OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 8 NOVEMBER 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management 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.
Horning - Tree Preservation Order 2012 No 7, Land at rear of Cedar Close,
Lower Street
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several
individual trees and two groups of trees at the above site.
Background
The Council is reviewing all of its Area TPOs in line with Government advice. The
Cedar Close TPO was originally served to protect a mixture of mature trees on the
site and these have been assessed for amenity and landscape value. The trees
have been re-categorised as individuals or groups and a new TPO served.
A plan indicating the trees covered by the new TPO is attached as Appendix 1.
Representations
Objections to the Order:Two letters of objection to the Order have been received. (Appendix 1)
The main grounds for objection are:
1. That for various reasons certain trees should not be part of the TPO.
2. That the grouping of trees is ambiguous and may include a hedge.
3. That the TPO will restrict on-going maintenance to a boundary hedge.
Appraisal
This matter was deferred at the previous meeting for a site visit.
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
All the trees are currently covered by the old TPO and if it is deemed appropriate to
remove the trees then replacements can be planted to maintain amenity. If the TPO
is removed from these trees then the Council cannot request replacements and
amenity will be lost. Applications to remove the trees can be made under the new
Order and if it is deemed appropriate the trees can be removed and replacements
planted.
Development Committee
1
8 November 2012
The groups identify all the individual trees in the group. There will be no ambiguity
regarding the existing hedge as hedges cannot be protected by a TPO. Currently
under the old TPO there are problems as it is unclear as to which trees are covered.
The TPO would not prevent on-going appropriate maintenance. Under the new
Regulations one application can be made for long term on-going work of this kind.
Landscape Officers would be happy to discuss in detail any application for tree works
with the owners or their agents regarding appropriate tree work and management.
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
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 they therefore have
high amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Simon Case ( Landscape Officer) Ext. 6142)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
CROMER - PF/12/0532 - Construction of skate park facility; Land at The
Meadow, Meadow Way/Hall Road for Cromer Skate Park
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
2
8 November 2012
CONSTRAINTS
Public Rights of Way Footpath
County Wildlife Site (Adjacent)
Conservation Area
Historic Park and Gardens Ungraded (Adjacent)
Undeveloped Coast
Open Land Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the construction of a skate park facility. The skate park would be of a concrete
construction.
Amended plans have been received showing an offset roughly triangular design
alongside the ditch to the west of the pitch and putt area. The proposed skate park
would measure approximately 43.5m on the eastern boundary, 20.2m on the
southern boundary, 43m to the north west boundary and 6.4m to the northern
boundary. The highest point of the skate park structure would be approximately 2.1m
on the northern boundary. This highest section of the skate park would measure
approximately 3m wide. The remaining variations in height across the proposed
skate park structure are from ground level up to 1.5m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management as the amended location and
design of the proposed skate park differs from the resolution that the Development
Committee made previously.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments on amended plans:
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Representations received on original plans:
Twelve letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
1. Noise and disturbance
2. Anti-social behaviour
3. Visually intrusive ugly concrete structure
4. Wildlife impact
5. Inappropriate location
6. Will reduce the amount of open space for other users
7. Will discourage tourists from using The Meadow
8. Will increase car parking problems on Meadow Road if parents of users visit site
9. Would be detrimental to the Conservation Area
10. Insufficient information submitted
11. How will it be managed?
12. Alternative options should be explored.
13. Security
14. Litter
15. Obstruction of public right of way
16. Concerns over hours of use
17. Should be located away from residential areas
One letter commenting on the application has been received raising concerns but not
objecting to the principle. It is suggested that Cabbell Park is a more appropriate
location which would maximise use and cause least inconvenience to householders
and the general public.
Development Committee
3
8 November 2012
Twenty three letters of support have been received.
Representations received on amended plans:
Sixteen letters of objection have been received in relation to the amended plan, this
includes one petition with 22 signatures, re-iterating the previous objections listed
above. Objections have also been received in relation to the additional points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Lack of any landscaping or screening around the proposed skate park.
Flood risk from watercourse
No professional noise report
Concerns over any future proposals for shelters/sheds/structures
A plan of restoration for the park should be agreed should the site become
damaged
Amendments do not address previous concerns including those in relation to the
management/supervision of the skate park, and anti-social behaviour
One letter of support has been received in relation to the amended plans.
CONSULTATIONS
Comments are in relation to amended plans unless stated otherwise.
Environmental Health - No objection. However, confirmation that skate park will not
be constructed over the ditch is required.
Countryside and Parks Manager - I note that the skate park is located on land leased
by NNDC from NCC. I also note that it will not interfere with the existing pitch and
putt course, public right of way or existing play area. I have no objections to the
proposal.
Leisure and Cultural Services Manager - No objection, pleased to see a detailed
illustration of the skate park. I believe it will provide a real asset for the young people
in Cromer.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
amended plans raise no heritage cause for concern in terms of design or siting.
Whilst the development will not enhance the character and appearance of the area,
overall the impact on the Conservation Area as a whole and the adjacent historic
park and garden will be relatively minor.
This area of town is already utilised for recreational purposes and this proposal will
reinforce that without impacting on its historic environment context.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the significance of the heritage assets there
are no objections to the application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments
Public Rights of Way Officer (Norfolk County Council) - From an access perspective
there is no objection. From the drawings supplied it would appear the public footpath
is not being obstructed and does not require a diversion to its definitive line.
Ramblers Association - We are pleased to see from the location plan that the siting
has been moved so that there will be no need to divert the course of Cromer
Footpath 4, which is also part of Weavers Way. We have not heard from our
members of any other concerns that should be addressed by us.
Development Committee
4
8 November 2012
Open Spaces Society - No response
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - No response
Architectural Liaison Officer - Having looked at the revised plans and the local maps
it appears that these amended plans meet the majority of my recommendations that I
previously made. It certainly meets the National Playing Fields Six Acre Standard. I
have no issues to raise in regards to this application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues. (See comments from
Police Architectural Liaison Officer above).
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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Impact on public right of way
4. Impact on local residents
APPRAISAL
The Committee may recall considering this application at the meeting on 26 July
2012. The resolution of Committee was to give the Head of Development
Management delegated authority to approve the application subject to relocating the
facility to the east of the originally proposed position, full reconsultation and readvertisement, no new grounds of objection being received, and the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
However, following a site meeting involving the applicant, Officers and two District
Councillors to discuss the relocation of the skate park it was considered that the
original site to the west of the ditch and the pitch and putt remained preferable. It was
suggested that it could be designed to avoid the public footpath and minimise impact
on an area used for informal ball game recreation. Amended plans were
Development Committee
5
8 November 2012
subsequently received from the applicant in relation to the location, design and scale
of the proposed skate park.
The proposed skate park is located within an area designated as an Open Land Area
(Policy CT1 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy), where development that
enhances the open character or recreational use of the land is permitted. Given that
the site is a public recreational space adjacent to an existing play area, zip wire, and
pitch and putt golf course the principle of such a use in this location is considered to
be acceptable as it would improve the recreational facilities in that area, in
accordance with Policy CT1.
The site is also located within a Conservation Area and adjacent to an area to the
south designated as a Historic Park and Garden and County Wildlife Site. The
Committee will note that no objections have been received from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager, since it is not considered that there would be a
significant detrimental impact upon these heritage assets. No response has been
received from the Norfolk Wildlife Trust. The Landscape Officer has been consulted
on the amended application and at the time of writing this report comments were
awaited.
The site is low-lying, with mature woodland to the south and high hedging and
planting to the western boundary, adjacent to the road. The topography of the site
would therefore help to reduce the visual impact. The highest point of the skate park
would be to the northern end, approximately 2.1m above the ground. This would be
lower in height than the existing zip wire along the western boundary of The Meadow,
and is in an area where there is existing children's play equipment.
The amended plans indicate the approximate position of the public footpath that runs
across The Meadow (Cromer Footpath 4). Concerns were raised at the previous
meeting regarding the possible obstruction of the line of the designated footpath. The
amended plans show that the skate park can be constructed so as not to obstruct the
public footpath. No objections have been received from the County Council Public
Rights of Way Officer or the Ramblers Association on this matter.
The Committee will note the objections received from local residents. However, this
is an existing open public space area already used for recreational purposes. The
Meadow is a large area, which already contains different areas of recreational use. It
is not considered that the construction of a skate park would significantly reduce the
ability of others to use The Meadow. It is not proposed that the skate park would be
fenced or that lighting would be installed. As such, it would not be possible to restrict
the hours of use given that it would be open in a public open space. The Committee
will note that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objection to the amended
plans. The future management of the skate park is not a planning matter.
In relation to noise and disturbance the skate park would be constructed in concrete.
It was originally suggested that the 'bowl' shape part of the park may be able to be
dug into the ground. However, it is understood that owing to the high water levels at
this site that this is not now likely to be possible. Some general noise data has been
submitted with the application, but no professional report submitted in relation to this
specific proposal. However, the Committee will note that the Environmental
Protection Officer has raised no objection to this application. The Environmental
Protection Officer considers the proposal to be acceptable, based on the information
submitted and does not consider it necessary to request a noise survey. It is not
therefore considered that there would be a significant detrimental impact on local
residents in terms of noise. Furthermore, no objection has been received from the
Development Committee
6
8 November 2012
Environmental Protection Officer in terms of the hours of use which are stated on the
application form as 'dawn until dusk, daylight hours'. Given the open and unrestricted
use of The Meadow this is considered to be acceptable.
It is considered that ground condition surveys would be required before the skate
park could be constructed, which could be conditioned as part of any planning
permission, in order to ensure that the skate park is designed to suit ground
conditions. This would need to include any issues surrounding the high water table
and flooding so as not to disperse water to other parts of the site.
Local residents have raised a number of objections and concerns in relation to this
proposal. The matters raised have been carefully considered and appropriate
consultations carried out. However, the principle of such a proposal is acceptable in
this location and none of the consultees has raised an objection to the amended
application.
Subject to no objections from the Landscape Officer and to the imposition of
appropriate conditions the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in
accordance with Development Plan policies for the reasons explained in this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Landscape
Officer and imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0887 - Conversion of bed & breakfast lodges to
veterinary surgery; Toll Barn, Heath Road for Toll Barn Veterinary Practice
Minor Development
- Target Date: 01 October 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19900321
PF - 6 bedroom complex for farmhouse bed and breakfast
accommodation
Approved 04/05/1995
PLA/19911861 PF - Detached bedroom complex
Approved 07/04/1992
PLA/19991256 PF - Erection of six-bedroomed accommodation complex
Refused 19/11/1999
PLA/20021719 PF - Construction of swimming pool and screen wall
Approved 19/06/2003
PLA/20031592
PF - Construction of building to enclose previously approved
swimming pool
Approved 10/11/2003
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of bed and breakfast lodges and swimming pool to veterinary
surgery.
Development Committee
7
8 November 2012
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support. The application was approved subject to adequate soundproofing being
provided to avoid noise nuisance to neighbours; a passing place being formed in
Heath Road, visibility splays as suggested and protection of the Ancient Monument.
(Work to splays could disturb the foundations of the monument).
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received from local residents, (three of which are
from the same objector), raising the following points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Highway safety (Junction of Heath Road and Norwich Road)
Increase in traffic
Parking problems
Noise and disturbance from traffic
Noise and disturbance from animals
Concerns over disposal of waste and possible pollution of water course due to
nearby bore holes used for human consumption and irrigation.
In addition to the above concerns one of the objection letters details estimated traffic
movements annually from Heath Farm and Heath Farm Cottages. Another letter
details an objector's calculations in terms of how many traffic movements would be
associated with a Bed and Breakfast use compared to a veterinary surgery.
A copy of the Design and Access Statement and Transport Statement submitted by
the agent are contained in Appendix 2.
A supporting letter from the applicant has been received and comments specifically
on the objections that have been made in relation to the application regarding waste
disposal, noise, traffic, passing bays, highway safety, need and benefits. A copy is
included in Appendix 2.
The agent has advised by email that a traffic speed survey has been carried out and
a letter from a Civil and Traffic Engineering Consultant has been submitted. The
agent has also commented on the Highway Authority's concerns over members of
the public not being able to reach the site on foot. (see Appendix 2).
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - Original comments:
Object. This proposal is located on Heath Road (U19019), close to its junction with
Norwich Road (B1150 a 3A2 Main Distributor Route as designated in the Norfolk
County Council Route Hierarchy). Heath Road is of single track construction
throughout its length running east to west between the junction with the B1150 and
terminating at a gated railway crossing some 700m from the application site. Heath
Road, which is a no-through road, presently serves only a handful of properties.
Some 150m to the north of its junction with Heath Road the B1150 bends to the east
and to the south of the junction there is a rise in the horizontal alignment of the
carriageway. Visibility requirements for junctions onto roads such as the B1150 are
given in the DOT document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) which
states that for the 50Mph speed limit in force at this point visibility splays of 160m x
2.4m x 160m should be provided. Observation and „following vehicle method‟ speed
Development Committee
8
8 November 2012
measurement taken at the site indicate that the 85thpercentile vehicle speed on this
section of road would be in excess of the speed limit and I therefore consider it
appropriate to apply the visibility requirement for 60 mph speed limits (215m x 2.4m x
215m) in this case.
