OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 8 MARCH 2012
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.
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
Appeal reference: APP/Y2620/A/12/2170245
Following the decision of Full Council on 22 February 2012 not to make funds
available to defend the appeal, the Development Committee is requested to give
further consideration to its representations in respect of this matter.
1. On 22 February 2012 the Council received a report (Appendix 1) concluding with
a request that the Council “is asked to consider the financial implications of this
matter and the possible impact on the Council’s budget.” The resolution of
Council was that funds would not be made available to defend the appeal. It is
therefore necessary for the Development Committee to consider this matter
further in light of that decision.
2. As is made clear in the report considered by the Council, the Planning Officers
are unable to support the reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice. In
such cases it is usual for external professional witnesses to be appointed to
present the Council’s case. This is not an option for the appeal against the
refusal of permission for the underground cable route as the Council resolved not
to make funding available.
3. The options now open to the Committee appear to be either
1) to appoint a Member(s) to present the Council’s reasons for refusal at the
inquiry into the appeal or
2) to resolve not to defend the appeal and to invite the Inspector to allow the
appeal and grant planning permission, but reserving the right to submit
representations on conditions to be imposed and to respond to any claim for
costs made on behalf of the appellant.
Counsel has been asked to advise upon the representation of the Council at the
forthcoming Inquiry and has stated that the chance of an adverse costs award
being made against the Council would in his view increase very significantly if the
Council decided that Members of the Committee should present evidence on its
behalf. That is simply because (so far as Counsel is aware) Members do not
have the relevant expertise, for example in carrying out landscape and visual
impact assessment in accordance with the relevant guidelines.
Development Committee
1
8 March 2012
4. The appellants are seeking to progress the appeal to inquiry as quickly as
possible within the target times set by the Planning Inspectorate and have asked
for consideration to be given to the inquiry starting in the week commencing 1
May. Their Solicitors have also requested clarification of the reasons for refusal
of the application by letter dated 23 February 2012 (Appendix 1). The
Committee’s decision is recorded in the report to Council (Appendix 1).
5. If the Committee is minded to agree to option 2) above and to resolve to invite
the Inspector to allow the appeal this would give the Council an opportunity to
make submissions with regard to the conditions to be imposed upon any
subsequent permission. The Officer recommendation of approval made to the
Committee on 12 January included the imposition of appropriate conditions,
incorporating those required by consultees, and including the following:
Working hours, noise mitigation, dust control, Traffic Management Plan, site
investigation into contaminants, contamination mitigation and pollution control,
pre-construction surveys, mitigation scheme for protected species, submission of
a programme of archaeological work, hedgerow removal and re-instatement,
phasing of cable installation, details of underground cable layout, positioning of
cross bonding pits and pillars, proposals for reinstatement of cable trenches at
the end of construction activities including timescales, preventing the
commencement of the development unless or until the wind farm is approved
including that proposed under Stage 2, Construction Method Statements, micropositioning of compounds, Environmental Action Plan, soils including a Soil
Management Plan to cover detailed site specific cable design, installation plans
and soil management.
Officers have worked these up into a schedule of conditions (Appendix 1) which,
if Committee is so minded, could be submitted to the Inspector appointed by the
Secretary of State to determine the current appeal.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Council pursues option 2 above and invites the Inspector to allow
the appeal, but subject to representations being made to the Inspector to
impose the full schedule of conditions set out in Appendix 1.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager ext 6016)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
Minor Development
- Target Date: 31 January 2012
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Development Committee
2
8 March 2012
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071672 PF - Erection of first floor extension to provide two flats
Approved 08/02/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use of single-storey building from A1 (retail) to residential. The
property is one of 4 retail units at this location. New window openings and other
changes to the elevations are proposed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barry Smith, with the support of Councillor Wyndham
Northam, having regard to the following planning issue:
Loss of local community facility.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that the property is not suited for residential use. Premises
with existing and historical retail use should be retained wherever possible.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection and one petition received, which includes 128 signatures.
The following points are raised (summarised):
1. Building has existed as a thriving village shop for over 20 years – with a general
grocery on this site since the 1800s
2. Any change of design would be out of character with the buildings around it and
the Conservation Area
3. The ageing population and many youngsters attending the village school use the
shop
4. The walk to the neighbouring shop is too much for the average person who
resides in this area
5. Present owner has done absolutely nothing to serve the village or its residents.
The owner has let the shop run down and does not appear to have tried to sell it
as a shop
6. Shop has previously provided a valuable amenity, both as a retail resource and
as a site to meet people. Especially valuable for the elderly that live alone
7. Only link for some residents to the outside world
8. Building is highly unsuitable as a residence
9. Inappropriate use of the building with no private parking
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection. Given the previous (A1) use of this
building there is no reason to object to this proposal.
Environmental Health - No objection; however concerns that residents of the
proposed property could be adversely affected by noise and odour from the kitchen
extraction system on the adjacent Bacton café (this unit has planning permission and
is sited on the eastern wall, with the existing shop sat approximately 4m away, and
the rear of the shop approx 5m away). Should a resident of the new flat wish to use
the small outside area at the rear they could experience noise and odour from the
extraction system which could result in nuisance complaints. Should it be determined
that the extraction system at the café causes noise/odour nuisance, then this may
result in action being taken against the café owner to reduce the noise and/or odour.
Development Committee
3
8 March 2012
Planning Policy Manager - No objection. Policy CT 3 (Provision and Retention of
Local Facilities and Services) seeks to retain facilities such as village stores if they
are the last of their kind within a Principal, Secondary or Service Village, or within the
local area within designated Countryside. This site falls within a Service Village.
However there is another convenience store located within Bacton, albeit towards the
eastern end near the Coast Road Chalet Estate and Seacroft Caravan Park. The
proposal is considered to comply with this policy as it is not the last facility within the
Service Village. No marketing exercise to judge the shop's viability is required in this
instance.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection if appropriate conditions are added to
ensure compliance with policy EN 6. Compliance is currently not achieved with the
submitted details.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Suitability of property for residential use
3. Parking and effect on Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The property is a flat roofed shop located with 3 other similar retail/commercial units.
Constructed in pairs, the attached neighbour to the east is a hairdressers. The
applicant's property borders the other pair to the west.
The site falls within Bacton's residential area where new residential development is
acceptable in principle (Policy SS 3).
Development Committee
4
8 March 2012
Although local concerns regarding the loss of the shop are appreciated Members will
note that the Planning Policy Manager has confirmed that there is no policy objection,
given the alternative provision within the village and considers that the proposal
complies with Policy CT3.
