OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO SPECIAL MEETING OF
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 8 SEPTEMBER 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports has financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
RYBURGH - PF/09/0966 - Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with
wash bay, associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage
container, office, staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping;
Land at Crisp Maltings, Fakenham Road for Crisp Malting Group Ltd
INTRODUCTION
The application was last considered by the Development Control Committee on 20
January 2011 when it was resolved:
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve this
application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including a limit
on the tonnage output of malt per annum and subject to the applicant signing a
Unilateral Obligation in relation to the use of the site, as requested by the
Highway Authority.
Copies of the report to the Committee meeting on 20 January 2011, the associated
appendices and approved minutes of the meeting are attached at Appendix 1.
Some eight months have elapsed since that resolution and during this time some 40
individual complaints have been received from local residents and from the Ryburgh
Village Action Group. The Council’s Chief Executive has responded to these and
concluded that the application has been handled properly and in accordance with all
legal and procedural requirements, subject to clarification of one issue, which has
required referral to Natural England. The complaints have raised a number of matters
which are material planning considerations, including representations concerning
conditions to be imposed on the planning permission in the event of approval.
A second letter dealing with the outstanding issue has been sent to the complainants.
One complainant has referred the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman and
this remains under consideration.
Solicitors acting for the Ryburgh Village Action Group (RVAG) have asserted that the
Council has failed to comply with its duties under the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive and have asked for these matters to
be reviewed prior to reconsideration of the application by Committee.
Eight letters of support have been received from agricultural/business interests.
The terms of a draft Planning Obligation have been submitted as required by the
Committee.
A formal petition signed by 499 persons has been received requesting
reconsideration of the application by Committee; the Council’s Monitoring Officer
considers that this would be an appropriate course of action.
Development Committee
1
8 September 2011
In view of recent advice received from Natural England in respect of the situation
concerning the proper discharge of the Council’s responsibilities regarding protected
species and habitats, the Head of Planning and Building Control is satisfied that it
would be lawful to exercise delegated powers to approve the application. However, in
light of the passage of time and the extensive representations made, the Head of
Planning and Building Control has decided to exercise prudence and refer this case
back to Committee for further consideration.
Members of the current Committee have recently visited the application site.
Further Representations
Since the meeting on 20 January 2011, many further letters of representation have
been received. Whilst many of the representations rehearse earlier objections or
comments in relation to the application, some of this correspondence raises new
issues and matters which need to be taken into account by the Committee before
finally determining the application.
48 further representations have been received since 20 January 2011, 40 of which
comprised complaints/objections/comments and 8 comprised letters of support.
The following is a summary of comments that have been received objecting to/
complaining about the proposal:1. Information supplied by the applicant to support their proposal [in relation to a
noise survey] was false, misleading and designed deliberately to deceive the
planning authority;
2. The present hours of operation should be maintained so as not adversely to
affect the amenity of neighbouring residents;
3. Lighting should be limited to declinations below the horizontal;
4. Heavy lorries should be limited to 7am to 6pm on weekdays;
5. Delegated approval seems most undemocratic given the number of people likely
to be affected;
6. Appropriate and robust conditions must be set for the appropriate use and
operation of the Maltings;
7. There is strong local opposition to this proposal;
8. The proposal will de-value many residents’ properties;
9. Air pollution, light pollution and noise pollution will be greater than before;
10. Lorries could pass through the village 7 days a week;
11. Lorry movements should not be occurring before 7am;
12. The wash facility could be used in the early hours;
13. Lighting on the lorry park could be on throughout the night;
14. Lorries engines will be idling in the morning causing noise disturbance;
15. Concerned at the possible extension of operating hours;
16. The signatories of the Ryburgh Village Action Group are appalled at the grant of
planning permission which represents a considerable extension to the existing
footprint of the site in the village, a loss of further green fields adjoining a rural
community and an entrenchment of investment and development of the industrial
site;
17. The proposal will be seriously detrimental to the predominantly rural character of
the village and in particular to the residential properties to which the development