Measurements taken on site reveal that presently visibility to the north (traffic
direction) of the junction from the required 2.4m setback is restricted to in the region
of 100m due to overhanging roadside frontage vegetation. As some of this vegetation
is shown as being within the applicant's control the present levels of visibility would
appear able to be improved to provide sightlines of approximately150m from the
Heath Road junction.
Notwithstanding this, it is the case that the maximum visibility that can be provided to
the critical direction at the junction of Heath Road, with the busy and important
B1150, is only 70% of requirements for the expected 85thpercentle speed of
approaching traffic
To the south of the junction, although the rise in the carriageway partly restricts
approaching vehicles, I accept that visibility sightlines are acceptable
The B1150 at this point is subject to high numbers of traffic movements and
interference with the free flow of traffic is to be avoided. The existence of the junction
with Heath Road is a matter of fact, however, the present use (as revealed in the
applicants agent‟s Transport Statement Section 3.6 & Appendix C) is low; the
introduction of a veterinary surgery on Heath Road with the expected traffic use from
customers and staff being throughout the day and for 5/6 days week would result in a
significant increase in vehicular use of the junction.
It should be noted that there is an existing personal injury accident record both at the
junction and in it‟s the immediate vicinity. My records, which are for the last five years
only, differ from those detailed in the Agent‟s Transport Statement in that the
recorded accidents have occurred between February 2008 and February 2012; two
of these accidents are of a type associated with slowing, stopping and turning vehicle
movements which this proposal cannot but increase at this junction thus also
increasing the unfortunate likelihood of further personal injury accidents occurring.
The applicant‟s agent has indicated that a vehicular passing bay will be provided
between the application site and the junction of Heath Road and the B1150, this
acknowledging that Heath Road is of insufficient width for two vehicles to pass. This
proposed improvement will be potentially of some benefit; however, it is often the
case that passing bays close to dwellings are used for parking. I therefore have
concerns regarding the position of the access to the proposal site and the width of
Heath Road in that additional traffic use resulting from this proposal would potentially
cause vehicles to „stack back‟ onto the B1150 rather than use the passing bay this
eventuality then making the passing bay of no use in allowing two vehicles to pass
within the vicinity of the junction.
Veterinary surgeries require that sick animals are brought to the surgery by their
owners and I accept that this is generally by car, however, surgeries catering for
domestic animals are generally situated within, or close to, centres of population this
giving the owners the opportunity to access the surgery by other methods than the
car. The location of this site, over 1.3 miles from North Walsham town centre, and
accessed from a busy Main Distributor route without pedestrian facilities does not
offer any alternative means of access whatsoever. This being contrary to transport
sustainability objectives intended to reduce reliance on the use of the motor car and
Development Committee
9
8 November 2012
promote alternative transport modes.
I accept that this site has already been granted permission for 6 bedroomed Bed and
Breakfast accommodation and that the proposed veterinary surgery would replace
that use. However, it would be expected that holiday accommodation would only be
occupied for part of the year and traffic generation figures (TRICS) for this type of
accommodation are only 4-5 trips per day. A veterinary surgery would operate at a
consistent capacity throughout the entire year with daily movements associated with
a surgery of the size proposed ( 2x consulting rooms, 2x operating rooms pharmacy
etc and staff numbers indicated as being 9) being expected to be considerably
greater. Locating Bed and Breakfast tourist accommodation in the countryside is not
generally subject to transport sustainability concerns.
The application is therefore considered detrimental to highway safety and contrary to
transport sustainability objectives and should be refused for the following reasons:1. Heath Road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the
development proposed, by reason of its restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions
and restricted carriageway width. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give
rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety. Contrary to Development Plan
Policies.
2. The proposal would lead to an unacceptable intensification in the use of the
junction of Heath Road with Norwich Road (B1150) which is a busy main distributor
route and would cause undue interference with the safe and free flow of traffic on this
important traffic route. Contrary to Development Plan Policies
3. The proposal is remote from local service centre provision conflicting with the aims
of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the
reliance on the private car as represented in national and local policy. Contrary
to Planning Policy Statement 1 and Policy 5 of Norfolk‟s 3rd Local Transport Plan,
entitled Connecting Norfolk".
Further comments following receipt of information from Civil and Traffic Engineering
Consultant:
I already acknowledge that it is apparently within the applicant's control to improve
visibility to some degree at the junction of Heath Road with the B1150, however, that
improvement would not accord with expected 85thpercentile vehicular speeds on the
B1150 of in excess of 50 mph.
I note the agent carried out a speed survey on Thursday 20 September between
0900 and 1030, with stated 85th percentile speeds being recorded at, or below, the
speed limit, however, no detailed evidence of this survey is provided. It is also the
case that to provide reliable data a full 24 hour 7 day survey would be required not
just a 'spot check' outside normal peak hours. In the absence of conclusive evidence
to the contrary I have no reason to alter my view that the junction is substandard.
Of course, if the applicant is willing to commission a full survey that shows the traffic
speeds on the B1150 to be below the limit I would be willing to revise this view.
In regard to agent's e-mail I have already acknowledged the fact that the majority of
sick animal are brought to vets surgeries by car, however, this does not mean that
such surgeries need not be accessible by other transport means for staff and visitors
not having access to, or not wishing to use, a motor car. My stated potential use of
the proposed passing bay by parked vehicles was related to visitors to the proposed
vets surgery not necessarily visitors etc to existing dwellings.
Development Committee
10
8 November 2012
I therefore have no grounds to remove objection to this proposal.
Environmental Health - No objections, including on grounds of contamination.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - The proposal complies with Policy EN6 based on the
measures submitted in the Sustainable Construction Checklist. Conditions required in
relation to insulation, re-use of existing building base and water efficient sanitary
ware to be installed.
Planning Policy Manager - 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 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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
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 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 development
2. Highway safety
3. Impact on privacy and amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties
4. Contamination
Development Committee
11
8 November 2012
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area south of North Walsham off the
Norwich Road. In such a location development is restricted to particular types of
development to support the rural economy, as is the re-use and adaptation of
buildings for appropriate purposes.
The building to which this application applies has not yet been fully constructed.
Planning permission was originally granted for a six-bedroom bed and breakfast
complex under application reference 90/0321. That permission has been
implemented by the footings of the building being laid as well as the base slab, and
the construction of a wall on the eastern elevation and part of a wall on the southern
elevation. This permission is therefore extant and could be completed at any time
subject to it being constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
Two further permissions were granted at this site one for the construction of a
swimming pool and screen wall in association with the approved holiday
accommodation (02/1719), and the other to construct a building to enclose the
approved swimming pool (03/1592). A wall has been constructed on the eastern
elevation to form part of the enclosure to what was the proposed swimming pool
area. However, at the time of writing this report clarification is being sought as to
which permission (02/1719 or 03/1592) has commenced and whether it is extant.
This is important as Policy EC2 regarding the re-use and adaptation of the buildings
in the countryside only permits the re-use of buildings in the countryside for nonresidential purposes providing:
1. it is for an economic use appropriate in scale and nature to the location;
2. it can be demonstrated that the building is soundly built and suitable for the
proposed use without substantial re-building or extension; and
3. the proposed alterations protect and enhance the character of the building and its
setting, and the proposal is in accordance with other policies seeking to protect
biodiversity, amenity and character of the area.
Whilst the building is not yet fully constructed there is an extant permission for at
least part of it. A change in use of that part of the building for an economic use can
therefore be sought. The scale of such a proposal is considered to be acceptable
given the previous permissions. The nature of the development is one which would
support the local economy and create employment. It is therefore considered that the
proposal would comply with criterion 1 of Policy EC2. It is considered that the
character of the setting of the building and the area would be enhanced by having a
fully constructed building rather than a partially constructed one in accordance with
criterion 3 of Policy EC2. However, it is in relation to criterion 2 of Policy EC2 that
further clarification is required.
If permission 03/1592 is also extant then the current proposal would not require any
extension to what was previously approved, only alterations to the fenestration would
be required. This would therefore be acceptable. If only permission 02/1719 is extant
then consideration would need to be given to the addition of a roof to what was the
pool enclosure. If neither of those permissions are extant then what was previously
approved as the swimming pool enclosure area would have to be reconsidered as an
extension to the extant permission (90/0321) under Policy EC2. If this were the case
it is considered that this would result in a substantial extension contrary to Policy
EC2. The Committee will be updated on this matter at the meeting.
Views into the site are limited particularly from the south due to boundary treatments
of hedgerows and in some areas trees. It is not therefore considered to be in a
Development Committee
12
8 November 2012
prominent location visually within the wider landscape. Toll Barn itself is located
directly to the east of the site, with Tollgate Farm to the south east sharing the same
vehicular access of Heath Road. Monument Cottage is located to the south west and
fronts the Norwich Road, with vehicular access also off Heath Road. Other properties
sharing Heath Road and the junction with the Norwich Road are Heath Farmhouse
and Heath Farm Cottages.
This application raises a number of issues in terms of supporting the local economy
through a new business and balancing this with highway safety issues. The
Committee will note the objection from the Highway Authority in relation to this
application.
One of the objections of the Highway Authority is in relation to the sustainability of the
location. However, Policy EC5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy supports
the rural economy and the reuse of existing buildings in the countryside, but, given
the scale and type of use proposed the sequential approach to siting is considered to
be appropriate. The applicant's agent has advised that the applicant has established
that there are no suitable premises within the North Walsham area to set up the
proposed practice. However, there is no evidence or information provided with the
application to demonstrate how this conclusion was reached. Details of other sites
considered and the reasons for their unsuitability have therefore been requested from
the agent. At the time of writing this report this information was awaited. The
Committee will also be updated at the meeting on this matter.
The details with the application state that the proposal would create eight full time
jobs and two part time, which would help to support the local economy in this
location. The opening hours stated in the application would be 8am - 7pm on
Mondays to Fridays and 8am - 1pm on Saturdays. Whilst not clarified in the
application the applicant has advised in a supporting letter that the Practice would be
providing an "out of hours" emergency service, as currently the nearest provider is a
20 minute drive from North Walsham (one way). Further clarification is being sought
from the agent on this proposed emergency service.
Whilst local residents' primary concerns are in relation to highway safety issues,
concerns have also been raised about disposal of waste and noise from the animals
being treated at the surgery. The Committee will note that the applicant in a
supporting letter contained in Appendix 2 has responded to these points. The
applicant has advised that the disposal of waste would be off site and stored and
disposed of responsibly in accordance with the appropriate Regulations. The building
would be fully-sound insulated and all hospitalised patients housed indoors within
kennel wards. The Committee will note that Environmental Health have raised no
objections to this application. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would
have a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of
the neighbouring dwellings.
With regard to the Town Council reference to an ancient monument this appears to
lie well outside any area required for a visibility splay.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are matters in relation to extant permissions,
sequential test and hours of use to be clarified, the Highway Authority is objecting to
the application on the grounds of inadequate visibility and restricted width of Heath
Road and unacceptable intensification of use of the junction of Heath Road with
Norwich Road. The Highway Authority also object on the grounds of sustainability in
terms of the location, but this latter point requires further examination in the light of
evidence which is awaited. However, it is considered that the Highway Authority's
Development Committee
13
8 November 2012
concerns in relation to safety outweigh the need to support new businesses that
encourage employment and support the local economy and in this case also provide
a facility for the local community. Members will also appreciate that the NPPF is
supportive of proposals which would result in sustainable economic development.
However, in this case because of the overriding highway safety concerns the
recommendation is one of delegated authority to refuse on the highway safety
grounds specified and subject to other grounds that may become apparent on
clarification of the matters raised above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated refusal on highway safety grounds, and subject to other grounds
that may become apparent on clarification of outstanding matters referred to in
the report.
4.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0931 - Erection of replacement single-storey/twostorey rear extensions and insertion of windows to front elevation; 21 Station
Road for Mr & Mrs N Dyke
Minor Development
- Target Date: 29 October 2012
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19760895 EF - Hairdressing salon (ladies) and living accommodation
Approved 02/07/1976
PLA/20041896 PF - Erection of first floor rear extension and conservatory
Refused 22/12/2004
PLA/19771898 PF - Erection of lounge and kitchen extension
Approved 20/01/1978
PLA/20050901 PF - Erection of single-storey side extension and conservatory to
rear
Approved 24/06/2005
PLA/20042213 PF - Erection of first floor rear extension and conservatory
Refused 17/02/2005
PF/12/0932 PF - Change of Use from a mixed use of A1 (hairdressing salon)/C3
(residential) to C3 (residential) - undetermined
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a replacement single-storey/two storey extension and
conservatory to the rear of the property along with external alterations to the front
elevation. The new extension would replace a single storey extension and
conservatory.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor A Moore having regard to the following planning issue:
Dominant and overshadowing effect on neighbouring properties.