Within a submitted letter from the applicant the cafe is stated as not causing any
noise or unjust smells for the property, including from the extraction unit. The
applicant also advises that the business is not viable, and has not been for several
years (including before he took over) despite his efforts.
The units do not have large curtilages; the application site is no exception with a
2.5m/2m by 6m rear space and a pavement to the front. The rear area is currently
enclosed by fence panels to the sides and plastic roof sheeting. The area at the front
(approx 1.5m to 2m wide) is currently a pavement bordering a layby. This pavement
does, unusually, belong to the applicant. However as it does border Highway
Authority land its potential use an amenity space is likely to be limited.
The adopted Design Guide recommends that all dwellings should have an
adequately sized private garden, with the area of the plot given over to amenity
space no less than the footprint of the dwelling. The property is 37 square metres,
whilst the amenity area to the rear is approximately 9 square metres, and the
pavement to the front approximately 6 square metres, providing only 25% of the
recommended space (or 40% if the front area is included). In addition this area
should be substantially free from shading from trees and buildings. The boundary to
the rear is treated with a hedge measuring up to 4m, creating shade in this area.
Although below the normal required space standard, the proposal is for a small
single-bed unit and it is considered that the shortfall is insufficient to warrant refusal
per se.
No private parking provision is proposed. The existing unit would be expected to
have 2 spaces under the Car Parking Standards in the Core Strategy. A one bed
roomed dwelling would require an average of 1.5 parking spaces. Lack of parking is
not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal since the proposal requires less
parking provision than the existing use.
The proposed external alterations include 3 new windows in the eastern elevation
and a new door to the front to create an enclosed porch area. There is no concern
regarding the new door and the retention of the shop windows is welcomed. The
windows on the eastern elevation would lie adjacent to a gravelled area belonging to
the neighbouring cafe. This area is privately owned but left open and provides access
to the rear of the units. As such the windows would lack privacy, which causes some
concern for the residential amenity of occupiers of the proposed dwelling. However
the windows would all be set over 1.5m above the internal floor level, reducing the
level of visibility into the dwelling. On balance this is considered acceptable.
The external alterations proposed would have a neutral effect on the Conservation
Area and the proposal is considered acceptable under policy EN8.
With regard to the comments of the Environmental Health Officer, further advice is
being sought. An assessment of the potential for a nuisance complaint being justified
on the basis of the existing flue/extraction arrangements needs to be carried out at
this time. At the time of writing this report further discussions are taking place with
the Environmental Health Officer and Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
Development Committee
5
8 March 2012
On balance the proposal is considered to comply with Policies SS 3, EN 4, EN 6, EN
8, CT 3 and CT 6.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to further satisfactory assessment of
the potential environmental issue in terms of noise and smell by the
Environmental Health Officer and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0411 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 09/0926 to allow collection of vehicles by customers; RGC Classic
Cars, Lower Barn, Ramsgate Street for RGC Classic Cars
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 May 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090926 PF - Continued use of former agricultural buildings for storage of
vehicles and vehicle parts
Approved 27/01/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is to vary condition 2 of planning permission reference 09/0926 to allow collection of
vehicles by customers. The permission relates to three buildings whose use is
authorised for the storage of vehicle parts by the applicant.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the conflict
between highway considerations and the economic interests of this business..
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicant has submitted a statement in support of his application which details
the reasons he requires the variation of the condition.
He advises that the classic car hire company run from the site hires cars for leisure
use only and most of the hire periods are for a day but occasionally a customer will
retain the car for two or three days.
He advises that in 2010 the cars were hired out on 122 occasions. On 54 of those
occasions the customer requested to collect the vehicle from the site.
At present each vehicle has to be delivered to H Curtis and Son in Overstrand for
collection by the customer. This requires two vehicles to leave the site in the
morning to deliver to Overstrand, with one returning (and the reverse procedure in
the evening for collection). The applicant advises that should the condition restricting
collection from the site be removed it would therefore reduce traffic flow to the site.
Development Committee
6
8 March 2012
In order to reduce any impact of customers leaving their vehicles, a parking area has
been provided which is neither visible from the road or the adjacent dwelling.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection
County Council Highway Authority This proposal is related to an earlier application 20090926 which sought permission
for use of former agricultural buildings for storage of vehicles and vehicle parts
This site is located in a countryside location served by poorly aligned single-track
roads having no formal passing provision, limited forward sightlines at bends and
with sub-standard visibility at junctions. The site itself is served by an unsurfaced
access having restricted visibility to the south-east, visibility being restricted to
approximately 15m from the minimum acceptable 2m setback. Ramsgate Street is
subject to the national speed limit (60mph), however, due the nature of the road I
would expect 85th%tile traffic speeds to be in the vicinity of 37mph requiring under
Manual for Streets (2007) guidance visibility sightlines of 59m from a 2m setback to
be provided at access points
The access visibility presently available provides only 25% of requirements.
There appears to be no mention, or suggestion, in the previous application that the
vehicles stored on the site would be used for commercial hire. Highway comments
provided at that time were based upon the storage use being low-key and for the
applicants own personal use. In the applicant’s submitted statement he refers to
additional traffic movements resulting from the need to meet customers with the
vehicle to be hired out at Overstrand and that this use would decrease should
collection be allowed direct from the site.
This statement is undoubtedly true should the vehicle hire use from this countryside
site be accepted which appears to me to not be the actual case; - the previous
application being for storage of vehicles and vehicle parts only.
I therefore must consider this proposal to represent a significant increase in vehicular
use of the rural site and recommend that the application be refused for the following
reasons:1) The unclassified roads serving the site are considered to be inadequate to serve
the development proposed, by reason of their poor alignment /restricted width / lack
of passing provision / restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions. The proposal, if
permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
Contrary to Development Plan policies.
2) 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. Contrary to
Development Plan policies.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
7
8 March 2012
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact 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 the development
2. Impact on neighbours' amenities
3. Transport impact of the development
APPRAISAL
The buildings are located in a farmyard which has access directly on to Ramsgate
Street. Their use for storage was permitted under planning permission reference
09/0926 which was subject to conditions which included restriction of the use of the
building for storage of the cars only. No repair or maintenance of vehicles was
permitted and no collection of vehicles by customers was allowed. This application
seeks to vary that condition to allow the collection of cars by customers.
