OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 9 FEBRUARY 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
1.
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
October to December 2011, covering the turnround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes. Figures are also included for land charge searches.
Table 1A (Appendix 1) sets out performance in processing planning applications for
the third quarter of 2011/12.
As with the previous two quarters, four major applications were determined. 125
minor applications and 219 ‘other’ applications were also determined, these figures
not being significantly different from the previous quarter. In terms of speed of
determination, figures for minor and other determinations increased by between 2.5%
and 3% in both categories. Cumulatively for the year 2011/12 performance for minor
applications stood at just over 36.7% and for other applications at just over 51.3%,
both well below a desirable level of performance.
Table 1B indicates workload for the service and shows that slightly fewer applications
were submitted in the quarter, although formal pre-application enquiries rose slightly.
The other indicators of workload were also slightly down, but this may in part be
accounted for by the long break over the Christmas period. Over the calendar year
of 2011, some 1566 applications were received, compared with 1550 in 2010, an
increase of approximately 1%.
The quarterly figures indicate that the low level of performance in processing
applications barely improved over the quarter, in spite of efforts by staff to reduce the
backlog. It is understood that a ministerial decision on future funding arrangements
for development management is still awaited, more than 12 months after proposals
for self-financing of the service were first announced by the Government, and in spite
of a letter from the Portfolio Holder for Planning being written following Overview and
Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of the position; no reply has been received. In
the meantime, pending this decision on potential funding for the service, the situation
will need to be monitored closely.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarter showed a slight increase in the
percentage of decisions delegated to 93.68% with a cumulative figure for the year
being currently standing at 92.37%, i.e. in excess of the 90% target.
As far as appeals are concerned, three decisions were made, with two of these being
allowed. The cumulative figure for the year indicates that one-third of decisions were
allowed, a figure which is close to the national average and similar to the previous
year.
Development Committee
1
9 February 2012
In terms of land charge searches, Table 3 indicates that official searches were a little
down for the quarter and cumulatively compared with 2010/11, whilst personal
searches increased somewhat during the quarter but were some 20% down on the
year as a whole.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187- the material change of use of former Anglian
Water Sewage Works
A report seeking Committee’s reconsideration of necessary action in respect of an
Enforcement Notice relating to these premises.
Background
On 8 December 2011 the Development Committee considered a request from HFS
Enviroco to defer enforcement action in respect of the above case, which has a
compliance date of 27 January 2012. The Committee was asked by the Head of
Planning and Building Control to confirm agreement to vary the Enforcement Notice
under Section 173A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, with a
new compliance date of 30 June 2012.
Notwithstanding the request from the applicants, the Committee resolved that the
request to defer the time period for compliance with the Enforcement Notice be
refused and that in the event of non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice, the
Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to commence prosecution
proceedings. (Copies of the 8 Dec 2011 report, minutes and relevant appendices are
attached at Appendix 2).
Subsequent to that meeting the applicants set out their concerns about the impact of
the Development Committee’s decision and a meeting was set up between
representatives of HFS Enviroco, Officers of the Council and District and County
Councillors to discuss a way forward, particularly in light of the concerns about
highway safety as a result of the continued use of the Marshgate site.
Representatives of the company indicated that a piece of land had been acquired on
Cornish Way and an application (ref; PF/11/1503) had been submitted for the use of
the land for parking of heavy goods vehicles.
The applicants have indicated that they have been proactive in seeking an alternative
temporary site for their vehicles which use the Marshgate site and this is evidenced
by the lodging of the most recent planning application.
In parallel with the planning application, HFS Enviroco applied to the Vehicle and
Operator Services Agency (VOSA) for a licence for the parking of 8 vehicles and 6
trailers on the temporary site at Cornish Way. The applicants were initially given an
indication that the licence application would take 9 weeks to process from the first
week in 2012. On this basis, even if the Company were to gain planning permission
for the temporary site at Cornish Way before the enforcement notice compliance
period expired, they expressed concern that they would be acting illegally by moving
the vehicles to the new temporary site ahead of receiving the licence from VOSA and
would be unlikely to be able to move their vehicles until early March 2012.