Development Committee
14
8 November 2012
TOWN COUNCIL
Support the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received highlighting the following concerns:
1. Overshadowing and loss of light to conservatory/patio/lounge window (number 19),
overshadowing of garden and property (number 23);
2. Obtrusive and overbearing effect; and
3. Extension protruding beyond rear elevation of no. 23 dominating eastern and
south-eastern aspects.
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
The property in question lies within a Residential Policy area where extensions to
existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance
with other relevant Core Strategy policies. The property is a two-storey detached
dwelling facing onto Station Road and situated between two two-storey dwellings,
with the Victory Leisure Centre entrance/grounds opposite.
The two-storey element of the extension would be approx. 4.9m deep and 5m wide,
situated on the western half of the rear elevation. It would include a red pantile
hipped roof along with a first floor window facing south-west and a small first floor
obscure-glazed window facing north-west along with another obscure glazed window
to be inserted on the original dwelling (again facing north-west). The eastern half of
the rear elevation would have a single-storey extension of the same depth and 4m in
width, incorporating a flat roof with large rooflight and rear door. A single-storey flatroofed extension acting as a conservatory (replacing the existing larger conservatory)
would be added onto the end of the two-storey extension, and would measure a
further 3.4m deep and 3.7m wide. This would incorporate a south-east facing window
and south-west facing French doors opening into the garden.
In terms of materials, both the red brickwork and roof pantiles to be used are
intended to match the existing dwelling. The conservatory would be constructed of
timber cladding to add a more contemporary appearance.
Development Committee
15
8 November 2012
The proposals also include modernising the front elevation. On the eastern half of the
property (containing the current ground floor hairdressing business) a new timber
front door, ground floor cladding and covered porch area would be introduced,
replacing the existing shop windows, and a large thin ground/first floor window, with
similar windows positioned either side of the front door. The western half of the front
elevation would have slightly altered ground/first floor windows.
In 2004, a scheme was submitted for the same property to construct a two-storey
rear extension, which was refused on the grounds of overbearing effect, loss of light
and overshadowing.
With regard to the current application, the proposed single-storey extensions are not
considered to have any significant impact on neighbouring amenity. The neighbour
concerns are largely centred upon the two-storey element of the extension. The
extension would be significantly smaller than the one proposed in 2004. It would
extend across just over half of the rear elevation and not the whole elevation as
proposed at that time. It would also have a ridge height lower than that previously
proposed. With regard to the property to the south-east, the reduction in width of the
proposed extension would bring it away from the south-eastern boundary and it is
considered would not have any significant overbearing or dominant effect, nor result
in any significant overshadowing or loss of light to that neighbouring property.
Regarding the property to the north-west, the two-storey part of the extension would
project beyond the rear building line of the neighbouring property by approx. 3m.
This is likely to result in a small amount of early morning light loss and
overshadowing to that property, but the lower roof height than previously proposed,
combined with the hipped design of the roof, should keep this to an acceptable level
and this issue is not considered significant enough to warrant a recommendation of
refusal. It is not considered that the two-storey extension would result in any
unacceptable overbearing effects. In addition, there should be no loss of privacy to
either neighbouring property, with only one first floor window facing a neighbouring
property (no. 23), which would be obscure glazed and facing a blank wall. There
would be no significant impact upon any dwellings to the south-west (along Millfield
Road).
Visually, the two single-storey flat roofed rear extensions would conflict with the
advice in the North Norfolk Design Guide, which indicates that flat roof forms are
generally to be avoided. However, in this case, as the extensions would replace an
existing flat roof extension and almost flat roofed conservatory, the proposed roof
design is considered to be acceptable. The extensions would appear sufficiently
subservient to the existing dwelling and would consist of mostly matching materials;
although the timber cladding would be different, it is not considered to be
inappropriate. Overall, it is considered that in terms of scale, visual impact and
neighbouring amenity, the proposals are compliant with Policy EN 4.
The modernisation of the front elevation, although not very sensitive to the character
of the street, is not considered sufficiently adverse as to warrant a recommendation
of refusal. The existing glazing/signage on the shop front and colour of the dwelling
already catches the eye, and therefore the introduction of ground floor timber
cladding and general modernisation of the front elevation should not have a
detrimental visual impact.
The development is considered to accord with adopted Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
16
8 November 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
PLUMSTEAD - PO/11/1281 - Erection of agricultural worker's dwelling; Land at
Range Farm, Plumstead Road for Mr R Perry-Warnes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 December 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19840528 PO - Four bedroom dwelling
Refused 17/04/1984
PLA/19850556 PO - Four bedroom house for an agricultural worker
Approved 19/06/1985
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling at land at Range Farm,
Plumstead Road, Plumstead.
All matters are reserved so only the principle of the proposed dwelling is for
consideration at this stage.
The dwelling is proposed to be located in the north-western corner of the site.
An agricultural appraisal has been submitted in support of the application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management in view of the history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
The majority of Plumstead Parish Council feel that this application conflicts with the
general policy of no new buildings in the open countryside. They feel that it is unfair
to treat agricultural dwellings in this way when others are not allowed to build new
dwellings in the village itself. There is already a farm house on this site and it does
not seem right that each time the 'farm' is sold on a new farm house appears. The
system is open to abuse.
If this planning application is allowed to proceed the Council feels that the new house
should be directly tied to the farm i.e. neither the farm nor the house to be sold
separately in the future and that any development should be restricted to an
agricultural workers cottage (as requested) and not a 'small mansion'. Any dwelling
should be built with local materials and be in keeping with its rural surroundings.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Team - no objection subject to a condition requiring compliance with
Code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
Environmental Health - no objection subject to conditions.
Development Committee
17
8 November 2012
Highway Authority - The site is located on the U14345 Plumstead Road, the existing
farm access is unsurfaced but does benefit from a good level of visibility. The
principle of incorporating a live/work unit on this site is seen to be of some benefit in
reducing vehicle movements.
If your Authority is satisfied of the agricultural need for this dwelling, I would not raise
any objection, given the synergy between the dwelling and the adjacent agricultural
buildings.
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 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 HO 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Functional and financial tests.
3. Landscape impact.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located on the southern side of Plumstead Road and comprises a pig
farm. Its area is approx 0.7 ha and contains a range of pig rearing buildings. There
is a further area of rented land to the east used to house pigs outdoors in tented
accommodation. The farm is run as an intensive livestock farm consisting of a
contract pig rearing enterprise.
Development Committee
18
8 November 2012
The farm has a total indoor capacity of circa 2000 pig spaces and a circa 2000
spaces in tents outdoors on the adjacent site.
There is a residential dwelling adjacent to and to the east of the pig buildings and this
was granted as a dwelling with an agricultural occupancy restriction in 1985
(85/0556) for express reason of serving the agricultural unit. The application site was
however sold separately from that dwelling in 2003.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where development is limited to
that which requires a rural location. Agriculture and forestry uses are included under
this policy but it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that a dwelling in
association with the proposed agricultural business complies with the functional and
financial requirements covered by Policy HO 5 of the Core Strategy and the essential
need as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
Policy HO5 is permissive of development in the Countryside policy area to meet
housing needs of full time workers in agriculture only where they comply with all of
the following criteria:
i) There is a demonstrated essential need for one or more full time workers to be
readily available at most times for the enterprise to function properly.
ii) The functional need could not be met by another existing dwelling on the site of the
enterprise or in the immediate vicinity
iii) The enterprise has been established for at least three years and is, and should
remain, financially viable
iv) The proposal does not represent a replacement of another dwelling on the site
that has been sold on the open market in the last five years
v) The proposed dwelling is no larger than that required to meet the functional needs
of the enterprise, nor would it be unusually expensive to construct in relation to the
income that the enterprise could sustain in the long term.
Officers have sought independent advice from an agricultural consultant in
considering this application. That advice has been taken into account in the
assessment of the application below.
i) Essential need
In respect of essential need, whilst the need to satisfy the functional test in Planning
Policy Statement 7 no longer exists it is considered that this is still a valid way of
assessing whether an essential need exists. In this case there are two key elements
to consider.
a) Whether there is a functional need for a worker to be available at most times for
the enterprise to function properly; and
b) Since the farm has been running for a number of years successfully without the
need for a worker to live on the site, understanding how that has been achieved and
why this cannot be maintained in the future.
a) In respect of the functional test this requires that a need is demonstrated for
someone to be readily available at most times for the enterprise to function properly.
The farming enterprise in question is a pig farm. Intensively housed pigs need a high
degree of stock management to maintain health and welfare standards. The critical
Development Committee
19
8 November 2012
aspects tend to be sows before, during and after birth and young pigs, especially
when they are being batched together or in changing environments. In this case the
youngest pigs are being reared in 'tents' away from the farmstead. Although the
dwelling would be within 2km of this, it is unlikely that the operator would be able to
detect problems outside working hours, although they would have quicker access for
regular inspections. The older fattening pigs are housed adjacent to the proposed
dwelling. This would enable the stock manager to hear any problems and react more
quickly.
The applicant/agent has given examples of situations and reasons why an on site
presence is required at all times. He considers that illness and injury to the pigs can
be detected more quickly, burst or damaged water pipes (affecting drinking supply
and therefore welfare of the pigs) can be detected more quickly, on site presence
would decrease risk of theft and enable monitoring of the site in case of risk of fire
given the large amounts of straw stored on site and finally that this would enable
production of higher welfare pigs which need to be regularly monitored.
The applicant/agent indicates that the labour requirement for the indoor finishing
units only is 2.23 persons and this shows a clear need for a full time worker to be
available at most times for the enterprise to function properly.
There is clearly a functional need for on site presence, but given that the applicant
has managed to run the farm for 9 years without a dwelling on the site, there is a
need to consider how he has managed this and why this cannot be continued in the
future.
b) In respect of the previous 9 years that the farm has run without a dwelling on the
site, the applicant has indicated that the success of the business so far is a reflection
of the dedication, hard work and management skills of the applicant. He has farmed
on the site for 9 years and since 2008 has been rearing pigs for British Quality Pigs
(BQP) following the sale of his own herd. Prior to 2008 the applicant indicates that
he was dividing his time between his outdoor pig breeding herd and the finishing site
at Range Farm which meant living in a suitable location between the site and as such
was not practical to live at Range Farm. Since 2008 the application indicates that the
focus of the business has been at Range Farm where he spends between 12 and 14
hours daily looking after the pigs and maintaining the farm with the help of his
daughter who has worked on the farm for the past three years. He currently travels
20km (12 miles) per day commuting to and from the farm.
The applicant's agent indicates that in the four years he has been operating as a
BQP producer the applicant has not taken any time off or taken a holiday as there is
no alternative suitable labour to provide cover, two people being required on the unit
at all times. He explains that the applicant has put the management of the pigs and
farm first at the expense of his personal and home life.
The applicant's agent indicates that the reason he has coped to date and been one
of BQP's top producers gaining 'Select Farm' status which is the highest farm
assurance standards is down to his sheer determination and hard work but this is not
a sustainable work pattern.
It is considered that whilst there could be a case for refusing the application since the
applicant has successfully run the farming enterprise on the site for the past 9 years
without the need to live on the site, the business has only been successful because
of the hard work, excessive hours and long travel by the applicant which may not be
sustainable in the long term and taking the business forward.
Development Committee
20
8 November 2012
Therefore on balance it is concluded that there is an essential need for someone to
live on the site for the business to continue to run successfully in the long term and
this element of Policy H05 in respect of an essential functional need to live on the site
is complied with.
ii) Suitable and available existing accommodation
The applicant has stated that there are no existing dwellings on the site that could
fulfil the functional need, and the applicant has advised that there are no available
dwellings within sight and sound of the unit.
Range Farm however had the benefit of a dwelling with an agricultural occupancy
restriction which was permitted in 1985 (85/0556) for the express reason of serving
the agricultural unit. The application site was however sold separately from the
dwelling in 2003.
The applicant confirms that Range Farm House is still occupied as an agricultural
worker's dwelling. He understands that the occupier of the house is employed as a
farm manager on an estate nearby and therefore still meets the requirements of the
occupancy restriction.
The applicant confirms that he has owned the pig buildings for 9 years and
purchased these from the occupiers of Range Farmhouse. At no point has the house
been available to the applicant to purchase nor has the property been advertised for
sale on the open market. Because of this and the fact that the occupier is employed
locally in agriculture he has had no opportunity to purchase the farm house.
It is therefore considered that the functional need could not be met by another
dwelling on the site of the enterprise or in the immediate vicinity and the proposal
complies with this element of the policy.
iii) Financial viability
Financial information has been submitted to demonstrate that the enterprise is
currently financially sound and has clear prospects of remaining so to sustain the
need for the farm worker and the proposed accommodation.
The data on turnover and profit supplied are in line with expectations for a unit of this
size from the stated 2009/10 business turnover. The type of contract held is typical
in the industry and BQP is well established.