In terms of neighbours' amenities, given the close proximity to a residential dwelling
and the shared access arrangements, the collection of the vehicles by customers
from the premises could lead to additional noise and disturbance as a result of the
coming and going of customers, to the detriment to the occupiers of the adjacent
dwelling. However the applicant has indicated that in 2010, of the 122 occasions the
cars were hired, 54 requested collection from the site. There is no indication as to
whether this was spread throughout the year or largely in the peak summer months.
However, in terms of potential for noise and disturbance the collection of 54 cars
throughout the year at the site is not considered to represent a significantly
detrimental increase in the number of cars to and from the site at any one time and
as such the impact on the amenities of those adjacent dwellings would not be
significant. Furthermore, in the first instance consideration could be given to a
temporary permission for the collection of vehicles by customers to enable the impact
on the neighbours' amenities to be assessed over time. A personal permission could
also be considered to ensure that any other general commercial vehicle hire
business could not operate from the site.
In respect of parking, the applicant indicates that a small parking area to the rear of
the site would be provided for those customers leaving their cars at the site. The
applicant has however failed to demonstrate that the proposed parking area is on
land in his ownership and how many cars could be parked. Clearly should customers
be collecting hire cars from the site there is a need for car-parking provision for those
Development Committee
8
8 March 2012
customers to leave their car during the hire period. Further clarification of potential
parking arrangements is being sought from the applicant and the Committee will be
updated orally on this matter.
In terms of impact on highway safety, the access to the site from the highway is far
from ideal and has restricted visibility from the access onto Ramsgate Street.
Nevertheless, the permitted storage use of the building was considered acceptable
given the previous agricultural use of the buildings. However, the proposal now
being considered to allow the collection of cars by customers would in the opinion of
the Highway Authority result in a significant increase in vehicular use of a rural site, in
an unsustainable location. This would intensify the use of a substandard access on to
the highway and the use of a rural road network which is unsuitable to serve the
proposed use. The proposal to allow collection of vehicles by customers would
therefore be detrimental to highway safety and would conflict with policy CT5 of the
Core Strategy.
The proposal is therefore considered to result in detriment to highway safety,
contrary to policy CT5 of the adopted Core Strategy and may lead to unacceptable
outcomes for neighbours if adequate parking facilities cannot be provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to clarification of parking arrangements, delegated authority to refuse
for the following reasons:
The unclassified roads serving the site are considered to be inadequate to
serve the development proposed, by reason of their poor alignment , restricted
width, lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at adjacent road
junctions. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions
detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with Development Plan Policy CT5 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
Furthermore, 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, in conflict with Development Plan Policy CT5 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
4.
HOLT - PF/11/1431 - Erection of smoking shelter; The Kings Head, 19 High
Street for Mr Wilson
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 January 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Retail Frontages
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061086 PF - Erection of replacement conservatory
Approved 23/08/2006
Development Committee
9
8 March 2012
PLA/20081627 PF - Alterations to outbuilding
Approved 14/01/2009
PLA/20090246 PF - Erection of extension to provide covered shelter and parasols
to provide outdoor eating area
Approved 07/05/2009
PF/10/1451 PF - Erection of single-storey rear extension
Approved 03/02/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the retention of a smoking shelter, already almost complete with only the
roofing yet to be fully fitted.
It measures 8.5m x 2.5m, and is 2.6m in height. The eastern and northern sides of
the structure are completely open. The western and southern ends have timber
boarding around the base approximately 900mm in height, with glazed panels above
making a total height of 1.6m, and an open area above that.
The structure has a timber frame, with a grey colouring matching the recent rear
extension and has a clear glass flat roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker for the following planning reason:
Impact upon the Conservation Area and setting of listed building
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that it is too large and in an inappropriate situation adjacent to
restaurant and pedestrian area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. The design and location of the smoking shelter would have a detrimental impact
upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the listed
building
2. It will have a detrimental effect on the safety and free flow of adjacent pavement
users.
3. It will have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
4. It is in a prominent position and will be a visual intrusion.
5. Loss of outlook for nearby occupiers.
6. Design and materials are not in keeping or sympathetic with surroundings.
7. Building nearly completed without planning permission
8. It will have detrimental impact on the area.
9. Will set a precedent for others in the town.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - Despite
initially having reservations about the cumulative impact of adding this structure
alongside the recently built extension, Conservation & Design are now comfortable
that the proposed new build can be added without detriment to the setting of the
principal Grade II Listed public house.
With the shelter having been reduced in size prior to the submission of this
application, and the bespoke design having been agreed, there are now no
sustainable grounds to object to this application. On balance, it is considered that the
Development Committee
10
8 March 2012
new build would not result in any real harm to the existing heritage assets (i.e. the
listed building and the wider Conservation Area).
Environmental Health - Complies with the smokefree legislation. Whilst the shelter
appears to be of a distance far enough away from the main building not to have a
problem with smoke from the shelter entering the main building it should be a
consideration and the applicants should ensure this will not be a problem.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of listed
building
APPRAISAL
The site is located within an area designated as Town Centre in the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy. In such a location a broad range of uses is supported. The
principle of the erection of a smoking shelter in association with the public house is
considered to be acceptable. The site is also located within a Conservation Area, and
within the curtilage of a Grade II listed building.
The smoking shelter is located within the outside space to the rear of the public
house. It is surrounded by other commercial uses, and does not project out into the
public pedestrian area which runs alongside the west and south of the site. It does
not therefore affect the safety and free flow of adjacent pavement users. The timber
frame and glass structure is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, and the
external colour finish matches the rear extension to the public house.
Development Committee
11
8 March 2012
It is only possible to see the shelter from the High Street from immediately outside
the Appleyard entrance to the west of the public house. Likewise, views from the
south and west are limited due to existing buildings. Although it is located within an
area popular with pedestrians, it is not located within a particularly prominent position
in the street scene or the Conservation Area.
Customers of the public house would have previously sat outside on tables and
chairs and smoked. Now smoking shelters are required under the smokefree
legislation this situation will not change and it is not considered that this development
has a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring
commercial businesses.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who is raising no objection and who considers that the smoking shelter can
be added without detriment to the setting of the principal Grade II listed public house
or resulting in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
It is therefore considered that the development is acceptable in this location and
accords with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
5.
MATLASKE - PF/12/0033 - Erection of timber garage/garden room; 19 The
Street for Ms G Rodwell
- Target Date: 05 March 2012
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside Policy Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19892583 PF - Kitchen & bathroom extension and detached garage
Approved 15/03/1990
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a garage/garden room. The proposed garage/garden room
would be located within the rear garden of the host property. The building would
measure 6m wide, 12m long and 3.9 m to the ridge. It is proposed to have a brick
base, timber walls and a pantile roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Over-development
2. Restriction of access to land opposite
3. Adverse impact on drainage with respect to potential filling in of soak-away.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application on the grounds that concerns have been raised by residents
regarding issues relating to access to property and drainage.