is visible and audible;
18. From the point of view of the villagers it appears that the planners are determined
to have no regard to the requirement to solve the dilemma caused by an
industrial enterprise in the centre of a residential community;
19. It also appears that Crisp Maltings Group Ltd have no proposal to limit their use
of the existing site, out of consideration for their residential neighbours, but only
to extend and invest further in the installation;
Development Committee
2
8 September 2011
20. The Council have failed to make public all of the information, reports and
evidence lodged in support of the planning application;
21. In approving the application, the Council have taken into account matters which it
should not have done so;
22. The Committee failed to take account of the outcome of the 1996 Public Inquiry;
23. There is a case of maladministration to answer;
24. The Committee were misdirected in respect of the application of Core Strategy
Policy;
25. The decision should be called-in by the Secretary of State;
26. Concerned about potential increase in lorry movements through the village and
consequential impact on safety for pedestrians on narrow pavements;
27. Concerned about light pollution, noise pollution, the storage of hazardous fuel,
environmental degradation, wildlife habitat destruction, water table and river
pollution;
28. The suggestion that the short-term lease for the Hempton site is about to end is
false and Anglia Maltings Group Limited in fact have a lease with Payne Brothers
until 30 Nov 2028 in title absolute;
29. The proposal will significantly affect the River Wensum and Wensum valley,
which is a SSSI and SAC, due to its hydrological connectivity;
30. An Environmental Impact Assessment should have been produced;
31. No mention was made in the application of an active badger sett that is present
on or near the site;
32. The Transport Assessment prepared by Kingdom Transport Planning on behalf of
Crisp Maltings is flawed and traffic will be significantly increased as a result of
this proposal;
The following is a summary of comments that have been received in support of the
proposal:1. The additional storage will enable increased malting barley supplies to be
sourced from the local economy i.e. local growers during the harvest period;
2. The proposed additional storage will reduce food miles and reduce the need for
companies to supply Crisp later in the year from further afield, which incurs
additional traffic movements to the site, reducing pollution and improving quality
of life for local residents;
3. The proposal will reduce journeys between the Hempton depot and the Maltings
saving fuel and reducing carbon emissions;
4. We must support continued employment for local drivers and reduce the number
of trucks going through Great Ryburgh;
5. Crisp Maltings are an important user and supporter of local agricultural products
and need to be there in the future;
6. Becoming more efficient will benefit the local farming economy;
7. Around 200 growers supply ABC group with malting barley who in turn supply to
Crisp. This proposal is imperative to improve the efficiency of the Maltings and to
ensure that the business remains competitive;
8. Barley is the largest agricultural crop in North Norfolk and customers such as
Crisp Maltings indirectly support many of the jobs on local farms;
9. The voice of a few loud protests should not override the need of the whole district
for sustainable rural economy and environment;
10. There are approximately ten houses that overlook the site and most are modern
compared with the age and history of the Maltings;
11. The site of the lorry park will be substantially screened by the proposed earth
bank and landscaping;
12. Residents should remember that it was the Maltings (at their expense) that
brought mains gas to the village in the early 1990s
Development Committee
3
8 September 2011
Complaints
As indicated above, some 40 individual complaints have been received following the
20 January 2011 decision. One letter of complaint from Mr L Brantingham included
an attachment containing representations in relation to various issues including
matters relating to hours of working, ecology, visual amenity and light pollution from
the new development. A copy of this attachment is contained at Appendix 2.
The Council’s Chief Executive has responded to these complaints and a copy of the
composite reply sent to complainants is attached for reference at Appendix 3. This
response covers matters concerning the availability of documents, employment
issues, alleged misdirection of Committee concerning Countryside policy SS 2,
alleged omission of planning history in relation to 1996 Public Inquiry, alleged failure
to scrutinise documents submitted by the applicant or assess evidence submitted and
accurately advise the Committee, alleged failure to notify objectors of the date of the
Committee, and Conditions of Highways and queuing of lorries. The Council’s Chief
Executive has concluded that the application has been handled properly and in
accordance with all legal and procedural requirements. A further response covering
outstanding issues relating to badgers, was issued by the Council’s Deputy Chief
Executive, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 4.
Petitions
A formal petition signed by 499 persons has been received requesting
reconsideration of the application by Committee. A copy of the grounds for the
petition is attached at Appendix 5.
A further petition signed by 372 persons (119 of which are identifiable) has been
submitted in support of the application. A copy of the grounds for the petition in
support is attached at Appendix 6.