Development Committee
2
9 February 2012
As a result of the time delay associated with the VOSA application, a letter dated 15
December 2011 was received on behalf of the applicants which requested that the
Development Committee reconsider its decision not to defer action, as taken on 8
December 2011. A copy of this letter is attached at Appendix 2.
The attention of the Development Committee was drawn to this matter under urgent
business at the meeting on 12 January 2012 when it was resolved to defer the matter
to the subsequent meeting to be accompanied by a full report.
At the time of writing this report, representatives of the Company have indicated that
the Eastern Area Traffic Commissioner has granted an ‘Interim Licence’ to park the
Enviroco vehicles (currently on the Marshgate site) at Plot 7, Cornish Way, North
Walsham. The only stipulation is that planning consent is granted by the local
authority.
In respect of the determination of application ref: PF/11/1503 for the use of the land
at Plot 7 Cornish Way for parking of heavy goods vehicles, whilst at the time of
preparation of this report the majority of consultees had raised no objections to the
proposal, the Environment Agency had raised concerns, amongst other things, about
the potential for contaminants entering the ground as a result of the proposal.
Discussions are continuing with the Environment Agency to try and resolve this
matter as quickly as possible and it is the understanding of Officers that the Local
Members for North Walsham West Ward have no objection to the matter being
determined under delegated powers (assuming the Environment Agency removes its
objection). If the Environment Agency continues to object then it is likely that the
matter will be brought before the Development Committee as an item of urgent
business, in view of the need to expedite this matter.
Assuming that the application for the temporary site for the HFS Enviroco vehicles on
Cornish Way is granted permission (under delegated powers or through Committee
resolution) so as to enable all the large HFS Enviroco vehicles to cease using the
current Marshgate site, the only remaining issue for the Committee to consider
relates to the office buildings on the Marshgate site which cannot be accommodated
on the temporary Cornish Way site owing to lack of available space. The
enforcement notice (ENF/10/0187) requires, amongst other things, cessation of the
B1 office use and removal of the portable buildings at the Marshgate site by 27
January 2012. This date has already passed and the Council would be entitled to
prosecute if the office buildings are still on site after the compliance date, or perhaps
more equitably, after this matter is considered by the Development Committee on 9
February.
Ultimately it is a matter of planning judgement for the Committee as to whether it is
considered to be in the public interest to prosecute the Company for failure to comply
with all the requirements of the enforcement notice, particularly if the only remaining
element on the site is the B1 office activities and associated low level traffic.
The applicants have indicated that they would be minded to submit a planning
application to retain the office buildings on site and again it would be a matter of
planning judgement as to whether or not this proposal would be acceptable in
planning terms.
In summary, whilst resolution of this matter has taken longer than would have been
hoped, subject to the outstanding matters being resolved in respect of the
determination of application ref: PF/11/1503, it is likely that HFS Enviroco will have
Development Committee
3
9 February 2012
an acceptable temporary location to store their HGVs whilst a permanent solution is
completed such that the use of current Marshgate by HGVs can cease, leaving only
the office based activities. Whilst the short-term future of the offices on site remains
unclear, the Committee is invited to consider the planning merits of the continued
temporary use of the offices on site ahead of the submission of any planning
application.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is asked to note the current situation associated with this case
and will be updated orally at the meeting in respect of progress on outstanding
matters before determining what further action to take.
(Source: Geoff Lyon – Team Leader Enforcement & Special Cases, ext 6226)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1492 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings with cartsheds;
Land rear of 41 Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 02 February 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090468 PO - Erection of four dwellings
Approved 27/08/2009
PF/11/1348 PF - Erection of three one and a half-storey dwellings
Withdrawn 30/11/2011
PF/11/1378 PF - Erection of detached dwelling
Withdrawn 30/11/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks full planning permission for development on Plots 3 & 4 to the rear of No 41.