Development Committee
12
8 March 2012
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received on the following grounds:
1. Size of the proposed development is disproportionate to existing structure.
2. The need for a retaining wall will necessitate the filling in of an area marked as a
pond.
3. Potential loss of an area which supports natural habitat and natural drainage.
4. Loss of view.
5. Fear that proposed development would hinder access to commercial land adjacent
to the development site.
One letter expressing comments:
1. Querying accuracy of drawings.
2. Access to lane and the generation of more traffic than the lane is designed to cope
with.
3. Concern regarding loss of wildlife and fauna as a consequence of building work.
4. The pond must currently have a natural drainage capacity - there is no plan to
compensate for this loss.
5. Would an the application, if approved, impose restrictions so as to restrict the use
of the proposed development e.g. as a business premises.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): No
objection
1. The proposed development would be of sufficient distance from the main Grade II
listed house to ensure that it would not harm the setting of a heritage asset.
2. The proposed development would occupy a relatively withdrawn position within the
village and would not be particularly prominent within the street scene.
3. The proposed building has a simple rural appearance which raises no particular
design issues or concerns.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - 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.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
13
8 March 2012
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on neighbouring amenity
2. Scale/design
3. Potential impairment of access to commercial land
4. Relationship with listed building and Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy, where in principle the extension and replacement of an
existing dwelling is acceptable subject to complying with other Core Strategy
Policies.
Policy EN2 requires that the development should demonstrate that its location, scale,
design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical, biodiversity and
cultural character). Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all development be designed
to a high quality reinforcing local distinctiveness; this is especially the case when the
proposed development is adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building.
In terms of Policies EN2 and EN8 the proposed development would be of sufficient
distance from the main Grade II Listed house so as not to harm the setting of this
heritage asset. The proposed design and material indicate that the development
would be constructed of materials which would be sensitive and compatible to the
development's rural location.
As far as Policy EN4 is concerned, the proposed development would allow for the
replacement of an existing dilapidated structure, part of which is in imminent danger
of collapse, with a site sensitive structure. Furthermore, the proposed placement of a
retaining wall would make safe what is currently a crumbling fieldstone wall. The
proposed garage/garden room would be located to the rear of the host property's
large garden and is considered acceptable in terms of scale and design. Access to
the proposed garage/garden room would be the same as is currently used to serve
the existing garage i.e. via a track adjacent to the host property. It is therefore
considered that the proposed development would not significantly affect the
residential amenity of neighbouring properties.
With regard to Policy EN9, the plans indicate the proposed development would have
a negligible impact on the pond area and its associated flora and fauna as the
proposed retaining wall and associated ‘infill’ would account for only a small part of
the area which the pond occupies. However, at the time of writing this report the
comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) were
awaited.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
considers that the proposed development would provide the applicant with additional
facilities without adversely affecting the setting of a listed building or the character of
the wider Conservation Area.
It is considered that the development accords with Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
14
8 March 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) and to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
6.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0079 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry -Warnes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 15 March 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a three-bed detached one and a half storey dwelling with rooms in the
roof on land which currently forms part of the garden to No.21 Abbey Road. The
dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 78sq.m and would include an
attached garage.
The dwelling would have a height to eaves of 4.1m and a height to ridge of 7.8m.
Access to the site would be gained from a new access on to Abbey Road, which is
an unmade private road to the west of Holway Road.
The new dwelling would have a maximum garden depth of approximately 10m and a
width of approximately 16m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to a condition requiring compliance
with code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
County Highway Authority - No objection subject to a condition requiring the
proposed on-site garaging and car parking area to be laid out prior to first occupation
of the dwelling.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
15
8 March 2012
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Impact on amenity
3. Design and impact on the form and character of the area
4. Access and parking
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential area of Sheringham within which the
principle of erecting a dwelling is considered to be acceptable.
In respect of design, Policy EN4 requires all development to be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In addition proposals should have regard for the North
Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, whilst the dwelling would
be fairly tight on the plot, sufficient private garden areas of adequate size and shape
to serve their intended purpose would be achieved on the proposed plot and, in line
with North Norfolk Design Guide recommendations, the area of the plot given to
private amenity space would be no less than the footprint of the dwelling. However,
by developing this garden plot, the existing dwelling, No.21 Abbey Road, would be
left with a limited garden area where the majority of the remaining outside space for
the dwelling is taken up with the existing garage and driveway. As such the existing
dwelling would have little useable outside amenity space other than the gravelled
driveway and parking areas. However, this outside space to be retained for the
existing dwelling would comply with the Design Guide in so far as the area of the plot
given to private amenity space would be no less than the footprint of the dwelling.
In respect of the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings, ground floor and first floor
windows are proposed on the west elevation facing the bungalow (no.19) to the east
and this would permit some overlooking of the adjacent dwelling. However, the 1.8m
boundary fence would screen the ground floor window from the neighbouring
property. In respect of the first floor window, this would permit overlooking of the side
of the dwelling. However as the proposed window would be in close proximity to the
Development Committee
16
8 March 2012
adjacent dwelling, only views at an oblique angle into the ground floor windows would
be possible and as such it is not considered that this would result in a significant loss
of privacy. Furthermore overlooking of the outside amenity space of that dwelling
would be largely limited to the driveway which is already open to public view. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would result in any significant harm to the
amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling to the west.
In respect of the amenities of the dwelling to the rear (north) of the site, a first floor
rear bedroom window is proposed, although as this would be set back by approx
10m to the rear boundary, it is considered that this would not result in any
significantly adverse overlooking of the windows or private garden area of that
dwelling.
With regard to the relationship with the existing dwelling on the site, No.21, the
proposed dwelling would have a single storey garage on this side and would be set
further back into the site. As such the proposed dwelling would not be significantly
overbearing nor would it result in any adverse loss of light to the existing dwelling.
Furthermore, windows on the east elevation facing the existing dwelling would be
limited to a first floor bathroom window and a secondary dining room window at
ground floor and this would ensure that no adverse overlooking of No.21 would
result.