Wildlife Impacts including Badgers
The Ecological Assessments submitted in support of the application, as considered
by Committee on 20 January 2011, made no specific reference to the possible impact
of the proposed development on badgers (although it did not necessarily rule such
impacts out). However, representations received have indicated the presence of
badgers on or near the site and have suggested that the submitted Ecological
Assessments that were considered by the Committee had failed to assess properly
the impact of the proposal on badgers.
The applicant was made aware of these concerns and a further report was
commissioned by the applicant to assess the impact of the proposed development on
badgers together with associated mitigation measures. A copy of this report is
attached at Appendix 7.
Upon receipt of this report, Natural England were consulted and a copy of their
response is attached at Appendix 8.
The Council’s Landscape Officer has also provided additional comments following
receipt of Natural England’s response, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 9.
In summary, whilst it is surprising that the badger sett was not identified in the
previous ecological assessments submitted with the application, the presence of
badgers on site was not ruled out.
Development Committee
4
8 September 2011
Based on the most recent information received it was considered that although the
status of the badger sett has not been defined, the impacts of the proposed
development on badgers, their foraging and commuting routes and sett have been
addressed within the advice and guidelines issued by Natural England in their
Standard Advice. In addition, it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed
for the site in relation to the protection of badgers will lead to a small net benefit for
badgers as a result of the development.
It is suggested that a further condition be attached to any permission which would
require the submission of an Ecological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to be
submitted for written approval prior to the development commencing, as
recommended by the Landscape Officer.
Officers agree with this view and recommendation.
Considerations relating to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive &
Habitats Directive
Solicitors acting for the Ryburgh Village Action Group (RVAG) have asserted that the
Council has failed to comply with its duties under the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive and have asked for these matters to
be reviewed prior to reconsideration of the application by Committee.
Habitats Directive
In respect of the Habitats Directive, which The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 seek to transpose into national law, and in light of the submission
of the further reports concerning badgers, Natural England (as the appropriate nature
conservation body) were further consulted regarding the assessment of this
application in relation to, amongst other things, the Habitats Directive and The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. A copy of the response
received from Natural England dated 26 July 2011 is attached at Appendix 10.
In summary, having taken account of the mitigation measures proposed, Natural
England confirm that they are “satisfied that there would not be a likely significant
effect on the River Wensum SAC [Special Area of Conservation] as a result of this
proposal and our advise is therefore that an Appropriate Assessment is not required”.
Natural England have confirmed that their response constitutes their formal response
under Regulation 61 (3) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010.
Officers have approached this issue of any likely significant effect on a precautionary
basis and considered whether there is any probability or risk that the proposal will
have significant effects on the SAC, whether individually or in combination with any
other project. Officers agree with the conclusions of Natural England in light of all the
information that has been submitted.
Therefore, notwithstanding the contention by solicitors acting for the Ryburgh Village
Action Group (RVAG) that the Council has failed to comply with its duties under the
Habitats Directive, in light of the above comments from Natural England, as the
appropriate nature conservation body, and subject to the imposition of conditions to
ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are carried out, officers are of the view
that no appropriate assessment is required in light of all the information that now
exists and that there would not be a likely significant effect on the River Wensum
SAC as a result of this proposal and that the requirements of the Habitats Directive
and Habitats Regulations have been satisfied.
Development Committee
5
8 September 2011
The Committee is therefore asked to consider all the relevant information in the same
way and reach its own view in light of this advice. If, contrary to the views of Natural
England and the Officers, the Committee considers that there is a probability or risk
of any significant effect, then an appropriate assessment would be required.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive
In respect of EIA, solicitors acting for the Ryburgh Village Action Group (RVAG) have
suggested that the Council’s EIA screening opinion dated 23 April 2010 is defective
because it failed to appreciate the significance of the SAC and that the SAC means
that the application should be have been approached on the basis that it was for
development in a “sensitive area” for the purposes of the EIA Directive. It is also
claimed that the Council failed to assess the specifics of the environmental issues
raised in the application. Solicitors acting for the Ryburgh Village Action Group
(RVAG) have claimed that, on a proper assessment of environmental issues, this
would be EIA development.