2000 of the 4000 pigs on the site are housed in tented accommodation on land which
is rented on a rolling annual basis. As such there is no guarantee that this land will
always be available to the farmer and this could reduce pig production by 50%. The
size of the business is therefore at risk due to the fact that the land is held on a short
term contract so the financial viability of the core part of the business on land in the
applicants ownership should be assessed. The figures suggest that this core
element of the business was profitable before the unit was doubled in size and it is
therefore considered that the business (even without the 2000 tented pigs) is
financially sound.
iv) Replacement of another dwelling on the site
As detailed in part ii) above, the proposal does not represent a replacement of
another dwelling on the site that has been sold on the open market in the last five
years.
Development Committee
21
8 November 2012
v) Scale of dwelling commensurate to enterprise
The scale of the dwelling has not been indicated and is reserved for consideration at
the reserved matters stage. However a scheme could be delivered which ensured
that the dwelling was no larger than that required to meet the functional needs of the
enterprise, and that would not be unusually expensive to construct in relation to the
income that the enterprise could sustain in the long term. Therefore subject to
approval of an appropriate scheme at reserved matters stage, the proposal could
comply with this part of the policy.
On balance therefore it is considered that the proposal would accord with policy HO5
of the Core Strategy.
In respect of the impact on the landscape, whilst no detail of layout, scale or design
of the proposed dwelling is indicated, given that the dwelling would be set against the
backdrop of the existing farm buildings and adjacent dwelling and would be well
screened, it is considered that a suitable dwelling could be proposed to ensure there
were no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the wider landscape.
No objection has been received from Environmental Health or the Highway Authority.
On balance, therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with the Development
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including restricting
occupancy to an agricultural worker; approval of layout, scale, design, access
and appearance at reserved matters stage; compliance with Code level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes.
6.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1026 - Retention of detached garage; Wykeham, Morley
Road North for Mr S Meakin
- Target Date: 07 November 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19760188 HR - Erection of bungalows
Approved 15/03/1976
PLA/19751363 HR - Erection of bungalow and garage
Approved 26/04/1976
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to retain a detached garage, which measures approximately 5m wide by 6.1m
long with a height of 3.85m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Oliver and Shepherd, for the following planning reasons:
Loss of amenity, overshadowing and loss of light on the affected garden.
Development Committee
22
8 November 2012
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection/comment
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters of representation have been submitted, 10 objecting, 2 supporting
and 1 comment.
Objections on the following grounds:
1. Detrimental impact on neighbours, loss of light, height of building dominates
garden;
2. Planning notices removed;
3. Loss of Horse Chestnut Trees which previously softened view;
Support on the following grounds:
1. Do not find garage obtrusive;
2. Improved the area adjacent to neighbour‟s garage
Comments on the following grounds:
1. Wooden garage previously on footprint of this garage. It has been moved
alongside this one;
2. New build smaller in area and 0.6m taller but with tiled roof.
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbour‟s amenities
APPRAISAL
The site lies within an established residential area, where proposals for the retention
of ancillary curtilage buildings are acceptable in principle, providing compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies.
The proposal seeks retain a garage, with the gable ends facing east and west. The
garage has been built adjacent to the boundaries with the neighbouring properties to
the north, south and west. The garage sits adjacent to a lower outbuilding to the
north.
In terms of impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, whilst the garage
is sited adjacent to neighbouring boundaries, it is not considered that it has resulted
Development Committee
23
8 November 2012
in a significantly detrimental impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact on
any neighbouring property.
To the north and south, the garage roof slopes away from the neighbouring gardens,
which helps to minimise the impact. It is recognised that the eaves are approximately
2.3m high and that, under permitted development rights, a curtilage building of up to
2.5m in height could be erected. Further, it is recognised that the neighbouring
garden to the west (number 11) is already bordered by two other outbuildings, some
mature hedgerow and by neighbouring properties which, in their nature already share
a fairly close relationship.
It is not considered that the proposed development has any significantly detrimental
impact on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including restricting the use of the garage to ancillary
residential use to Wykeham and removing permitted development rights for the
insertion of windows in its northern, southern or western elevation.
It is considered that the design of the garage is acceptable and compliant with the
aims of Policy EN4 of the Development Plan.
The development therefore accords with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
restricting the use of the garage to ancillary residential use to Wykeham and
removing permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in its
northern, southern or western elevation.
7.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 November 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/0079 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Refused 16/04/2012
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 84sq.m including the 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.
Development Committee
24
8 November 2012
The 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
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from 4 Abbey Close (to the rear) on the following
grounds:
1. Overdevelopment of the site.
2. Would overshadow nos. 19 and 21 Abbey Road either side and no.4 Abbey Close
to the rear.
3. Lack of garden space retained for no.21 Abbey Road.
4. Would be overbearing on no.4 Abbey Close.
5. Would be detrimental to the character of the area.
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.
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).
Development Committee
25
8 November 2012
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
Members will be familiar with the site following refusal of a similar application
(12/0079) in April 2012 prior to which the Committee conducted a site visit.
The application now for consideration is a resubmission and involves a number of
amendments. These include
i) The proposed demolition of the garage to no.21 (the existing dwelling) to increase
the amenity space of that dwelling;
ii) The relocation of the parking area for no.21 to the front of that site to increase the
usable amenity space of that dwelling;
iii) The deletion of the covered walkway originally proposed between the garage and
the dwelling, thereby reducing the width of the proposed dwelling from 13.5m to
12.4m. This would enable the proposed boundary between the existing dwelling and
the proposed dwelling to be moved 1m away from the existing dwelling.
The 12/0079 application was refused by the Committee for the following reason:
'In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would result in a cramped
form of development which is out of context with the form and pattern of development
in the area. Furthermore it would result in a poor relationship with no.21 Abbey Road
with an unacceptable loss of amenity space for that existing dwelling. In addition it is
considered that it would be unduly overbearing and result in an adverse loss of light
to the dwelling to the north. Accordingly the proposal conflicts with the aims of Policy
EN4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.'
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.
By developing this garden plot, the existing dwelling, No.21 Abbey Road, would be
left with a smaller garden area. This revised application has sought to maximise the
usable outside garden area for no.21 by proposing to relocate the parking to the front
of the site, demolishing the existing garage building to the rear and therefore creating
a usable garden area to the rear. This outside space to be retained for the existing
dwelling would therefore be more usable for a garden area than that of the recently
refused scheme and would comply with the Design Guide.
Development Committee
26
8 November 2012
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
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 since this would be set back by approx
10m to the rear boundary, it is not considered that this would 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 on, 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, it is considered
that the proposed dwelling would have no significantly 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.
Development Committee
27
8 November 2012
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 having regard to the 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.
In summary, whilst the proposal would result in a tight-knit form of development and
a reduced outside amenity space for the existing dwelling, it is considered that the
proposal is acceptable and in accordance with adopted 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.
8.
STALHAM - PF/12/0787 - Retention of solar panels; 129 High Street for Mr J
Dace
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 September 2012
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Retail Frontages
Conservation Area
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030672 PF - Conversion of dwelling to two shops, office and three flats
Approved 17/06/2003
THE APPLICATION
Is for the retention of 16 roof mounted solar pv panels positioned in two rows on the
south facing roof slope which fronts the highway covering a total area of approx
24sqm.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
29 letters of support received on the following grounds (Summarised):
1. Completely in keeping with the building and area.
2. Not obtrusive.
3. Has Government support.
4. Building high so do not see a problem.
5. Should be an absolute requirement for this building.
Development Committee
28
8 November 2012
6. Panels are hardly noticeable/far from intrusive or unsightly.
7. Great example of what more people should be doing to protect the world and its
struggling resources.
8. They are acceptable on a dwelling and the flat is a dwelling although it is above a
shop.
9. This type of green environmental energy system should be encouraged and not
objected to.
10. Given the state of the planet we have no choice but to do this sort of thing.
11. Conservation Area is just another layer of unneeded red tape.
12. Will reduce the CO2 in the planet.
13. Will reduce the cost of electricity.
14. They are helping us to remain in business in High Street.
15. We live above The Swan Inn in direct line of sight and hardly notice them.
16. Have never had a bad word about them from our customers, the vast majority are
local to Stalham.
17. Solar panels have a positive impact on Stalham and the environment in general.
18. Contribute to sustaining local businesses.
A further submission has been received from the agent, which is attached as
Appendix 3.
The applicant has also submitted copies of 196 survey forms completed by people in
Stalham High Street; the results of which the applicant contends 'show overwhelming
support for the retention of the solar panels'. The results are listed in response to the
question 'do you have an opinion about roof of No. 129?' as having 161 respondents
selecting the option 'yes - think good idea and not a problem visually'; 34
respondents selecting the option 'No - don't care' and 1 respondent selecting the
option 'yes - don't think solar panels should be allowed'. The survey also asked for
postcode, house name or number, the name of the respondent, whether they visit
Stalham High Street 'hardly ever, occasionally or frequently and if they had noticed
solar panels on roofs in High Street. All responses have been attached to the
planning file.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Team: Supports the proposal which will deliver a contribution to the
supply of renewable energy in the District. Recommends approval subject to
Conservation, Design and Landscape and Environmental Health Officers confirming
no significant adverse effects as outlined in policy EN7
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager: Objects - given their prominence on
the front roof of the property and their wider impact upon the setting and character of
the Stalham Conservation Area. Even though the host building is not statutory listed
it is next to a building identified in the Draft Conservation Area Appraisal for „local
listing‟. No 129 can be seen up and down Stalham High Street and from the busy
walkway leading to and from the Tesco store. As it stands the application should be
refused in accordance with Policy EN8 of the North Norfolk LDF.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
29
8 November 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 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of the development on the Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with this application having deferred determination at the
last meeting for a site visit.
The site lies within the Stalham Conservation Area where development proposals are
required by Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy to preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of designated assets. The site also lies within the designated town
centre and primary retail frontage.
The host building is in mixed use with flats above the ground floor hairdresser's, in a
prominent location fronting the High Street. The building forms part of a terrace of
buildings of varying ridge heights and is constructed of red brick with grey plain tiles.
The building is opposite a public walkway which leads past the outside area of a
public house and to the local supermarket.
The proposal is a retrospective application that seeks to retain 16 solar panels which
have been installed on the south facing roof slope of the two storey building. This
elevation fronts the High Street.
The Council's Sustainability Officer supports the proposal which would deliver a
contribution to the supply of renewable energy in the District. This support is subject
to Conservation, Design and Landscape and Environmental Health Officers
confirming no significant adverse effects as outlined in Policy EN7.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the proposal is
unacceptable from a built heritage perspective. The host building is not statutorily
listed but is adjacent to a building that has been identified in the Draft Conservation
Area Appraisal for 'local listing'.
It is recognised that in the majority of cases, renewable technologies can be retrofitted to buildings without causing undue visual or physical detriment. The National
Planning Policy Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to support energy
efficiency improvements to existing buildings, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. Policy EN7 of the Core Strategy supports this approach, recognising that
renewable technology proposals should be permitted where 'individually, or
cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on ...townscape and historical
features/areas.
This is a situation where two planning policy issues pull in opposite directions.
Development Committee
30
8 November 2012
However, in this particular case it is considered that the introduction of technology of
such contemporary appearance onto a prominent roof plane of the traditionally
constructed building has created an uncomfortably stark contrast which is harmful to
the appearance of the building and the wider Conservation Area. The panels
measure approx. 1m x 1.5m. each. On the roof slope they have been positioned in
two rows covering a total area of approx 24 sqm. No scalable plan has been provided
of the actual roof slope but the majority of the roof slope is covered.
Given the above, on balance the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies
EN4, EN7 and EN8 of the Development Plan and is therefore recommended for
refusal. Furthermore it is recommended that authority be given to commence formal
enforcement action if a reasonable timescale cannot be agreed for removal of the
panels.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Refuse the application for reasons relating to the impact of the
development on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area
and on the host and neighbouring buildings.
2. That authority be given for enforcement action to be taken to remove the
panels, with 6 months for compliance.
9.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0418 - Erection of retail store and associated
parking; Polka Road Caravans, Polka Road for Anglia Regional Co-Op Society
and Lindum Group
Minor Development
- Target Date: 31 May 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Flood Zones 2 and 3
Contaminated Land
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19940536 PF - Continued use as storage of caravans and boats without
seasonal limitations
Approved 25/07/1994
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a retail supermarket with a gross floor area of 929sqm (approx.
10,000sqft) and a net sales area of 560 sqm using the Competition Commission (CC)
definition of net sales area (or 650 sqm using the National Retail Planning Forum
definition of net sales area).
The application site is located on the eastern side of Polka Road and extends to
approximately 0.35 hectares (0.86 acres). The proposed supermarket building would
be sited towards the north eastern corner of site with 48 parking spaces provided to
Development Committee
31
8 November 2012
the front/side of the site and delivery access/service yard located to the rear of the
site.
Landscaping is proposed along the southern and western boundaries of the site with
other boundaries consisting of a mixture of 1.8m timber vertical boarded fencing,
railings and knee rails.