There are two large windows at ground floor and first floor in the western elevation of
No.21. However, the proposed dwelling would be screened from overlooking at the
ground floor by a proposed 1.8m boundary fence. The first floor window would
permit overlooking of the side of the house and front garden area of the proposed
dwelling, but the limited windows proposed on this side and the fact that the front
garden would already be open to public view would ensure that this would not result
in significant harm to the privacy of the of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.
Withdrawing permitted development rights for further windows and extensions would
ensure that no uncontrolled alterations in the future would have an adverse impact on
the amenities of the neighbours. Therefore subject to this condition and with
consideration of the above, whilst the site is rather tight, it is considered that the
proposed dwelling would have no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.
The height and scale of the dwelling would not be out of character with the
surrounding area and would provide a transition between the single storey bungalow
to the east and the thatched two storey cottage to the west. Subject to appropriate
external materials, it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character
and appearance of the area, in compliance with Policy EN4.
With respect to sustainable construction and energy efficiency, conditions are
recommended in order to ensure that the Code for Sustainable Homes requirements
are met, in accordance with Policy EN6.
Policy CT6 requires two parking spaces for a 3 bed property; these would be
provided in addition to an attached garage, thus complying with the Council's parking
standards.
In respect of the impact of the development on the highway, the Highway Authority
has advised that, given the appropriate level of visibility from the private road on to
Holway Road and with consideration of the existing number of dwellings currently
served from the site, there would be no objection. The proposal is therefore
considered to raise no highway safety issues and as such complies with Policy CT5.
Development Committee
17
8 March 2012
In summary, whilst the proposal would result in a tight-knit form of development and
a reduced useable outside amenity space for the existing dwelling, on balance it is
considered that the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including submission of
materials, compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes, those required by
the Highway Authority, and removal of permitted development rights for further
windows and extensions.
7.
STODY - PF/11/1442 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extensions and
first floor side extension; Sunnyside Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr
Tollett
- Target Date: 23 January 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
EA Flood Zone 2
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two storey and single storey rear extension and a first floor
side extension.
The two storey rear extension would have a height to ridge of approximately 6.3m
and 4.4m to the eaves, matching that of the existing dwelling, with a gabled roof with
the ridge running south-east to north-west parallel to the main dwelling. The gable
would have a width of 4m and would be linked to the main house by a two storey
pitched extension projecting 1.3m from the rear wall of the dwelling. The overall
projection of the two storey element from the rear wall of the original dwelling would
therefore be approx 5.3m.
The existing single storey mono-pitch outbuilding at the rear of the site would be
demolished and rebuilt and this would link in to the proposed extensions. This would
have a mono-pitch roof to a height of 3.6m and would run alongside the north-west
boundary.
In addition the existing two storey flat roof section on the north-west side of the
dwelling would have a pitched roof added.
The proposed extensions would be constructed of clay pantiles and red brick to
match that of the existing dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issues:
Scale of the proposed extension and impact on the character of the Conservation
Area.
Development Committee
18
8 March 2012
PARISH COUNCIL
There is no resolution as to whether they object, no comment or support, but offer the
following comments as a result of a site meeting:
1. The application will improve the aspect of the front of the property facing The
Green
2. It was hard to assess the scale of the extension from the plans, it does seem a
large project.
3. There will be impact on the light to neighbouring houses (some felt this was
reasonable, others didn't).
4. The renovations when finished will be more attractive to look at than the present
rear aspect.
5. There is likely to be a lot of disruption if the works were to go ahead, the applicant
has assured us any damage to the Village Green will be repaired.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. The extension, some of which is virtually on the boundary, will block light and
sunshine from a significant part of both the garden and area surrounding Bishops
Cottage (to the west)
2. Overdevelopment
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - Whilst the
proposal involves a considerable amount of new build, the existing building has
already been extensively altered with less than sympathetic flat roof extensions. As
a result the new extensions would improve the appearance of the dwelling from
public vantage and because the main volume of the extension would be to the rear it
is considered on balance that the proposal would enhance the character and
appearance of the host property and thus that of the Conservation area. Therefore
no objection raised.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
19
8 March 2012
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 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Scale
3. Impact on neighbouring amenity
4. Impact on the Conservation Area
5. Flood risk.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy where policies SS2 and HO8 are particularly relevant. Policy SS2 is
permissive of extensions to existing dwellings subject to compliance with Policy HO8
which seeks to ensure extensions to dwellings in the countryside are not
disproportionate in height or scale to the host dwelling and that they would not
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside.
Policies EN2 and EN4 are also relevant.
In respect of scale, the proposal involves a number of extensions and alterations to
the property. The dwelling has previously been subject to a two storey flat roof side
and rear extension and these appear to be post 1940's. As such they cannot be
considered as original for the purposes of calculating the increase in scale to the
property. Therefore on this basis the proposed extensions in addition to those
previous extensions result in an overall increase in the footprint of the property of
around 300%. However, the flat roof extensions are clearly well established on the
property and the increase now proposed is an additional 70% compared to the
existing dwelling and would be located to the rear of the dwelling. As such whilst the
amount of extension is quite considerable, because the main volume of build would
be at the rear of the site where views would be restricted, and the main public views
would be improved by the addition of a pitched roof above the existing flat roof
extension, it is not considered that the proposed increase in scale would materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside. As such on
balance the proposed increase in scale in this instance is considered to be
acceptable under policy HO8.
In respect of neighbouring amenity, the proposed two-storey extension would have
windows on the two side elevations facing the neighbouring properties which would
be limited to high level windows at ground floor level and a hall and ensuite window
at first floor level. As such it is not considered that the proposal would result in any
significantly detrimental loss of privacy to the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.
Whilst the proposed two storey extension would project some 5.3m from the rear wall
of the dwelling and would run along the north-western boundary, the distance
between this and the adjacent dwelling is sufficient to ensure that the extension
would not be significantly overbearing on that property. Furthermore, whilst the
extension would result in some loss of early morning sunlight to that dwelling to the
north-west, the orientation of the dwellings and position of windows on the rear
elevation of Bishop's Cottage, should ensure that for the rest of the day there would
be no impact on the sunlight entering that neighbouring property or its garden. It is
not therefore considered that the proposal would result in any significantly adverse
loss of light to the adjacent dwelling.
Development Committee
20
8 March 2012
In terms of the impact of the proposed extension on the Conservation Area, whilst the
proposal would involve a considerable amount of new build, it is noted that the
existing building has already been extensively altered with some less than
sympathetic flat roof extensions. As a result, the new additions would help to tie the
various disparate elements together, particularly when viewed across The Green,
whence the public face of the building would be considerably improved with the
introduction of the in-line tiled roof over the existing side extension. For this reason,
and because the main volume of build would be at the rear of the site where views
would be restricted, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager confirms that
subject to a condition the additions should enhance the appearance and character of
the host property and thus that of the wider Conservation Area, in compliance with
policies EN4 and EN8.