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and
Wales) Regulations 1999 (the EIA Regulations) seek to transpose the requirements
of the EIA Directive into national law. In considering whether or not the proposed
development was EIA development for the purposes of the EIA Regulations (and so
the EIA Directive), the site’s proximity and the likely hydrological connectivity with the
River Wensum SSSI and SAC was recognised, and the Council officers treated the
proposal as being within a “sensitive area” in consequence. The Council officers
have continued to approach its assessment of this proposal on a precautionary basis.
It was also clear from the submitted information that the area of new floor space
would exceed the 1,000 square metre applicable threshold identified within EIA
Regulations.
In considering whether or not the development would be likely to have significant
effects on the environment, amongst other things, Natural England were contacted
for their advice. Their view was that, subject to pollution prevention measures being
clearly identified and addressed, an EIA would not be required.
Government guidance in Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment states
(amongst other things) that the amount of opposition or controversy to which a
development gives rise is not relevant to whether the development constitutes EIA
development, unless the substance of opponents' arguments reveals that there are
likely to be significant effects on the environment.
Whilst solicitors acting for the Ryburgh Village Action Group (RVAG) have asserted
that the Council has failed to comply with its duties under the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive, to date no clear indication has been given by them confirming
exactly what they contend to be the likely significant impacts. The solicitors have
been asked/invited to state the reasons for their conclusions and a reply is awaited.
The Officers’ view remains that the proposal is not EIA development on the basis that
there are not likely to be a significant environmental effects. This view takes full
account of the site’s location and proximity to the designated sites and all the
representations and evidence received to date. The Officers’ view is supported by
the recent response from Natural England dated 26 July 2011 in respect of the SAC
which confirms that, in their opinion, there would not be a likely significant effect on
the River Wensum SAC [Special Area of Conservation] as a result of this proposal if
the proposed mitigation measures are put in place. The Officers consider the same
conclusion is appropriate in respect of the SSSI and in respect of the environment
generally.
Development Committee
6
8 September 2011
Based on the available evidence, it is considered that the decision to date that the
proposal is not EIA Development is correct. If the Committee agree, the Council is
entitled to determine the planning application without the need for an Environmental
Statement in compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive and the EIA Regulations on the basis that the proposal is not
EIA development.
The Committee are therefore invited to review the position and to determine whether
or not it agrees with the advice of its Officers. If, contrary to the views of its officers, it
considers that the proposal is EIA Development, then an Environmental Statement
would be required before the application can be determined.
Highway Impact Considerations
Representations received suggested that the Transport Statement prepared by
Kingdom Transport Planning on behalf of Crisp Maltings is flawed and that traffic will
be significantly increased as a result of this proposal. In support of this view, Ryburgh
Village Action Group commissioned a report in March 2011 entitled “Analysis of
Transport Plan Prepared by Kingdom Transport Planning – Transport Statement
201001007 Revision A.” A copy of this report is attached at Appendix 11.
A copy of this report was not submitted to the Council for consideration until 20 May
2011. However, Norfolk County Council, as the Local Highway Authority, have been
asked to comment. A copy of the Highway Authority’s response is attached at
Appendix 12. This identifies that it was the conclusion of the Highway Authority
previously that whilst there would be an increase in private car journeys there would
also be a decrease in HGV movements which would be welcomed. The Highway
Authority point out that the Mjc report shows that there will be an increase in vehicle
movements which the Highway Authority has already accepted, but that this is
derived from private cars rather than an increase in HGVs which will actually reduce.
The Highway Authority therefore conclude that the Mjc report mirrors its own findings
and supports the conclusions it has previously reached.
On this basis it is considered that the analysis of the transport report commissioned
by Ryburgh Village Action Group does not materially change the views previously
expressed by the Highway Authority in its submission to the Committee on 20
January 2011, nor the Officers’ recommendation in favour of granting planning
permission.
Lighting
Representations received have raised concerns about the impact of lighting
associated with the proposed development, both on the receiving environment and
residential amenity. Whilst the applicants have indicated a preference for 12m high
lighting columns within their submitted documentation, during the Committee meeting
on 20 January 2011 (in response to questioning regarding lighting and the use of
motion sensors to control the lighting) the applicant’s representative explained that
the proposed lighting was a special type which emitted a low amount of infra-red
radiation and could not be triggered by a Passive Infra-Red (PIR) sensor. He
explained that a balance had to be struck between the proposed lights and those
which would work with a sensor but which were not considered to be so good by the
applicant. The applicant’s representative indicated that the proposed lights would be
timed and would only operate at only 25% brightness during the night.