The supermarket building would have a frontage width of approximately 24.5m and a
depth of 32m. The building would have a curved roof with an eaves height of 4.8m on
the northern elevation and 5.0m on the southern elevation. The building would be of
steel frame construction with a mixture of brick and composite panel cladding to the
walls under a grey curved profile cladding roof. The store entrance would be set
under a glazed canopy extending across three quarters of the frontage elevation.
Amended plans received, incorporating design amendments.
The car park would have a macadam finish for circulation areas with concrete block
paved parking areas. Eleven „Sheffield hoop‟ cycle racks are proposed which would
provide cycle parking for at least 22 cycles. The proposed 48 car parking spaces
would include 3 disabled spaces and two „parent and child‟ spaces.
Amended plans received in respect of drainage arrangements.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Cllr Terrington in view of the potential impacts on the vitality and
viability of the Town Centre.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objection on the grounds of:
1. Safety concerns – traffic near primary school;
2. Independent shops vital to High Streets – this proposal makes them
vulnerable;
3. Will not be selling anything not already available locally (unless a petrol filling
station is added – but not part of current plan);
4. Do not wish our vibrant town centre to become like Stalham/Fakenham (and
possibly eventually Sheringham)
5. Free parking on site will create „ unlevel playing field‟ to existing shops where
parking has to be paid for at „tourist rates‟.
REPRESENTATIONS
115 representations have been received – 82 in support, 32 objecting and 1
commenting.
Summary of objections:
Will threaten existing jobs on Staithe Street;
A lot of people‟s livelihoods depend on Staithe Street;
Wells is dependent on visitors who come to the town each summer;
A lot of the shops will not survive the winter months with the amount of trade
going to the Co-op out of season;
There is insufficient capacity to accommodate another store;
Will have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Wells town
centre;
The proposal would decimate the local high street businesses;
The high street has three small supermarkets and we also have deliveries from
large online supermarkets;
Development Committee
32
8 November 2012
No need for such a large Co-op;
There will be no net increase in jobs as existing businesses will close;
This will tear the heart out of the town centre;
The town is fortunate enough to have retained its character for so long;
The Ark Royal site is available for development of a food convenience store
The town has a good number of convenience stores;
Over provision will undermine the town centre;
The turnover figures attributed to the proposed Co-op store are too low and the
impact will be greater;
The proposed store will compete directly with the town centre and will have an
adverse impact;
A reduction in customers to the town centre will reduce trade and have knock-on
impacts on other shops reliant on footfall from convenience shops.
The „cluster‟ effect will be irreparably harmed;
Very concerned about impact of proposal on drainage network as the proposal
could reduce flows by up to 20%;
Flooding problems could be significant and this is a risk to nearby home owners;
The application site was under water during the 1953 floods;
Evacuation of the store would have to be considered during major flood warnings
It would be a shame to lose shops in the town centre;
All retailers in Wells rely on the tourist trade and if Staithe Street declines as a
result of this proposal then the whole town will suffer;
Many older residents in Wells shop on a daily basis using the local shops on
Staithe Street as they could not carry a week‟s shopping in one go;
The existing shops need to trade well in the summer to carry them through the
quieter winter months. Allowing the store could threaten the existence of some of
the smaller shops;
The Co-op will not be able to compete with the much larger stores in Fakenham.
Trade will be taken from the existing businesses on Staithe Street instead;
Concerned about traffic safety near the school;
Some people have commented on the need to clear up the derelict site, but there
are many ways of doing that. You don‟t solve one problem by creating an even
bigger one;
The petrol filling station is a red herring;
Approval of the Co-op will have a domino effect on stores in the town centre –
one closing after the other;
You don‟t get the same level of care and service from the larger operators;
People will use the store on Polka Road as a one-stop-shop and not use the town
centre.
Summary of comments in support:
The proposal will bring more people to the town who would have otherwise
travelled to Fakenham to carry out their weekly shop;
Customers will be drawn back into Wells which will benefit existing traders
The current site is an eyesore on one of the main approaches into the town from
the east and south;
The proposal will provide much needed jobs;
The proposal will reduce car movements to Fakenham to carry out a weekly
shop;
Hopefully a petrol filling station will be added shortly;
The development will not affect Staithe Street as tourists and holiday makers
come to Wells for the Quay and Staithe Street hence all the coffee shops, pound
shops, galleries and book shops;
Development Committee
33
8 November 2012
The large supermarkets are already in the town as you can order your food over
the internet for a small delivery fee;
Competition for the existing traders is a good thing for residents;
We have had to suffer over inflated prices for years due to the holiday makers;
The proposal would be of great benefit to the town and those who live near it;
The existing shops in the town close before 6pm and therefore if you work shifts
or get home later there are no shops open to buy essentials. I support the store
because it will give residents more choice when they can shop;
This is necessary for Wells;
The carbon saving and cost saving from being able to shop in Wells rather than
Fakenham will be significant;
This is not a huge shop nor really out of town as some have suggested;
Will provide local jobs without having to travel out of the town;
A cash point is desperately needed;
Can‟t afford to shop in Wells currently;
A new store on Polka Road will not mean that I won‟t use the good quality
retailers in the town centre;
Wheel chair access in some of the shops in the town centre is very poor;
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - No objection, subject to conditions
Environment Agency – No objection, subject to appropriate conditions.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Oppose the application. The site, whilst located within the
Employment Area, is located on the edge of the historic core of Wells and its
Conservation Area and very close to St. Nicholas‟s Church and the old quay area. A
more sympathetic design better suited to the general character of the town would be
more appropriate. In addition, every effort should be made to reduce lighting.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions - Whilst the site of the proposed retail store lies
outside the „central core‟ of Wells and the town‟s Conservation Area, it is a prominent
one. It sits on one of the main entrances to Wells. So it is important that design of the
highest possible quality is sought.
The originally submitted plans and the amended drawings follow the usual pattern for
retail stores - one glazed retail front elevation and three solid walls. This is to some
extent unavoidable due to the function of the building. However, the amended plans
show some improvement on those originally submitted.
Firstly the treatment of the three „solid‟ elevations has been made more relevant to
Wells and the vicinity with the proposed use of more red and light brown facing
brickwork.
Secondly, the re-positioning of the trolley park to the side of the forecourt area is a
definite improvement. This has the benefit of revealing the whole front elevation and
shop entrance, giving the latter more impact or presence. Unfortunately the main
shop sign on this elevation remains sub-standard. A good quality shop sign, carefully
designed, proportioned and integrated into the front elevation would be essential,
giving a better sense of „arrival‟ and store presentation.
Thirdly the choice of materials and the colouring of panelling and roofing on the
amended plans looks to be more appropriate. Darker tones and colours for walls and
Development Committee
34
8 November 2012
window frames are a better choice. The detail specifications for colour of these
materials can of course be agreed by conditions on any approved application.
Likewise details of any boundary enclosures (fences/walls), including those around
the service yard could be agreed using conditions.
The submitted site plans now show more detail of the proposed materials for the
areas of hard-landscaping and forecourt area and this is now generally acceptable.
The precise choice of pavers for the parking areas would however need to be agreed
with the Local Planning authority prior to commencement of any development. This
should also be the case for lighting and of course „landscaping‟ and boundary
enclosures as previously mentioned.
Overall, although the architectural design is still somewhat disappointing with a need
for some further attention to be given to „detailing‟ and in particular store signage on
the building itself and across the site as a whole, there can be no overriding design
objections to this application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions - Following the submission of amended plans (received 16/07/12) the
following comments are given.
Three car parking spaces have been removed to allow for enhanced landscaping
provision, however the planting specification remains the same therefore my previous
comments are still pertinent. An improved landscaping scheme could be secured via
a condition of planning as space is now available, this could have more variety,
structure and continuity of planting with the surrounding environment.
A section of close-boarded fencing has been removed along the northern boundary
and substituted with low railings, this will improve the visual appearance of the site
from Polka Road.
Although the scheme is not exceptional, the proposal would be acceptable from a
landscape and visual impact perspective subject to conditions to secure a more
suitable landscaping specification.
An updated bat survey was submitted, which concluded that the buildings had low
bat roosting potential and no signs or evidence of use by bats were found in any
potential roost sites. However, due to the transitory nature of the species the survey
recommends a precautionary approach to the demolition of the buildings. Nesting
birds were also found during the survey, therefore demolition should take place
outside of the bird nesting season or under an ecological watching brief. The survey
was completed by suitably qualified ecologists using accepted methodologies,
therefore the results and conclusions of the report are deemed sound. If planning
approval is given I would recommend that the mitigation requirements of the survey
are made a condition of planning.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
Council's Appointed Retail Consultant – On balance no objection subject to
imposition of conditions and subject to improvements to pedestrian linkages between
the proposed store and the town centre. (See copy of September and October
reports at Appendices 4 - 8).
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions to secure compliance
with Policy EN 6.
Development Committee
35
8 November 2012
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.
EQUALITIES ACT 2010
In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has considered the
requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the
application raises no significant equality issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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 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 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).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Planning Policy Context
2. Principle of Development
3. Retail Matters
4. Highway Safety and Access
Development Committee
36
8 November 2012
5. S106 Obligations
6. Other Material Considerations
7. Design
8. Landscape
9. Flood Risk and Drainage
10. Contamination
11. Summary
APPRAISAL
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008) and at regional level, whilst it is a material consideration that the
Government has declared its intention to abolish such Regional Plans, the East of
England Plan (EEP) (adopted May 2008) currently remains part of the Development
Plan at the date of writing this report.
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EC
5 which suggests that only retail units with a net sales area of up to 749sqm will be
permitted in the defined Primary Shopping Area of settlements with a small town
centre such as Wells-next-the-Sea. However, retail proposals which are located
outside the defined primary shopping area may be permitted provided that:A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed; and
no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town
centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations), and
the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or
nearby Service Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and
the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of
transport, including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
Regional Policy
The relevant Regional Policies are set out above. In general they are mainly directed
at the drafting of Local Development Documents such as the CS. Amongst other
things the EEP seeks that such documents help to achieve sustainable development,
ensure thriving and vibrant town centres, support job growth and ensure provision of
land for employment generating uses to meet regional targets for job growth. These
policies are reflected in the CS and thus revocation of the Regional Strategy would
not materially alter the development plan in these respects.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for
Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Although the thrust of the previous policy in
PPS 4 has been carried forward into the Framework, the wording is more condensed.
However, most of the supporting guidance has been retained for the time being
including the Practice Guidance to PPS4 – Planning for Town Centres.
Development Committee
37
8 November 2012
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition
of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan
documents. It therefore here includes the East of England Plan (2008) until such time
as that Plan is formally withdrawn, as provided for in the Localism Act 2011. The CS
was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the
Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the
determination of this application.
Core principles of the replacement Framework are now that planning should
„proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the
homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the
country needs…[and]…….take account of the different roles and character of
different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas‟ The Framework policy
on ensuring the vitality of town centres is set out in Section 2 of the Framework, a
copy of which is attached at Appendix 9.
Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:
„Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for
main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance
with an up-to-date Local Plan…‟.
Paragraph 26 of the Framework states:
„When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of
town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local
planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over
a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold….This should include assessment
of:
The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and
private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the
proposal; and
The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years
from the time the application is made.‟
Paragraph 27 of the Framework states:
„Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant
adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused‟.
In considering the advice contained within the Framework, consideration should also
be given to the ministerial advice released from the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister
for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March 2011. Whilst this
was issued a full 12 months prior to the publication of the Framework, the Ministerial
advice has not been superseded by the Framework (except in relation to reference to
PPS4) and states, amongst other things, that:
„When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
Development Committee
38
8 November 2012
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably….and that they can give clear reasons for
their decisions‟.
The advice within „Planning for Growth‟ generally accords with the Framework at
paragraph 18 which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country‟s inherent
strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon
future‟.
National policy advice is a material consideration to which the Committee should
afford appropriate weight when making its decision.
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon; the applicant
demonstrating that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available,
suitable or viable in Wells-next-the-Sea; on the basis that the applicant can
demonstrate that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the
vitality and viability of Wells-next-the-Sea town centre; on the basis that there are no
significant highway objections or other Development Plan policy conflicts or unless
there are other material considerations that would warrant a departure from
Development Plan policies.
RETAIL MATTERS
The proposed retail store would, according to the applicant‟s retail report, have a
gross floor area of 929 sqm (approx 10,000sqft) with net sales areas of
approximately 560sqm using the Competition Commission(CC) definition of net sales
area or 650 sqm using the National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of net
sales area. (See Appendix 10 for definition of net sales area).
The applicant has indicated that the net sales area would consist of 90%
convenience goods and 10% comparison goods. Using the Competition Commission
definition this would provide convenience floor space of approximately 504sqm and
comparison floor space of 56sqm.
Development Committee
39
8 November 2012
Having regard to the requirements of local and national policy, the applicant has
submitted a retail report which, amongst other things, seeks to set out the
development proposed and address the sequential test and impact test
requirements. The applicant has provided further information, where requested, to
enable the Council to determine the proposal.