In respect of flood risk, the rear garden lies within the EA Flood Zone 3 with a 1:200
probability of sea flooding and 1:100 probability of river flooding. Only the corner of
the existing outbuilding (to be re-built and incorporated as an extension to the
dwelling) would be within the flood zone. It is not therefore considered that the
proposal would result in any increased risk to life or property.
In view of the scale of the proposal this is considered to be a marginal case but in
view of its limited impact in the landscape, on balance it is considered to comply with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including those requiring
matching materials and removing permitted development rights for further
windows on the side elevations to prevent overlooking.
8.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the 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.
STIFFKEY – PF/11/1257 – Erection of ancillary holiday accommodation at The
Red Lion, 44 Wells Road, Stiffkey
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended following request for Committee consideration by Councillor
Savory for the following planning reasons:
Economic viability and employment, and the sensitive location of the site.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
Development Committee
21
8 March 2012
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - LA/11/1173 - Erection of front porch canopy; 4 Keswick Road for Mr V
Daglish
(Listed Building Alterations)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1386 - Conversion of workshop to two units of holiday
accommodation; Denny Construction, Sheringwood for Mr Denny
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1397 - Erection of side/rear extension and installation
of solar panels; Scout Hut, Cromer Road for West Runton Scout Group Exec
Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/11/1407 - Erection of detached garage (revised design
incorporating installation of three roof lights); The Lodge, 49 Warham Road for
Mr & Mrs Van Ree
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/1193 - Installation of three replacement windows; 145 High
Street for Mrs M Freer
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1553 - Construction of three dormer windows to facilitate
conversion of loft space to habitable accommodation; Reef House, Back Lane
for Mr & Mrs A Birkbeck
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0022 - Conversion of outbuilding to ancillary residential
accommodation; Vine Cottage, 60 Morston Road for Mr & Mrs J B Thompson
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - PF/11/1561 - Erection of front porch; Bayses Barn, Bayses Lane
for Briningham Farm Ltd
(Householder application)
BRISTON - NMA1/11/0126 - Non-material amendment request for retention of
garage for use as workshop/store, formation of additional parking space and
use of access onto Stone Road solely for new dwelling; Line Side, Macks Loke
for Mr G Babbage
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/12/0042 - Erection of rear conservatory; 99 Hall Street for Mr G
Gardiner
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/11/1484 - Erection of pig handling building; Walton Hall Farm,
Gipsies Lane, Ludham for Mrs Helsdon
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - NMA2/11/0223 - Non-material amendment request for
retention of brick finish to wall and change of front window colour; The Quay
Development Committee
22
8 March 2012
House, 1 Beau Rivage for Mr A Livsey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - PF/11/1224 - Variation of conditions 2 and 4 of planning permission
reference 07/1331 to permit re-location of golf academy building and practice
greens; Land at Overstrand Road for Mr R Harbord-Hamond
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/1447 - Variation of condition 2 of permission reference:
11/0067 to permit increased ridge height, installation of Juliet balcony to rear
and increase in depth of side extension; 29 Howards Hill for Mr R Nash
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/1524 - Erection of water storage tank and pump house; Land at
The Royal Cromer Golf Club, 145 Overstrand Road for The Royal Cromer Golf
Club
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/1548 - Conversion of house to three self-contained residential
flats; 32 Cabbell Road for Mr Crawley
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/11/0627 - Non material amendment request to insert two
rooflights; 10 Hillside for Mrs Madgett
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - NMA2/11/0707 - Non-material amendment request for widening of
access; 29 New Street for Triangle Amusements Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
EDGEFIELD - LA/11/1485 - Internal alterations including installation of
replacement staircase, removal of partition walls and conversion of outbuilding
to kitchen with bedroom above and installation of dormer windows, rooflight
and windows; The Mount, Hunworth Road for Mr & Mrs Bannerman
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0032 - Erection of side conservatory; Pantile Cottage, The
Green for Mr Frost
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0487 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
six two-storey dwellings; 70 Holt Road for Mr B Dack
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1343 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Lavengro,
Heath Way for J Martin
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1465 - Erection of front porch; 6 North Park for Mr J
Chilvers
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM
PF/11/1474
Erection
of
replacement
beauty/reflexology salon; 61 Greenway Lane for Mr & Mrs A Ficarra
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
23
two-storey
8 March 2012
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1475 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; 9
Newman's Yard for Mr M Mooney
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1532 - Erection of first floor extension and installation of
condenser units; The Grove Veterinary Group, Holt Road for CVS (UK) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1541 - Erection of detached garage and 1.5m front fence; 69
Wells Road for Mr D Stevens
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/11/1437 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Plumtree Cottage, 36 Binham Road for Mrs Swanton
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - NMA1/10/1279 - Non-material amendment request to alter
external hard/soft landscaping, parking and bin storage; Land off Holt Road for
Victory Housing Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FULMODESTON - LA/12/0004 - Erection of rear sunroom and dormer window
and installation of replacement windows; 21 Croxton Road, Croxton for Mrs A
Wess
(Listed Building Alterations)
GIMINGHAM - PF/11/1464 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
10/1267 to permit revised scheme for single-storey extension; Horseshoe
Cottage, Church Street for Mr George
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/11/1266 - Conversion of barn and outbuildings to
residential dwelling; The Barn, Dilldash Lane for Mrs J Notman & S Roberts
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - LA/11/1267 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
residential dwelling; The Barn, Dilldash Lane for Mrs J Notman & S Roberts
(Listed Building Alterations)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/1439 - Removal of caravan and erection of detached
single-storey annexe; Greentiles, Bush Drive, Bush Estate for Mr C Rice
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/11/1405 - Erection of first floor/single storey rear extension; 16
The Green for Mr Amis
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/12/0011 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions, singlestorey orangery and entrance portico; Beaconsfield Farm, Whinmere Road for
Mr & Mrs T Phipps
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/11/0563 - Non-material amendment request for relocation of window; Pine Cottage, 32 Pineheath Road for Mr P Holloway
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
24
8 March 2012
HINDOLVESTON - PF/11/0398 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Dairy
Farm, Fulmodeston Road for Dick Seaman Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0909 - Continued use of sports pavilion as a mixed use
of D2 (assembly/leisure) and A4 (public house) and retention of shed for storage
purposes; Hindringham Sports/Social Club Committee, Wells Road for
Hindringham Playing Field Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LD/11/1421 - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of extension,