Development Committee
7
8 September 2011
Reducing light pollution is an important planning consideration in the context of Core
Strategy Policy EN 13 and, if lighting is required for the lorry park, it is considered
that all efforts should be made by the applicant to secure a lighting scheme which
has the least harmful effects, both on the receiving environment and residential
amenity. As such it is recommended by Officers that a suitable lighting scheme is
secured by way of a planning condition as recommended within the attached
conditions contained at Appendix 14 and consultation on the suitability of the
submitted lighting scheme should take place with Environmental Health Officers.
Visual Amenity
Representations have raised concerns about the visual impact of the proposed
galvanised silos and have suggested that these and some of the more recent silo
additions are painted brown or another appropriate colour to reduce visual
appearance, like those on other parts of the site. Whilst Officers have not proposed a
condition requiring the two proposed silos to be painted (on the basis that other
recent additions have also not been painted and Officers therefore do not themselves
consider that such a condition is necessary), the Committee could impose such a
condition if it considers it to be necessary to require the two new silos to be painted
whatever colour it reasonably sees fit with the aim of reducing the visual impact of the
silos.
Hours of Working
Representations have raised concerns about the potential increase in the number of
vehicles entering and leaving the site as a result of this proposal, particularly during
the evening and early morning. Whilst highway impact considerations are considered
above and in the previous report, the Committee is reminded that the current use of
the site is not restricted by way of planning conditions and, as such there would be
nothing currently to prevent the Maltings from increasing output in respect of changes
in operation which did not require planning permission or any other relevant consent.
Officers are proposing that a condition be imposed limiting the output tonnage of malt
to 115,000 tonnes per year. This would place, for the first time, an upper limit on
consequent vehicle movements in and out of the site. However, it is not considered
that a further condition limiting times when vehicles can enter and leave the site is
necessary. It is understood that the company has operated voluntary agreements
limiting hours when vehicles will typically enter and leave the site. This remains, in
the opinion of Officers, the most appropriate way of providing additional voluntary
management of traffic and it is not considered that any mandatory restrictions are
justified. Whilst some residents have raised concerns that they have reported
problems to the company instead of Environmental Health, irrespective of whatever
informal arrangements are put in place by the company to manage traffic impacts, if
valid statutory nuisance complaints were to arise regarding noise impacts, these
would be investigated by Environmental Health. Whilst it is understood that noise
impacts remain of concern to some local residents, the Environmental Health Officer
has no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions, as outlined
within Appendix 14.
Drainage
Recent representations copied to the Council’s Chief Executive raised concerns
about the impact of drainage from the proposed development on conservation work
undertaken to the Upper Wensum by the Environment Agency. In this regard Norfolk
Rivers Internal Drainage Board was asked to comment and a copy of those
comments are attached at Appendix 15. Further consideration will be given to the
points raised by Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board in their response and
Committee will be updated orally in this respect at the meeting.
Development Committee
8
8 September 2011
Government/Ministerial Advice
Since the application was last considered on 20 January 2011, new ministerial advice
has been released from the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister for Decentralisation
concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March 2011, a copy of which is attached at
Appendix 13.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which the Development Committee should afford appropriate weight
when making its decision. It is a matter for the Committee to decide what weight to
give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage, it is subject to a consultation process and it may be
revised or altered in light of that consultation process. In the view of Officers,
however, the emphasis identified is a matter which does attract some weight at this
stage given that it is consistent with the previous statements of Government policy
set out above.
Summary
Some eight months have elapsed since the Committee last considered the proposed
development and, in that time, a considerable number of representations have been
received including numerous complaints and a petition calling for the application to
be referred back to Committee, together with a number of representations in favour.
Development Committee
9
8 September 2011
A further ecological assessment has been submitted by the applicant in respect of
the impact of the proposed development on badgers and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions it is concluded that the impacts of the proposed development
on badgers, their foraging and commuting routes and sett have been addressed
within the advice and guidelines issue by Natural England in their Standard Advice. In
summary it is considered that, together with the proposed mitigation for the site, there
would be a small net benefit for badgers as a result of the development.