The Council has sought independent retail advice from Mark Wood Associates in
order to assess the information supplied by the applicant in support of the proposal.
Copies of the retail consultant‟s reports are attached at Appendices 4 - 8.
In respect of the sequential test, Officers consider the Polka Road site to be in an
„out-of-centre‟ location and therefore before permission could be granted, all other
sequentially preferable sites within the town centre or edge of centre would have to
be considered as to their availability, suitability and viability. At pre-application stage
the applicant sought to agree with the Council a number of possible sequentially
preferable sites in Wells-next-the-Sea in order to assess their availability, suitability
and viability for retail development. Officers agreed the following sites with the
applicant (in no order of preference):
Festival Amusements (The Quay);
Underwood Amusements/Poppin (Freeman Street/Beach Road);
The Ark Royal Public House (Freeman Street)
Stearman‟s Yard Car Park (Freeman Street/Theatre Road)
The applicant has concluded for various reasons in the retail report and additional
submissions that none of the above sites were either available, suitable or viable for
retail development of the type proposed.
Whilst there is agreement that the Festival Amusements and Underwood
Amusements sites are not likely to be available, suitable or viable, representations
have been received from the owners of the Ark Royal Public House (Enterprise Inns)
indicating that the site is available and potentially suitable for retail supermarket
purposes. Whilst no formal plans or designs have been submitted from Enterprise
Inns, sketch plans have been submitted from parties interested in purchasing the Ark
Royal public house, site possibly in conjunction with purchase of the lower section of
the North Norfolk District Council owned Stearman‟s Yard car park. The Council‟s
appointed retail consultant is of the view that „On the basis of the public statement
made by the owner of the Ark Royal PH site and in the absence of any key policy
pre-conditions for bringing forward the land, we believe that this site [Ark Royal PH
site] is available‟.
If the Ark Royal site is considered to be available then the Committee would need to
be consider whether the site is suitable and also viable for the development
proposed. The Council‟s appointed retail consultant has considered the issue of the
suitability and viability of the Ark Royal site and also the Stearman‟s Yard car park
having had regard to a number of additional submissions from the applicant and also
from parties interested in purchasing the Ark Royal site. See October report attached
at Appendix 5 (paragraphs 2.9 to 2.41).
In summary the Council‟s appointed retail consultant is of the opinion that:
„The Ark Royal PH site is available.
Development Committee
40
8 November 2012
The adjoining Stearmans Yard public car park is not currently available and
we are unable to conclude on the balance of probability that it will become so
within a reasonable period of time. However ultimately it is a matter for the
Council to decide on this matter.
The Stearmans Yard public car park is in our view not suitable for
redevelopment given the adopted Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD
which seek to retain and improve the level of car parking serving the town
centre. Its redevelopment could in our view only be sanctioned in the event
that suitable alternative provision was made elsewhere.


The loss of the public house might be judged to be contrary to national advice
to maintain leisure and community facilities which meet a local need.
However Policy CT.3 of the Core Strategy would not prevent the loss of the
public house provided equivalent or better quality provision was available in
the area. Additionally the benefit of providing a supermarket would need to be
balanced against any such loss particularly since the development would
occur on an edge of centre site with the potential to stimulate linked shopping
and other trips. The direct impact on the town centre would on a like for like
basis be similar to that associated with a less central or out of centre
development.
The Ark Royal PH is in isolation and in theory capable of accommodating a
food store extending to approximately 929 sq.m. gross. However we believe
that the proposed car parking and delivery arrangements coupled with the
proximity of existing and proposed residential development would result in a
sub-standard supermarket development.
Reducing the size of any foodstore to say 650-750 sq.m. gross [to] provide
either additional car parking and/or improved servicing and delivery
arrangements would be possible but this would result in a scale and form of
development which would in our view be significantly different from the model
proposed by the Co-op at Polka Road. It would in short conflict with the
approach set out in the Supreme Court judgement [See copy at Appendix 7 In summary the Supreme Court decision considered the issue of suitability
within the sequential test and the Justices characterised the difference of
approach in this way – did “suitable” in the relevant development plan policy
and national guidance mean “suitable for the development proposed by the
applicant” or “suitable for meeting the identified deficiencies in retail provision
in the area”?
The answer, according to the Court was the former – in assessing whether or
not a suitable sequentially preferable site exists, developers and planning
authorities have to ask whether such a site is suitable for what the developer
wishes to build, not what might be required to meet a retail deficiency in the
area. The court recognised that some flexibility was expected to be shown by
the developer – regard should be had to the particular circumstances of the
town centre and to the scope to accommodating the proposal in a different
built form. Fundamentally, however, the question to be considered was
whether a sequentially preferable site was suitable for the proposed
development, not whether the proposed development could be altered or
reduced so that it can be made to fit an alternative site.
Development Committee
41
8 November 2012
Lord Hope puts the point in what some at least may regard as surprising
terms. He said:
“…the whole exercise is directed to what the developer is proposing, not
some other proposal which the planning authority might seek to substitute for
it which is for something less that that sought by the developer…I do not think
that this is in the least surprising, as developments of this kind are generated
by the developer‟s assessment of the market that he seeks to serve. If they
do not meet the sequential approach criteria…they will be rejected. But these
criteria are designed for use in the real world in which developers wish to
operate, not some artificial world in which they have no interest doing so”.
Source: Kenneth Carruthers – (Semple Frazer)]
The provision of a convenience store on the site would be feasible but again
this would involve a form of retail development which did not reflect the
applicant‟s assessment of the local market and the need to meet main food
shopping needs‟.
The Council‟s appointed retail consultant goes on to comment:
„In our opinion the question therefore as to whether the Ark Royal PH site is suitable
and therefore whether the proposal for a supermarket at Polka Road complies with
the sequential approach to site selection, is finely balanced. The owner of the Ark
Royal PH has made it clear that the site will be sold and a prospective developer has
supplied information which seeks to demonstrate that it is suitable. There are a
number of benefits in seeing it redeveloped including the ability to enhance the local
townscape and increase shopping choice in a sustainable location accessible by a
range of means of transport. It may also be possible to provide a supermarket as part
of a mixed use scheme involving smaller shop units and residential.
Our main concerns however relate to the sub-standard nature of the proposed car
parking and delivery arrangements and the impact of the store‟s operation with
existing uses in the area, including the impact on existing residents and proposed
residents. A single supermarket on its own may also be unviable although the
position on this is not clear.
The inclusion of part of the Stearmans Yard public car park is rejected because it is
not suitable due to the protected nature and importance of the existing use.
On balance therefore we conclude that the Ark Royal PH is not suitable for the scale
and type of food retail development proposed at Polka Road‟.
Whilst Members will note that compliance with the sequential test is finely balanced,
Officers concur with the overall conclusions of the retail consultant that the Ark Royal
site has a number of limitations which may ultimately serve to prevent development
of a supermarket of comparable scale to that proposed on Polka Road. However,
notwithstanding the advice of the Council‟s appointed retail consultant, parties
interested in purchasing the Ark Royal site continue to consider their options on the
basis that they consider the site to be suitable for retail development of the type
proposed at Polka Road. Committee will be updated orally in the event of any further
developments concerning the Ark Royal site, but in the absence of any other suitable
alternatives, Officers conclude that the requirements of the sequential test have been
met.
Development Committee
42
8 November 2012
In respect of the impact test, the applicants had originally set out an assessment of
impact in their retail report. However, the Council‟s appointed retail consultant
considered in his September report that the applicants' submission did not sufficiently
address impact to demonstrate that the scheme would not have a significant adverse
impact on the vitality and viability of Wells-next-the-Sea town centre. Further
information was therefore requested from the applicants, which has now been
received.
The Council‟s appointed retail consultant, using his extensive knowledge and
experience, has sought to assess critically the methodology and conclusions
contained in the applicants' additional retail submissions. A copy of his October
report in respect of impact is attached at Appendix 5 (paragraphs 3.0 to 3.34).
Having considered the available evidence, in respect of impact the Council‟s
appointed retail consultant is of the view that:
„In relation to the impact on the town centre, the inevitable consequence of
introducing a food store is that some trade diversion from existing businesses will
occur. The [PPS4] Practice Guidance recognises that this is a truism but states that
the assessment must be made having regard to the impact on the centre as a whole.
We do not believe that the predicted impact would undermine the vitality and viability
of the centre whose health is generally robust and exhibits a buoyancy often lacking
in centres of similar or larger size. The predicted trade draw would in our view allow
existing retailers to trade at above what would be regarded as viable, benchmark
levels and we agree with RPS that closure of shops is unlikely to occur.
There would be some loss of trade from the town centre but not loss of local
consumer choice. As paragraph 26 of the NNPF notes it is also appropriate to
examine the increase in consumer choice and trade within the wider area. The
introduction of a new supermarket would represent a dramatic increase in choice and
significantly enhance the ability of local residents to undertake main food shopping
within the immediate area.
It would also lead to an overall increase in trade within the wider area increasing it by
approximately £2.6m in 2017. This would equate to an increase in retention from
around 28% to around 58% which we believe is realistic and sustainable‟.
The Council‟s appointed retail consultant goes on to comment that „…we do believe
however that in order to ensure that linked shopping and other trips are generated
between the site and the town centre, that improvements to the pedestrian and cycle
links are secured as part of a Section 106 Obligation. In addition we believe that such
improvements could extend to increase the signage between the store and town
centre thereby allowing non-residents to be aware of the proximity and accessibility
of the town centre from the site. We believe that these improvements would meet the
tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, paragraph
204 of the NPPF and the Council‟s adopted policy on planning obligations and retail
development‟.
Officers support the conclusions of the Council‟s appointed retail consultant in
respect of overall retail impact on the vitality and viability of Wells-next-the-Sea town
centre.
Development Committee
43
8 November 2012
SUMMARY OF RETAIL MATTERS
Whilst there is no doubting that the Ark Royal public house site is available and
potentially suitable for retail development of a similar scale to that proposed at Polka
Road, there are a number of constraints including parking provision, delivery space
and potential impact on adjoining residents which have led the Council‟s appointed
retail consultant to conclude, on balance, that there are no sequentially preferable
sites closer to the town centre that are available, suitable and viable for retail
development comparable in scale and kind to that proposed at Polka Road. Officers
concur with this view, although the Committee should be made aware that parties
interested in purchasing the Ark Royal site have indicated that they propose to
submit revised plans taking into account the concerns raised by the Council‟s
appointed retail consultant. Committee will be updated orally in relation to any further
developments
In respect of impact it is considered that a store of the size proposed would not be
likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Wells-nextthe-Sea town centre. However, it will be important to secure the benefits of linked
trips between the Polka Road store and the town centre through improved pedestrian
linkages to be secured through S106 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking (as now
proposed by the applicant).
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
In respect of accessibility, on foot and using existing pedestrian crossing facilities, the
application site is approximately 330m from the edge of the primary shopping area of
Wells-next-the-Sea. The town centre is not directly visible from the proposed
supermarket site and the journey along Polka Road is slightly uphill.
The applicant proposes 11 cycle hoops to cater those wishing to arrive by bicycle (22
cycle parking spaces). In respect of vehicle parking 48 spaces are proposed.
The Highway Authority has commented:
„The application site is situated close to the town centre. It has good footway links
with Zebra crossings nearby. It is well served by buses with bus stops close to the
site. The bus stops require improving at the applicant‟s expense under coverage of a
S106 Agreement.
The scope of the Transport Assessment was the subject of negotiation with the
Highway Authority and the resultant document indicates that the highway network will
have adequate capacity to cater for the traffic associated with the proposed store.
Having examined the document, the Highway Authority agrees with this conclusion‟.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with
Development Plan Policies CT5 and CT 6.
S106 OBLIGATIONS
The legislation providing local planning authorities with the powers to enter into legal
(Section 106) agreements, often referred to as planning obligations, with applicants
so as to regulate the use and development of land which might involve payment of a
financial contribution for off-site works, is set out in the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (para. 122) and restated in the National Planning Policy
Framework published on 27 March 2012. The guidance indicates that planning
obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
Development Committee
44
8 November 2012
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The Council also has its own adopted policy which sets out the approach to be taken
to secure financial contributions, in certain circumstances, to offset any potential
impacts of development.
In respect of the proposed development and the possible requirement to enter into a
S106 Obligation, the Council‟s appointed retail consultant has commented that „…we
do believe however that in order to ensure that linked shopping and other trips are
generated between the site and the town centre, that improvements to the pedestrian
and cycle links are secured as part of a section 106 obligation. In addition we believe
that such improvements could extend to increase the signage between the store and
town centre thereby allowing non-residents to be aware of the proximity and
accessibility of the town centre from the site. We believe that these improvements
would meet the tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations, paragraph 204 of the NPPF and the Council‟s adopted policy on
planning obligations and retail development‟. Officers therefore conclude that a
request for a commuted sum for mitigation in relation to improving the potential for
linked-trips between the proposed store and town centre is justified and would accord
with the CIL Regulations and guidance within the Framework.