internal alterations and installation of replacement windows and garage doors;
16 New Street for Mr & Mrs G Crawley
(Listed Building Demolition)
HOLT - PF/11/1481 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 16 New Street for
Mr & Mrs G Crawley
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/11/1511 - Installation of replacement ATM surround; 16 High Street
for Barclays Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - AI/11/1512 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 16 High Street for
Barclays Bank Plc
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOLT - PF/12/0003 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 4 Beresford Road
for Mr Ellis
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/11/0835 - Retention of single-storey holiday accommodation
building; The Moorhen, 45 Lower Street for Mr D Batley
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - LA/11/1500 - Installation of replacement doors and windows and
new door opening; 33-35 Lower Street for Mr D Moore
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOVETON - PF/11/1438 - Installation of photovoltaic panels; Unit 6, Station Road
Business Park, Horning Road West for Eric Bates & Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/11/1507 - Erection of single-storey side extension, single-storey
rear extension, raising of roof to provide first floor habitable accommodation
and erection of detached garage; Treedona, Tunstead Road for Mr & Mrs Barrell
(Householder application)
HOVETON - NMA1/11/1364 - Non-material amendment request for revised door
and window arrangements; 24 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs Hunt
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
INGHAM - PF/11/1328 - Erection of pergola to front elevation and detached
garage; Woodlands, Calthorpe Street for Mr & Mrs Cornrathe
(Householder application)
Development Committee
25
8 March 2012
KETTLESTONE - PF/11/1333 - Alterations and extension to barns to facilitate
conversion to four dwellings; Manor Farm Barns, The Street for Mr B Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/11/1416 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 07/0927 to permit retention of holiday units as converted; Whitehouse
Barn, Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe for Mr B Lockhart
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/11/1230 - Erection of potato store; Grove Farm, Field Dalling
Road for Grove Farm Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - LA/11/1234 - Demolition of porch, removal of render, re-instatement
of dentil course, installation of replacement windows and erection of portico;
Orchard House, Field Dalling Road for Mr A Iles
(Listed Building Alterations)
LESSINGHAM - PF/11/1522 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation
and erection of link extension; 2 Moat Cottages, East Ruston Road for Mr S
Atkinson
(Householder application)
MORSTON - PF/12/0020 - Erection of replacement bridges; Morston Marshes for
The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/1533 - Variation of Condition 3 of permission reference:
11/1163 to refer to external surface materials only; Rays Stores, 25 Cromer
Road for Mr R Unsworth
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/11/1269 - Non material request to widen garden room door
arrangements; Meadow House, 38 Cromer Road for Mr Maddison
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1175 - Continued siting of mobile home; Bridge Farm
North, Skeyton Road for Mrs S Burrows
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1327 - Variation of condition 3 to permit the revised
siting of storage building with attached stables and tack room.; Land adjacent
to railway line, Bradfield Road for Mr B Copland
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1478 - Variation of Condition 11 of permission
reference: 11/0049 to permit revised pharmacy opening hours; Birchwood
Medical Practice, Park Lane for Birchwood Medical Practice
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1517 - Installation of replacement ATM surround; 12
Market Place for Barclays Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
26
8 March 2012
NORTH WALSHAM - AN/11/1518 - Installation of replacement non-illuminated
rear advertisement sign; 12 Market Place for Barclays Bank Plc
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1521 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 1
Osborne Close for Mr & Mrs Wilkinson
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0013 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to B1 (office);
Unit 4/5, Rose Centre Retail Park, Norwich Road for Mrs J Lawes
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0048 - Erection of single-storey rear extension (part
retrospective); 96 Norwich Road for Mr Hicks
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0051 - Erection of 2.01m high retaining wall/railings;
Western boundary, Mundesley Road car-park for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1450 - Erection of front conservatory; 75 Crossdale
Street for Mr & Mrs Jenkins
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/11/1449 - Erection of attached car port; 14 Cromer Road for
Mrs W Gee
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/11/1391 - Conversion of barns to five holiday dwellings (extension
of period for commencement of permission reference: 08/1371); Green Farm
Barns, The Green for Green Farm Barns (Knapton) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1480 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 9 Holway
Close for Mr & Mrs D Cooper
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/1171 - Erection of garage pavilion/store, greenhouse and fruit
frame enclosure and detached double garage/store; Widgeons, Home Close,
West Runton for Ms C Davidson and Ms E Hewett
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/1501 - Erection of single-storey extension to 1 Church
Cottages and two-storey/single-storey extension to 2 Church Cottages; Church
Cottages, Cromer Road, West Runton for A G Brown
(Householder application)
RUNTON - NMA1/09/0663 - Non-material amendment request for revised door
and window arrangements to living room repositioning of one flue and
introduction of solar panels to roof slope above dayroom.; St Andrews, Lower
Common, East Runton for Mr K Monaghan & Ms G Baker
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/1546 - Conversion of former day nursery to residential
dwelling; Far Barn, Grove Farm, Creake Road for Miss G Matthew
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
27
8 March 2012
SCULTHORPE - LA/12/0023 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
residential dwelling; Far Barn, Grove Farm, Creake Road for Miss G Matthew
(Listed Building Alterations)
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1559 - Installation of six 30.24kW ground mounted array
of photovoltaic units; Brograve Farm, Waxham for Mr Cary
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1385 - Demolition of former public house and erection of
three two-storey dwellings (extension of period for commencement of
permission reference: 08/0937); 18 Beech Avenue for Mrs Y Homan
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1428 - Conversion of veterinary centre to three ground
floor flats; 15 Holt Road for Miramar Property Investments
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/1429 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land at
15 Holt Road for Miramar Property Investments
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1453 - Erection of attached garage/store and creation of
vehicular access; 18 Cromer Road for Gleave & Associates
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PA/11/1470 - Prior notification of intention to install equipment
cabinet; Crossways, 1 The Boulevard for BT Openreach
(Prior Approval (Telecommunications))
SHERINGHAM - PA/11/1473 - Prior notification of intention to install equipment
cabinet; 33 Wyndham Street for BT Openreach
(Prior Approval (Telecommunications))
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0010 - Installation of tiled facade; 25 Station Road for Mrs
A Parriss
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0014 - Construction of replacement roof and access
bridge and installation of windows and balconies to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation; Public Conveniences East Promenade, The
Promenade for Mr N D Willan
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0028 - Conversion and extension of garage to form
residential annexe; Thistle Dome, 2 Orchard Close for Mrs Cook