In respect of considerations relating to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Directive & Habitats Directive and the relevant regulations transposing those
Directives into national law, Natural England have confirmed that in their opinion
there would not be a likely significant effect on the River Wensum SAC [Special Area
of Conservation] as a result of this proposal if the proposed mitigation measures are
put in place and Officers agree with this view. As such it is considered that there are
no likely significant effects on the environment arising from this proposal which
consequently require an Environmental Statement to be produced.
In respect of highway impact considerations it is considered that the analysis of the
transport plan conducted by Ryburgh Village Action Group does not contradict the
findings of the Highway Authority previously for the reasons given by the Highway
Authority’s officer in response, and it does not cause the Highway Authority to alter its
earlier views of the proposals.
Finally, new advice from the Minister for Decentralisation entitled Planning for Growth
and the publication of Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are
considered to be material considerations to which the Development Committee
should afford appropriate weight when making its decision.
On this basis, having taken account of all the new material considerations raised, it is
considered that, except insofar as additional planning conditions may be required
relating to the additional ecological assessment concerning the impact of
development on badgers, there are no new substantive material considerations which
would justify a different decision from that taken by the Development Control
Committee on 20 January 2011 and the proposed development is considered to
comply with relevant Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including a limit
on the tonnage output of malt per annum and subject to the applicant signing a
Unilateral Obligation in relation to the use of the site, as requested by the
Highway Authority.
A copy of the conditions proposed to be attached to the decision notice is included at
Appendix 14.
(Source: Geoff Lyon, Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) Ext: 6226)
Development Committee
10
8 September 2011
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
BARTON TURF - PF/11/0899 - Change of use from a mixed use of residential/A1
(retail) to residential and alterations to front elevation; Providence Place, The
Street for Mr A Cannon
- Target Date: 13 September 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19800281 HR - Proposed extension to living accommodation
Approved 21/03/1980
PF/10/0936 PF - Change of use from a mixed use of A1 (retail)/residential to
residential and alterations to front elevation
Refused 05/11/2010
Appeal Dismissed 18/03/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for a change of use from a mixed use of A1 (Retail) and
residential solely to residential use including alterations to the front elevation to
remove a shop front and infill space with brick work and windows to match the
existing attached dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control and Councillor McGoun
for the following planning reason:
Planning policy and the previous appeal decision
PARISH COUNCIL
Support - Letter attached in Appendix 16 setting out reasons for support.
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicant has submitted a supporting statement outlining the reasons for
submitting the application along with a copy of a letter of support from Barton Turf
and Irstead Parish Council, letter from North Norfolk District Council, two letters from
Humberstones National Specialist Business Estate Agents and a letter from the
applicant's accountant. Copies of this supporting information is contained in
Appendix 16.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments
Planning Policy Manager - This policy (Policy CT3) clearly has two separate parts
and if a scheme is to be approved it must comply with one of the two criteria rather
than both. The Inspector has reached a very definitive view on the alternative facilities
that are available to the extent that she comments on both the length and quality of
the road network and remarks that this alternative shop is 'at least of equivalent
quality'. Whilst you are not bound by the Inspector's decision, since she has
expressed this view in such clear terms, and this view accords with adopted Core
Strategy policy I do not see any grounds to resist the application under Policy CT3.
Development Committee
11
8 September 2011
County Council Highway Authority - 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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of change of use/planning history
2. Acceptability of external alterations
3. Highways
APPRAISAL
This application follows the refusal of 10/0936 in September 2010 for a change of use
from a mixed use of A1 (Retail) and residential to solely residential use including
alterations to front elevation. That application was refused on the following grounds:
'In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that there is alternative provision of equivalent or better quality retail premises
available in the area or that such alternative provision will be provided and made
available prior to the change of use from retail/residential to solely residential use.
Furthermore, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to
demonstrate with up to date information that there is no reasonable prospect of
retention of the important local facility at its current site nor has a viability test been
submitted which demonstrates that the use is no longer viable or that all reasonable
efforts have been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at
least 12 months.'
Consequently, the applicant appealed that decision. The appeal was dismissed by a
Planning Inspector in March 2011. A copy of the Inspector's decision is contained in
Appendix 16. That decision is a material consideration to be taken into account in
the determination of this current application.