The scheme as envisaged would involve the erection of two detached one and half
storey “L” shaped dwellings, each of which would have a total floor area of 146 sq
metres. The dwelling on Plot 3 would be a three bed unit of red brick under a clay
pantile roof with the front elevation, porch and rear projecting gable of flint. The
dwelling on Plot 4 would have four bedrooms and be a mix of brickwork and render to
the front elevation with the rear gable of horizontal cladding. As with Plot 3 the roof
would be of clay pantiles. The upper floor to both dwellings would be served by a mix
of dormer windows and rooflights.
Development Committee
4
9 February 2012
Access to the site off Sculthorpe Road would be via a new driveway between Nos. 37
and 39, with Plot 3 having a single cart shed type garage, of horizontal cladding
under a clay pantile roof, together with a parking and turning area to its frontage. The
dwelling on Plot 4 would have a similar cart shed garage for two vehicles plus
parking and turning area.
In addition the driveway would provide access for parking to the rear of No. 39
Sculthorpe Road.
Amended plans have been received which show internal changes to the layout of the
dwellings and also the turning facilities for Emergency Service vehicles. The
applicant has provided written confirmation that cladding to the exterior would be of
fibre cement and also that foul sewage disposal would be via the mains sewer rather
than Klargesters to each property as originally proposed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds that the development is not within the LDF
Site Allocation boundary, the area had been considered for inclusion in the review of
the Conservation Area and the dwellings would be at variance with the outline
permission.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. This application should be considered as part of the wider proposed development
to which outline permission 09/0468 relates and which refers to the size of the
individual dwellings within the development, which were smaller than now being
proposed.
2. As originally proposed the dwelling to Plot 2 was to be a 2 bedroom dwelling of
less than 70sq m in order to conform to Core Strategy Policy.
3. The dwellings to the other plots were also specified at the outline stage in terms
of their footprint and number of bedrooms.
4. The footprint of both dwellings are larger than originally proposed and in the case
of Plot 4 significantly so and is now four beds and not three.
5. The garages identified in the outline have been converted to accommodation and
separate garages are now proposed.
6. Dwellings are larger than proposed at outline stage, resulting in increased
pressure on all services, including waste water and sewage disposal.
7. Possible flooding and leakage from septic tanks/Klargesters.
8. The inclusion of septic tanks is against the advice of the Environment Agency.
9. Surface water it proposed to be disposed of via soakaways which will increase
problems of drainage in the area.
10. It is difficult to see how sufficient car parking can be accommodated within the
site and there is no identifiable turning area for emergency vehicles which will be
exacerbated within the context of the full development.
11. Increased traffic movement will increase congestion in the vicinity of the site.
12. There are already problems of traffic parking on Sculthorpe Road, the paths are
too narrow and the road is used as a rat run for cars and HGVs.
13. There have been reports of Bats in the area, and the bat survey is inadequate.
14. Why is there a temporary caravan shown on the site.
15. Is there to be a future access to the rear of No.43 Sculthorpe Road.
16. Concerns regarding construction traffic.
Development Committee
5
9 February 2012
Two letters of support have been received which make the following comments
(summarised):
1. As a neighbour directly affected by the proposal I consider the designs are of a
high standard in respect of appearance, build quality and nature of
accommodation offered.
2. The development will add to the quality of the site, improve the streetscape and
will enhance this area of Sculthorpe Road.
3. The town is in desperate need of good quality developments like this.
4. There are no logical grounds to object.
5. The dwellings are sympathetically designed for the area and the developer is
keen to preserve the natural surroundings and add to them.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control – Whilst originally raising concerns regarding the need for turning
facilities for emergency vehicles, the fire resistance of the timber cladding to the
external walls and access issues for wheelchairs, have confirmed that with the
exception of the turning facilities, which are the subject of further discussions, there
are no further objections.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions
Environment Agency – (Original comments) - Object to the use of septic tanks for
foul effluent disposal, as no justification has been provided for this method of foul
sewage disposal when a mains sewer is available.
