44
8 July 2010
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0179 - Retention of covering to pergola; Windham Arms,
15 Wyndham Street for Garnavos Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0411 - Erection of single-storey side and front extensions
and construction of pitched roofs to replace existing flat roofs; 17 Uplands Park
for Mr and Mrs Sidebotham
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0482 - Alterations to shop front to provide ice cream
sales counter and installation of folding doors; 37 High Street, Sheringham for
Mr I Denizli
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0575 - Installation of solar panels; New Dawn, 2B The
Rise for Mr T Buck
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/10/0375 - Erection of Double Garage with Storage Above; Rose
Cottage, Brinton Road for Mr and Mrs Bennett
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/10/0511 - Erection of single-storey side extension and alterations to
garage; Harthill House, The Green, Hunworth for Mr A Birks
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/10/0546 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide cart shed
and annexe; The Old Inn, Brinton Road for Mr and Mrs J Thomas
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - NMA1/09/0986 - Request for a non-material amendment to increase
depth of rear extension; 11 Trunch Road for Mr M Starling
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SWAFIELD - NMA1/09/0987 - Requst for a non-material amendement to increase
depth of rear extension; 9 Trunch Road for Mr M Starling
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
TATTERSETT - BX/10/0405 - Replacement of windows and doors to hall building
County ref: Y/1/2010/1007; Blenheim Park C P School, Lancaster Road,
Sculthorpe for Director of Children's Services
(County General Reg 3)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0425 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Corner
Cottage, Topps Hill Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TR for Lewis
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/10/0367 - Erection of extension to conservatory and dormer
window; 44 Staden Park, Trimingham, Norwich, NR11 8HX for Mr R Gilby
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PM/10/0422 - Erection of 3 two-storey dwellings and garages; Land
to rear Menwyth House, Market Street for McIntyre Homes Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
Development Control Committee
45
8 July 2010
WALCOTT - PF/10/0494 - Erection of carriage house/garage; Whites Farm Barn,
North Walsham Road, Happisburgh for Mr S Kinsey
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/0383 - Conversion of outbuildings to residential annexe;
Robin Hood Cottage, 1 Egmere Road for Mr Carter
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/10/0384 - Conversion of outbuildings to residential; Robin
Hood Cottage, 1 Egmere Road for Mr Carter
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - LA/10/0523 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate conversion
to annexe, erection of replacement rear conservatory and entrance gates and
formation of pedestrian entrance in boundary wall; Windmill Hill, 18
Hindringham Road for Mr M Napier
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/0524 - Conversion of outbuilding to annexe, erection of
replacement rear conservatory, summerhouse and shed and replacement
entrance gates and formation of pedestrian opening in boundary wall; Windmill
Hill, 18 Hindringham Road for Mr M Napier
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0200 - Erection of replacement fishermen's
store; Land at East End for Mr J Nudd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/10/0337 - Installation of satellite dish; Wisteria
Cottage, 29 Church Street for Mr K Hegarty
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/10/0397 - Internal alterations and installation of
replacement window and alterations to parapet on the western elevation.; The
Gables, Theatre Road for Mr Roach
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0486 - Erection of single-storey side extension
(amended design); Westend House, 26 Dogger Lane for Mr and Mrs A Dixon
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0525 - Removal of condition 4 of planning ref:
07/0986 to delete requirement for provision of visibility splay; Police Station,
Polka Road for Hodgkinson Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - PF/10/0407 - Erection of dwelling (plot 3) revised design; Plot 3,
Wells Road for Bunting & Son Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/0413 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
conservatory; Meadow Way, Sandy Hills for Mr and Mrs Notley
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
46
8 July 2010
WORSTEAD - PF/10/0414 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Two Oaks,
Withergate Road for Mr Greavner
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/0514 - Erection of shed with underground root store;
Matopos Hills, Meeting Hill Road, Briggate for Mr G Gazzard
(Householder application)
15.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/0292 - Erection of Two-Storey Rear Extension; 2
Meadow Cottages, Beeston Common for Mr Gotts
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/10/0388 - Erection of Bore Hole Housing and Use of Land for
Siting Portable Toilet; Land at Hart Lane for Mr Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - PF/10/0389 - Variation of Condition 12 of Planning Permission ref:
03/0022 to Enable Protective Fencing to be Erected Only in the Event of Otters
Being Found on Site; Land at Hart Lane for Mr Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0476 - Conversion of outbuilding to form annexe for
holiday use; 2 Grange Farm Cottages, Harvest Lane for Mr & Mrs S Glover
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0435 - Erection of front porch; 26 New Street for Mr Summers
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0401 - Proposed first floor rear extension; Cowper Lodge,
37A High Street for Mr Bonham
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0406 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
two-storey rear extension; 1 Recreation Road for Mr Coop
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0432 - Erection of one and a half-storey side extension; Rose
Cottage, 82A Wells Road for Mr Hickey
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
16.
NEW APPEALS
No items.
Development Control Committee
47
8 July 2010
17.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 , Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 September 2010
18.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/09/1202 - Erection of agricultural building and formation of
access roadway; Land at Hart Lane for Knowles
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's Shop to rear 22, Station Road for
Museum Cottages
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0714 - Erection of single storey dwelling; 43, Nelson Road
for Holbrook
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0197 - Proposed general purpose agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr Clark
SUTTON - LA/09/0806 - Reconstruction of Fire Damaged Dwelling Including New
Roof and Erection of Extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs
Jolly
SITE VISIT:- 21 June 2010
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road for Jeffrey
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear
Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road for Mr Gilligan
SITE VISIT:- 21 June 2010
19.
APPEAL DECISIONS
RYBURGH - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission:
20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling Unit; 29,
Station Road, Great Ryburgh for Mrs Buxton
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to Two
Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling;
Former Red Lion Public House, The Street for John Ashton's Children's
Settlement Trust
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
48
8 July 2010