The applicant has submitted an indicative proposal for a package of transport
improvements including a contribution of £50,000 which would be made up of
£25,000 towards a new crossing on Polka Road and £25,000 towards footpath
improvements between the store and the town centre. The applicant proposes to
secure these improvements through submission of a Unilateral Undertaking.
The Highway Authority has been consulted in respect of the propose package of
mitigation and Committee will be updated orally.
The Planning Legal Manager has been consulted in respect of the principle of
securing the off-site highway works by way of Unilateral Undertaking instead of S106
Obligation and Committee will be updated orally.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether or not there are
material considerations either in favour or against the proposal which would justify a
departure from adopted Development Plan policies.
In this case, the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration to
which the Committee should afford appropriate weight.
In addition to the retail guidance set out within the Framework at paragraphs 24, 26
and 27 and the ministerial advice issued by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP concerning
Planning for Growth, as highlighted above, the Committee is entitled to give weight to
the economic benefits of the proposal with reference in particular to paragraph 18 of
the Framework which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity…‟.
In this regard the applicant has indicated that the proposal would directly create 50
new full-time/part-time jobs equating to 90 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). Taken as a
whole the employment and prosperity prospects associated with the proposal could
be considered to be a material consideration to which some weight can be attached.
Development Committee
45
8 November 2012
DESIGN
In respect of design matters, whilst located outside the central core of the Town and
not within the Conservation Area, the application site is in a prominent location on
one of the main entrances into Wells. Having regard to its setting and context, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is of the view that „design of the
highest possible quality is sought.
Following concerns in respect of the original submitted plans, the Conservation
Design and Landscape Manager is of the view that ‟the amended plans show some
improvement on those originally submitted‟.
The Conservation Design and Landscape Manager goes on to comment that the
amended plans represent an improvement for the following reasons:
„Firstly the treatment of the three „solid‟ elevations has been made more relevant to
Wells and the vicinity with the proposed use of more red and light brown facing
brickwork.
Secondly, the re-positioning of the trolley park to the side of the forecourt area is a
definite improvement. This has the benefit of revealing the whole front elevation and
shop entrance, giving the latter more impact or presence. Unfortunately the main
shop sign on this elevation remains sub-standard. A good quality shop sign, carefully
designed, proportioned and integrated into the front elevation would be essential,
giving a better sense of „arrival‟ and store presentation. [This will be secured via a
separate advertisement consent application]
Thirdly the choice of materials and the colouring of panelling and roofing on the
amended plans looks to be more appropriate. Darker tones and colours for walls and
window frames are a better choice. The detail specifications for colour of these
materials can of course be agreed by conditions on any approved application.
Likewise details of any boundary enclosures (fences/walls), including those around
the service yard could be agreed using conditions.
The submitted site plans now show more detail of the proposed materials for the
areas of hard-landscaping and forecourt area and this is now generally acceptable.
The precise choice of pavers for the parking areas would however need to be agreed
with the Local Planning authority prior to commencement of any development. This
should also be the case for lighting and of course „landscaping‟ and boundary
enclosures as previously mentioned.
In summary, whilst there are elements of detail within the revised plans that can be
improved/secured via conditions, on balance and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager considers
that there can be no overriding design objections to this application. Officers concur
with this assessment and the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
design policies.
LANDSCAPE
In respect of landscaping considerations, the proposal has been amended following a
number of concerns raised by the Landscape Officer. The amended proposal now
offers a larger area of planting to the western and southern boundaries along with
improved boundary treatments. However the Landscape Officer has some concerns
regarding the proposed planting specification.
Development Committee
46
8 November 2012
Although the landscape scheme is not considered exceptional by the Landscape
Officer, the proposal would nonetheless be considered acceptable from a landscape
and visual impact perspective subject to conditions to secure a more suitable
landscaping specification. Officers concur with this view and the proposal would be
broadly compliant with relevant Development Plan policies.
FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE
The site lies within Flood Zones 1 and 2 and is in an area of Wells which suffered
from flooding in the 1953 and 1978 flood events. An A1 retail use would be
considered as „less vulnerable‟ to flood risk in accordance with Table 3 of the
Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework.
In considering Flood Risk the Environment Agency has commented:
„The proposed development site lies in Flood Zone 3a, the high probability flood
zone, which is the area at risk of flooding in a 1 in 200 (0.5%) annual probability tidal
flood, with a level of 4.97mAOD [Above Ordnance Datum], assuming no defences.
With 75 years of climate change applied to the flood level (the assumed lifetime for
commercial development) this rises to 5.68mAOD. The extreme 1 in 1000 year flood
level is 5.40mAOD, which rises to 6.11mAOD with 75 years of climate change.
The site is defended from tidal flooding by the earth bank flood defences to the east
of Wells next the Sea. The defences are at a height of 6.5mAOD so the site is not at
actual risk of flooding if the defences remain intact over the development lifetime‟.
The Environmental Protection Officer has commented that „With reference to the
objection raised by [a representation received] on flood levels, although we are not
the lead authority for flood mapping, I would suggest that the applicant has used
current EA data which takes into account any flood defence improvements since‟.
Subject to the imposition of conditions including, setting the minimum floor level of
the proposed supermarket building, the Environment Agency and Environmental
Protection Officer have no objections in respect of flood risk and Officers consider
that the proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
Representations received have raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on
surface water drainage, in particular as a result of proposed changes to the position
of the surface water sewer which would run underneath the site of the proposed
supermarket. The applicant proposes to re-direct the sewer so as to avoid conflict
with the footprint of the proposed store. Following initial concerns raised by the
Environmental Protection Officer, the applicant submitted additional plans and
information and, subject to the works being carried out in accordance with the
submitted details, the Environmental Protection Officer has commented that the
drainage information submitted is now satisfactory.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, it is understood that the site was previously used as a
garage including petrol filling services. Adjacent to the site was the former Wells
Railway Station with associated sidings. On this basis the Contaminated Land Officer
considers that there is a potential for contamination to exist. The applicant has
undertaken a desk study the findings of which and associated recommendations
were considered to be acceptable by the Contaminated Land Officer. Further work is
required following the desk top study and these works can be secured by way of
planning condition.
Development Committee
47
8 November 2012
The Environment Agency have also commented in respect of contamination and
have recommended a number of conditions to ensure that any contaminants present
are remediated, which is necessary for the protection of controlled waters.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would accord with Development
Plan Policy EN 13.
SUMMARY
The proposed development seeks the erection of an A1 retail food store with a gross
floor area of 929sqm (approx. 10,000sqft) and a net sales area of 560 sqm using the
Competition Commission (CC) definition of net sales area.
The proposed Polka Road store is considered by Officers to be in an out-of centre
location and, in respect of compliance with the sequential test, owners of the Ark
Royal Public House site on Freeman Street have indicated that their site is
sequentially preferable to the Polka Road site and is available for retail development
purposes.
The Council‟s appointed retail consultant has, in addition to other sites, considered
the Ark Royal site as to its availability, suitability and viability for a retail development
of similar scale and kind to that proposed on Polka Road. It is considered that the Ark
Royal site has a number of constraints which, on balance, may realistically prevent
its development for retail purposes and this has led the retail consultant to conclude
that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available, suitable and viable.
In respect of impact, whilst a number of objections have been received including
representations from existing traders in the town who are concerned about potential
adverse impacts, having considered the available evidence the Council‟s appointed
retail consultant considers that, whilst there would undoubtedly be some impacts
arising from the opening of a new retail supermarket, taken as a whole these impacts
are not considered to be significantly adverse.
In respect of improvements to links between the proposed store and the town centre,
these are the subject of on-going discussions involving the applicant, Local Planning
Authority and Highway Authority to ensure that the benefits of linked trips referred to
by the applicant are delivered.
In other respects, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed
development is considered to be compliant with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and
subject to the completion of a S106 Obligation to secure off site works to
improve links between the proposed supermarket and the town centre and to
improve bus stop provision, subject to further discussion with the Highway
Authority.
Development Committee
48
8 November 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
10.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
July to September 2012, covering the turnround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes, together with figures for land charge searches.
Table 1A (Appendix 11) sets out performance for processing planning applications
for the second quarter of 2012/13.
Five major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 98 minor
applications and 143 „other‟ applications, a total of 246 applications. This is some 82
fewer than in the previous quarter and is mainly accounted for by summer holidays
and the gap between the effective departure of the Student Planning Officer and the
arrival of her replacement.
In terms of speed of determination, figures for minor and „other‟ applications were
slightly improved compared with the previous quarter and the last financial year, but
remain significantly lower than during the previous two financial years.
As far as major applications are concerned, five were determined, of which four were
more than 13 weeks old, and the cumulative figure for the year so far is that only one
quarter of the eight determined were within the 13 week period.
The Government has published national performance figures for the first time under
its „Planning Guarantee‟ scheme, whereby Councils and the Planning Inspectorate
are expected to determine all applications within 26 weeks, allowing time for an
appeal to be determined in the event of a refusal and total decision time within one
year. The performance figures indicate that for decisions overall, during the period
2011/12 North Norfolk determined 96% of applications within 26 weeks, but for major
applications, only 42% were determined within that period. The former figure places
the Council within 88% of authorities who dealt with more than 95% of cases within
26 weeks, but the latter figure places the Council fourth from bottom of those 315
who completed returns. This matter requires attention and will be discussed at the
appropriate Committee meetings.
Table 1B indicates workload for the service and shows that 369 applications were
submitted, i.e. more than 120 more than the number determined. The service
therefore failed to keep pace with incoming work for planning applications. Preapplication and „Do I need planning permission?” enquiries fell again during the
quarter, principally as a result of the introduction of charges in May, this being the
first quarter when the full effects of this initiative could be assessed. In contrast, Duty
Officer queries increased to 580 and thus were at the level experienced in 2009/10
when the number of sessions held was double that now undertaken. These trends
need to continue to be monitored, together with the income received and a report is
due to be received by Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the impact of the new
charging regime in January 2013.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarter saw a slight reduction, but the
cumulative figure for 2012/13 remains at just over 93%, which is considered to be
satisfactory.
Development Committee
49
8 November 2012
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of planning appeal decisions. During the
quarter, all four appeals determined were dismissed, a significant improvement on
the previous quarter.
As far as land charge searches are concerned, Table 3 indicates that official
searches decreased by three over the quarter, but personal searches increased by
nine in comparison with Quarter 1.
In summary, the performance figures indicate that the Service continues to struggle
to cope with its workload. These difficulties have been recognised and authority has
been given for the appointment of two Planning Assistants on 12-month contracts in
an effort to address the problem; recruitment is currently underway. This is a
welcome move but, of course, it will be several months before the new Officers are in
post, have been brought up to speed in terms of the Council‟s policies and systems
and are able to make inroads into the backlog of work. Their impact on performance
is therefore unlikely to be significant prior to the final quarter of this financial year.