Development Committee
12
8 September 2011
The current application is seeking permission for the same proposal, which subject to
satisfactorily demonstrating compliance with one of the two criteria of Policy CT3
would be considered acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan policy.
Policy CT3 of the Core Strategy regarding the provision and retention of local facilities
and services states that development will not be permitted unless the applicant can
satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with one of the two criteria specified in the
policy.
The first of which is that there is an alternative provision of equivalent or better quality
in the area, or will be provided and made available prior to the commencement of
redevelopment. The second of which is that it can be demonstrated that there is no
reasonable prospect of retention at its current site, and if it is a commercial operation,
that a viability test has demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all
reasonable efforts have been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for at
least 12 months. It is only necessary to demonstrate compliance with one of these
criteria in order for the development to be considered acceptable.
The applicant has commented in their supporting statement that The White House
Stores on the Irstead Road at Neatishead is an "alternative provision of equivalent or
better quality available in the area", and that it "it is positioned centrally to and within
walking distance of Barton Turf, Neatishead and Irstead".
This information was also provided by the applicant under the previous application
(10/0936) with a map showing that The White House Stores was one and a quarter
miles away from the application site. However, Officers considered that The White
House Stores was in another village and not Barton Turf and that the road network
consisted of narrow lanes with no footpaths or street lights, given its rural location. It
was not considered by Officers to be an appropriate environment to encourage
people to walk to this shop, particularly the elderly and those using wheelchairs or
pushchairs. It was not therefore considered that the proposal complied with the first
criteria of Policy CT3.
However, in the appeal decision the Inspector considers that "the populous of this
countryside area would be likely to be used to walking along the surrounding country
lanes and a walk of just over one mile would not seen excessive to reach a nearby
village shop". The Inspector goes on to say that "the appellant also made the
uncontested point that Barton Turf is spread over a large area with some properties
being closer to Neatishead. In these circumstances the village shop at Neatishead
provides alternative provision of an important local service, at least of equivalent
quality to the village shop in Barton Turf".
The Inspector therefore did not agree with the view taken by the Local Planning
Authority on this matter and has confirmed that they consider the proposal complies
with the first criteria of Policy CT3. This would normally had led to the appeal being
allowed. However, it is Officer opinion that the Inspector had misinterpreted Policy
CT3 and had considered the appeal on the basis that both criteria had to be complied
with in order for the proposal to be considered acceptable. This is despite a copy of
the policy being provided to the Inspector and the explanation given in the Local
Planning Authority's appeal statement.
Given the Inspector's views on this matter the Planning Policy Manager has been
consulted, and states that 'the Inspector has reached a very definitive view on the
alternative facilities that are available, to the extent that she comments on both the
length and quality of the road network and remarks that this alternative shop is 'at
Development Committee
13
8 September 2011
least of equivalent quality'. Whilst you are not bound by the Inspectors decision, since
she has expressed this view in such clear terms, and this view accords with adopted
Core Strategy policy I do not see any grounds to resist the application under Policy
CT3'.
Whilst it remains Officer opinion that the applicant has not been able to satisfactorily
demonstrate compliance with the second criteria of Policy CT3 which requires up to
date information that there is no reasonable prospect of retention of the important
local facility at its current site and a viability test to demonstrate that the use is no
longer viable or that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell or let the property
at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months, only one of the two criteria needs
to be met in order for a proposal to be considered acceptable an in accordance with
Development Plan policy.
With regard to the alterations proposed to the front elevation of the building Officers
have no objection in principle. It is considered that these alterations would be in
keeping with the appearance of the remainder of the property and would not have a
significant detrimental impact upon the character and quality of the area or on the
privacy and amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Details of the
windows would be required prior to their installation but this can be agreed by way of
a condition.
The Highway Authority has been consulted on the application and at the time of
writing this report their comments were awaited.
Given the view of the Inspector in the appeal decision on the previous application
(10/0936) and the comments of the Planning Policy Manager, subject to no objections
from the Highway Authority and imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered
that this proposal complies with the first criteria of Policy CT3 and would therefore be
acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated Authority to approve subject to no objections from Environmental
Health and the Highway Authority and imposition of appropriate conditions
including details of windows to be submitted and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
14
8 September 2011