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/0838 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dimensions of rear extension; 10 Weybourne Road for Mr & Mrs D Lowe
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/1132 - Non-material amendment request for reduced
footprint and change of hipped roof to gable; 3 Orchard Close for Mrs J Scott
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
28
8 March 2012
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1482 - Proposed replacement shed/summerhouse; 12
Holt Road for Mr P H Francis
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1525 - Installation of replacement ATM surround and air
conditioning condenser; 43-45 High Street for Barclays Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AI/11/1526 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 43-45 High
Street for Barclays Bank Plc
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1550 - Erection of single-storey and first floor rear
extensions, first floor side extension and conversion of outbuilding to form
annexe; 12 St Austins Grove for Ms P Hender
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1552 - Conversion of double garage into self-contained
annexe; 41 Alexandra Road for Mr & Mrs S Neethling
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - AI/12/0008 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; 25
Station Road for Mrs A Parriss
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SIDESTRAND - PF/11/1126 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Old Barn
Cottage, Cromer Road for Mr T Dickenson
(Householder application)
SMALLBURGH - PF/11/1502 - Use of land for siting mobile toilet unit; Carpenters
Lodge Certificated Caravan Site, Toads Green Farm for Mrs J Loades
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/1462 - Erection of garden shed; Plot 6, rear of 20 Church
Street for Mr R Codling
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/1514 - Conversion of detached garage to habitable
ancillary accommodation and erection of cart shed/garden room; 24 Chapel
Street for Mr & Mrs A Armstrong
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/1529 - Removal of Condition 2 of permission reference:
04/0585 to permit permanent residential occupation; Keys Barn, Chapel Road
for Mr J Horne
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0007 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Ben Hur,
Warren Road for Mr J Ellison
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/12/0040 - Installation of photovoltaic panels; Colwyn, Brumstead
Road for Mr Paveley
(Householder application)
Development Committee
29
8 March 2012
SWAFIELD - NMA2/05/1042 - Non-material amendment request for revised
windows, re-location of flue pipe, re-location of hallway and installation of Juliet
balcony; 1 Swallow Barns, Pond Road, Bradfield for Mrs Marshall
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/11/1520 - Erection of front and side extensions;
Conifers, Cross Road for RGW Portugal Ltd
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/11/1494 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Tulip
Cottage, The Street, Tatterford for Mr M Cook
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - DP/12/0074 - Demolition of buildings; Sculthorpe Airfield,
Syderstone Road for Ministry of Defence
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
THORNAGE - PF/11/1496 - Insertion of two dormer windows to facilitate loft
conversion for habitable accommodation; Town Farm Bungalow, The Street for
Mr Cude
(Householder application)
THURNING - NP/12/0103 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Lime Tree Farm, Saxthorpe Road for The Trustees of the Knole
Second Trust Fund
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
TRIMINGHAM - PF/11/0877 - Erection of village hall; Site at Cromer Road for
Trimingham Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - LA/11/1468 - Removal of French doors and installation of
window and replacement rear window; Hall Farm, Church Street for Mr C
Harrison
(Listed Building Alterations)
TRUNCH - PF/12/0036 - Erection of side and rear extensions; 23 Pyghtle Close
for Mr Rendle
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/1435 - Erection of two-storey side extension, rear
conservatory and front porch; Holly Cottage, Anchor Street for Mr P Withers &
Mrs K Bruce
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - NMA1/11/1130 - Non-material amendment request for omission
of two windows and increase in width of bi-fold doors; School House, 2 St.
Peters Road for Mrs C Heaffey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1318 - Erection of carport, covered walk way and
pergola.; Maryland Corner, Knitting Needle Lane for Mr Smith
(Householder application)
Development Committee
30
8 March 2012
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0030 - Installation of replacement shop front and
re-location of ice cream facility; Pop Inn, The Quay for Underwood Amusements
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0031 - Installation of replacement shop front;
Pop Inn, The Quay for Underwood Amusements Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0050 - Erection of single-storey front extension;
45 Northfield Crescent for Mr & Mrs A Stubbs
(Householder application)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/11/1486 - Retention of extended outbuilding for use as a
separate residential dwelling; Herb Cottage, Sheringham Road for Mr & Mrs G
Clarke
(Full Planning Permission)
WICKMERE - PF/11/1539 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The Village
Hall, The Street for Wickmere Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/11/1515 - Erection of extension to provide two additional
boarding kennels; The Lodge, Foulsham Road for Mr G Larter
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/1352 - Erection of side conservatory; Sunny Corner,
Meeting Hill for Mrs C Harrington
(Householder application)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/11/1458 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
erection of two semi-detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Hall Lane for Mr A Watts
(Outline Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - NMA1/11/0631 - Non-material amendment request for
installation of roof light and removal of chimney; 10 The Londs for Mr & Mrs J
Muttram
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/11/1375 - Removal of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 04/1604 to permit permanent residential occupation.; Pond Farm
Barn, The Hill for Mr Read
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/11/1430 - Erection of 1.8m high fence; Brambles, The Street
for Mr & Mrs R Shield
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1523 - Erection of part two-storey front
extension with balcony; Marsh View, East End for Mr Shinn
(Householder application)
Development Committee
31
8 March 2012
WEST BECKHAM - PF/11/1493 - Conversion of part of workshop to residential
dwelling; Unit 1, Camp Farm, Osier Lane for Mr W Dawson
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - LA/11/1304 - Installation of solar panels; The Old Rectory, Heath
Road, Ridlington for Mr Black
(Listed Building Alterations)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;
Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures for Mrs R Fittall
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS SHORT PROCEDURE
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
PUBLIC INQUIRY
12.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
SUSTEAD - ENF/11/0235 - Building of an unauthorised dwellinghouse; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham INFORMAL HEARING 23 May 2012
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr Barnes
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road, Cromer for Mr T Merchant
CROMER - PF/11/1099 - Erection of conservatory; Flat 1, Kingswear, 30 Cliff
Avenue, Cromer, NR27 0AN for Mrs Gibbons
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane, Langham for Isis Builders Ltd
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0986 - Erection of car port; The Poppies, Thorpe Market
Road for Mr O Read
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for ES Renewables Ltd
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
Development Committee
32
8 March 2012
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing single-storey
wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells Road for
Mr & Mrs Baker
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1371 - Change of use of land and field shelter from
agricultural to D2 (leisure); Land at The Quay for Mr W Sankey
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
33
8 March 2012