Members may be aware that a peer challenge is to be undertaken by a team from the
Local Government Association early in 2013, preceded by an extensive
benchmarking exercise which will enable the Council‟s Development Management
Service to be compared with many others across the country. More information will
be provided to Members of Development Committee and Overview and Scrutiny
Committee, who will both be considering planning application performance issues in
the near future, when further details have been received.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management ext 6135)
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/12/0967 - Conversion and extension of redundant
agricultural building to residential dwelling and erection of cart shed garage;
Chestnut Farm, School Road, Thurgarton for Aldborough Farms Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/12/0896 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extension;
Cricketers Rest, The Green for Mr Hooker
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/12/0973 - Erection of front/side single-storey link extension;
Glebe Farm Cottage, Glebe Farm, Holt Road for Mrs M Fox
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/12/0750 - Erection of replacement garage/store; Eversleigh,
Kimberley Road for Mr & Mrs North
(Householder application)
BACTON - PO/12/0958 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (extension of period for
commencement of planning permission reference: PO/09/0721); Land rear of 2
& 3 Kimberley Road for Mrs A Wadsworth
(Outline Planning Permission)
BACTON - NMA1/10/0408 - Non-material amendment request for re-siting of
wind turbine; Village Hall, Coast Road for Trustees of Bacton Village Hall
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
50
8 November 2012
BARTON TURF - PF/12/0763 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/1312 to permit erection of single-storey side extension; 1 Twain
Cottage, The Street for Mr P Eccleshare
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0905 - Change of use of and ground and first floor
extension to garage to form annexe; Pinewood, Sheringwood for Mr A Gooden
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/12/0989 - Demolition of existing single-storey side/front extension
and erection of two-storey side/rear extension (re-submission); 1 Priory
Crescent for McCullum
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/12/0693 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land rear of
23 The Lane for Mr & Mrs D Reynolds
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - NMA2/10/0506 - Non-material amendment request for
conservatory to replace garden room, deletion of external chimney, revised
porch and ground floor windows details; 2 Hilltop for Mr C Wright
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/0835 - Erection of single-storey rear
extension; 11 Mountains Road, Corpusty for Mr K Cotgrove
(Householder application)
CROMER - AI/12/0712 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; Land at former filling station, Holt Road for Lidl UK GmbH
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - NMA1/10/1352 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
doors and Juliette balcony to first floor extension; Fairholt, 22 Clifton Park for
Mr & Mrs Redhead
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - PF/11/0901 - Installation of replacement roof covering to provide
covered parking area; Former garage site, Cabbell Road for Anchor Homes Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0836 - Erection of first floor side extension; Glenhaven, 39
Norwich Road for Bell
(Householder application)
DUNTON - PF/12/0908 - Variation of conditions 13 and 14 of planning permission
ref: 10/1247 to allow submission of updated Bat Mitigation Strategy and Method
Statement prior to commencement of barn 4 and revised mitigation details;
Southmill Barns, Shereford Road, Shereford for Mr R Porter
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - BX/12/0933 - County Reference C/1/2012/1011
Variation of Condition 2, 4 and 9 of Planning Permission C/1/2004/1019 to
accommodate the receipt of street sweeping residue into Green Waste bay prior
to landfill; Landfill Site, Edgefield Hall Farm, Holt Road for Norfolk
Development Committee
51
8 November 2012
Environmental Waste Services Ltd
(County General Reg 3)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0955 - Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of
two-storey side extension; Oak Farm, Barningham Road for Mr K Fisher
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0669 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extensions, insertion of first floor side windows and erection of pitched roof on
single-storey extension; Heath Farm Cottage, Norwich Road for Mr and Mrs
Lawrence
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0918 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
06/0738 to change roof design and vary window positions and size to north
elevation; Land at 16 Queens Road for Mr Rocket
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0745 - Erection of five B2 (industrial)/B8 (storage) units; Plot
6, Hawthorne Way, Clipbush Business Park for Steel Build Masters Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0895 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
PM/11/1176 to lower the eaves and ridge by 300mm and omit the gable to the
east elevation of dwelling on plot 2 and insert three rooflights; Plot 2 adjacent to
Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr K Gilchrist
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AI/12/0981 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; Henry IV, Greenway Lane for Greene King Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0997 - Installation of cladding and render, re-location of
canopies and revised door and window arrangements; Henry IV, Greenway Lane
for Greene King
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0833 - Erection of building to provide a mixed use of A1
(retail showroom) and B2 (industrial); Plot 1, Hawthorn Way, Clipbush Way for
Mr N Pope
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0840 - Siting of four storage containers; Former Garage,
Greenway Lane for Sue Ryder
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/12/0637 - Raising of roof and erection of single-storey side
extension; Drift Cottage Farm, The Driftway, Felbrigg for Mr & Mrs Read
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - NMA1/07/1437 - Non-material amendment request for revised
parking arrangements, minor revisions to layout and siting, revised
materials/finishes and chimney arrangements; Land at Goulders Lane for J S
Hay Construction
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
52
8 November 2012
FELMINGHAM - PF/12/0987 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
detached garage; The Cottage, Heath Road for Mr S Groves
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0854 - Widening of access and installation of
replacement gates; Old Rectory, School Road, Saxlingham for Mr & Mrs Robson
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - NMA1/10/0760 - Non-material amendment request for revised
door and window positions and installation of two additional roof lights; The
Old Barn, Croxton Road for Mr A Pitt
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GUNTHORPE - LA/12/0786 - Construction of rear dormer window, front and rear
entrance door lights and internal repairs; 20 Swanton Road for Albanwise
Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
HEMPTON - PF/12/0808 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 10/0329 to permit provision of two separate rear garden spaces to
plots 2 and 3; 21 Dereham Road for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - PF/12/0969 - Erection of side conservatory/porch; 5 Green Close for
Mr & Mrs J Adams
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0335 - Erection of garage with studio above and
extension to conservatory; Birkfield House, Bridge Road for Mr & Mrs N Gebbett
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0919 - Erection of porch and store shed; 64 The Street
for Mr & Mrs J Rankin
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0939 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and erection 1.8m
boundary fence; 16 Mill Street for Mr S Edwards
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/1008 - Conversion of shop to one unit of holiday accommodation;
Lawns Apartments, 41 Norwich Road for Kretchetov
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/12/1009 - Alterations to facilitate conversion to holiday
accommodation; Lawns Apartments, 41 Norwich Road for Mr E Kretchetov
(Listed Building Alterations)
HONING - NMA1/10/1160 - Non-material amendment request for alteration to
roof provide canopy, installation of window opening lights and hard surface to
parking/turning area; Land adjoining 1 Fairview, The Street for Victory Housing
Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
53
8 November 2012
HORNING - PF/12/0943 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 8a Hillside
Road for Shepherd
(Householder application)
HOVETON - NMA2/12/0119 - Non-material amendment request for revised
external finish colours; Tarn Hows, Tunstead Road for Mr J Osburne
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOVETON - PF/12/0739 - Erection of sectional garage; 81 Stalham Road for Mr J
Tatham
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/12/0862 - Erection of garage; 6 School Road for Mr A
Nicholls
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/12/0959 - Erection of single-storey
rear extension; Mill Cottage, Riverside Road, Letheringsett for Mr F Wykes
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LE/12/0960 - Demolition of rear
extensions; Mill Cottage, Riverside Road, Letheringsett for Mr F Wykes
(Conservation Area Demolition)
LUDHAM - PF/12/0792 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and carport
and construction of paved driveway; High Mill Hill for Miss I Sale
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - NMA1/11/0305 - Non-material amendment request for revised rear
door and window arrangements; 34 School Road for Mr P Douse
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MATLASKE - PF/12/0608 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey rear extension; 19 The Street for Miss G Rodwell
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - LA/12/0610 - Removal of chimney, conservatory and shed and
erection of two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension; 19 The
Street for Miss G Rodwell
(Listed Building Alterations)
MORSTON - NMA1/12/0068 - Non-material amendment request for omission of
window and re-location of door and roof light; Post Office, 41 The Street for Mr
& Mrs Goff
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0801 - Erection of replacement garage block; Land at 10-12
Beach Close for Mrs H Collingham
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0802 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extensions; 12
Texel Way for Mr A Ward
(Householder application)
Development Committee
54
8 November 2012
NEATISHEAD - NMA1/11/0470 - Non-material amendment request to reposition
rear wall to enlarge extension, adjust pitch of roof and removal of utility outside
door; Cangate Cottage, Cangate Road, Cangate for Mr M Claxton
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA2/07/0751 - Non-material amendment request to
change the bricks and roof tiles and minor changes to window details.; Hall
Lane Garage, Hall Lane for Victory Housing Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0921 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission reference 07/0751 to relocate cycle storage, provide windows to
east and west gable elevations to plots 1-8; Kings Close, Hall Lane for Victory
Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/12/0309 - Non-material amendment request for
external alterations including changes to the roof pitch of two single-storey side
extensions, provision of additional trolley bays and car parking spaces, revision
of car parking layout, revision to entrance canopy and cycle storage areas,
amendment to substation building and revised service yard layout.; Waitrose,
Cromer Road for Waitrose Limited and London and Captial Group
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1014 - Erection of detached garage; 34 Happisburgh
Road for Kett
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1002 - Installation of dormer window to facilitate
conversion of loft to habitable accommodation; 50 Aylsham Road for Mr Walker
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0677 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to
provide attached two-storey annexe and creation of new vehicular access;
Foresters Cottage, 27 Fir Hill Cottages, Craft Lane for Mr W Wilson
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0818 - Conversion of double garage to holiday dwelling;
Orchard House, Bulls Row for Mr & Mrs K Cockaday
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0899 - Erection of two poly tunnels; Overstrand Court
Hotel, 5 High Street for Mrs J Campbell
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/0758 - Erection of rear extension, front and rear
extensions to garage and front porch; 14 Church Road for Ms Harris
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/12/1025 - Installation of gravel all-weather surface to 8 pitches;
Ingleborough Fields Caravan Site, Station Close, West Runton for The Caravan
Club
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
55
8 November 2012
RUNTON - PF/12/0633 - Variation of conditions 6, 7 & 8 of planning permission
reference: 10/0295 to permit compliance following commencement of
development on an individual plot basis; 39-52 Renwick Park, West Runton for
A G Brown Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - NMA1/12/0548 - Non-material amendment request for change of
window, door and cladding colours and materials; 4 Buxton Close, East Runton
for Mr A Blakey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RUNTON - PF/12/0940 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling; Plot 1, Newell
Crescent, West Runton for A G Brown (Builders) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/12/0822 - Erection of first floor side extension; Spring Cottage, 7
Incleborough Close, East Runton for Mr & Mrs R Bush
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/12/0988 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 91/0280 to permit re-siting of garage; Plot 2 Land adjacent
Sandyfield, Church Lane, West Runton for Mr Sheridan
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/12/0843 - Erection of front conservatory; 38 Renwick Park West,
West Runton for Schofield
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/1043 - Installation of doors and frame to garage.; Havelock
Barn, Manor Farm Barns, Cross Street for Mrs H Rodgers
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0915 - Erection of side porch; 6 Hoveton Place, Badersfield
for Wadey
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0859 - Conversion and extension to garage and bungalow
to form annexe; Bowyn, Creake Road for Bond
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0849 - Erection of rear extension; 8 Cremers Drift for
Smith
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/12/0014 - Non-material request to re-locate position of
bridge and change of balcony railings to stainless steel rope net system; Public
Conveniences East Promenade, The Promenade for N D Willan Building
Contractors
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0891 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension; 1 North
Street for Mr & Mrs Chamberlain
(Householder application)
Development Committee
56
8 November 2012
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/98/0293 - Non-material amendment request for relocation of front door; 25-27 Wyndham Street for Mr N Smith
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0772 - Erection of wooden gazebo; Sheringham Academy
Trust, Sheringham High School, Holt Road for Sheringham Academy Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1000 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension, installation of front dormer window and porch/canopy and second
floor window; 46 Beeston Common for Mr R Courtney
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0937 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings with detached car ports; Salcombe, 12 Norfolk Road for Ms L Nash
(Full Planning Permission)
SKEYTON - PF/12/1013 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions; The
Goat Inn, Long Road for Mrs J Cooke & Mrs J Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
SKEYTON - LA/12/1015 - Alterations to facilitate erection of single-storey front
and rear extensions; The Goat Inn, Long Road for Mrs J Cooke & Mrs J Cooper
(Listed Building Alterations)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0868 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
installation of first floor side window; Garden House Farm, Pit Street for Larke
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/12/0838 - Change of use of land from agricultural to residential
curtilage to provide access and driveway; Land adjacent Holly Breck House,
Greenway for Mr L Clabburn
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - PF/12/0850 - Formation of vehicular access and erection of 2m high
boundary wall and gates; Green Farm House, The Green, Hunworth for Mr D
Moore
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/12/0811 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and conservatory;
The Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Enein
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/12/0977 - Erection of first floor extension; November Cottage,
Brinton Road for Mr & Mrs Orgill
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PF/12/0948 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference E6076 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
restriction; Hillcrest, Church Road, Bessingham for Mrs P J Barrett
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - PF/12/0207 - Continued siting of mobile home; Manor House Farm,
New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
57
8 November 2012
SUSTEAD - PF/12/0702 - Retention of shed and caravan used for storage and
rest room; Little Fen Farm, Glen Farm Lane for Mr A Delarey
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/12/0834 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Chestnuts, 2
Pond House Farm, Old Yarmouth Road for Mr K Laws
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0820 - Erection of single-storey side extension,
replacement rear conservatory, construction of dormer window and installation
of upper floor windows; 30A Freeman Street for Underwood Amusements
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0965 - Re-location of electric control cabinet;
Beach Road for Environment Agency
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0776 - Raising of roof to provide first floor
bathroom accommodation; Burnham, Bolts Close for Mr I McGuire
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0785 - Erection of part two-storey front and
single-storey rear extensions; Marshview, East End for Shinn
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/0996 - Erection of side extension; 9 Springfield Close for
Mr & Mrs A Caruthers
(Householder application)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HANWORTH - PF/12/0912 - Erection of front conservatory.; Glebe Farm, White
Post Road for Mr & Mrs Attew
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - NMA1/08/0842 - Non-material amendment request for revised
door and window arrangements, increased roof height and omission of
basement; Hall Farm Bungalow, Hall Road for Mr N Storey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0412 - Retention of boundary fence; 59 Priory Close
for Mr P Farquharson
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off The Quay,
Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs B Pope
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
58
8 November 2012
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0902 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0270 - Erection of four-bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr Barnes
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
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
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
THURSFORD - PF/11/1434 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
garden/amenity land; Land adjacent Bell Cottage, 3 Gunthorpe Road for Mrs B
Bullard
SHERINGHAM - ENF/10/0221 - Erection of a Balcony; 31 Beeston Road
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
59
8 November 2012
CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan
Road for Mr Roberts
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0134 - Erection of boundary fence and porch; 6 Hoveton
Place, Badersfield for Mr Wadey
APPEAL DECISION:- MIXED
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of screening;
31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
60
8 November 2012