In respect of amended drainage arrangements, no objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
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).
Development Committee
6
9 February 2012
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. Suitability of design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Impact on trees within the site.
5. Drainage.
6. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for the Committee to
carry out a site visit.
The principle of development has previously been established with the granting of
outline planning permission 20090468, for four dwellings to the rear of Nos.37, 39
and 41 Sculthorpe Road, when all matters were reserved for later consideration. As
the current application relates solely to two of the plots, for which full details have
been submitted, it is not considered that Core Strategy Policy HO1 Dwelling Mix and
Type, is relevant to the current application. This policy relates to schemes of three or
four dwellings, and requires that at least one dwelling comprises an internal floor
space of not more than 70 sq metres and has two bedrooms or fewer.
The current application therefore needs to be considered against Core Strategy
Policies EN4, CT5 and CT6. Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to
a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Development proposals will be
expected to have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide in terms of their design,
scale and massing and relate sympathetically to the surrounding area, incorporate
sustainable construction principles and make efficient use of land while respecting
the density, character, landscape and biodiversity of the surrounding area. In addition
proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity
of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential
amenity. Policies CT 5 and CT6 require that the proposal is capable of being served
by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character
of the locality and that there is adequate vehicle parking facilities to serve the needs
of the development in accordance with the Council's parking standards.
This part of Fakenham consists of an eclectic mix of dwellings of different
architectural periods, styles and scale, with Nos. 35 & 37 Sculthorpe Road being two
and half storey dwellings dating from the late Georgian period whilst Nos. 39 & 41
are more modest two storey dwellings. Similarly, further to the west are bungalows
whilst to the north side of Sculthorpe Road is a mix of bungalows and two storey
dwellings. In Sandy Lane to the west, there is a mix of two storey dwellings dating
from the mid 20th Century and to the south in Hayes Lane 19th Century cottages. It
is therefore considered, given the enclosed nature of the site, that the dwellings as
proposed, which would have an eaves height of 4 metres and an overall ridge height
of 7.5 metres, would be compatible with the area in terms of their scale, massing and
overall appearance. The choice of a traditional facing red facing brick, clay pantiles
and a mix of flint and render would also be appropriate.
It is also considered that although part of the rear garden area of Plot 3 would be
reduced in length due to the laurel hedging to the south, which is protected as part of
the Tree Preservation Order, each property would have adequate rear gardens which
would range in length from 16 to 20 metres.
Development Committee
7
9 February 2012
In terms of the relationship with neighbouring properties, the nearest dwellings would
be Nos. 39 and 41 Sculthorpe Road, the rear boundaries of which would be 16
metres from the proposed dwelling, whilst the separation distance between the
properties would be in the region of 42 metres. Given the separation distances
involved, together with the fact that it is intended that the cart shed style garages
would be built close to the boundary, which consists of a 2m high close boarded
fence, it is not considered that there would be any significant amenity issues.
Similarly, given the separation distances involved, planting within the site and
orientation of the proposed dwellings it not considered that there would loss of
amenities to properties in Sandy Lane or Hayes Lane, whilst views towards Nos.35
and 37 Sculthorpe Road would be so oblique as not to be an issue.
As far as the impact of the development on trees within the site is concerned, those
trees which are indicated to be retained are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order
and an Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted which details tree
protection measures during the course of construction. In respect of other planting
within the site the Council has already granted consent for the removal of a conifer,
some fruit trees and laurel. In addition it is considered that the measures identified in
the Arboricultural Impact Assessment are appropriate to ensure the protection of the
remaining trees.
In terms of drainage arrangements, the applicants have confirmed that foul sewage
disposal would be via the mains sewer rather than Klargesters to each property as
originally proposed; surface water would go to soakaways. This arrangement also
satisfies the requirement of the Council’s Building Control Section and the
Environment Agency.
As far as the access is concerned, the Highway Authority has indicated that subject
to the introduction of the visibility splays to either side of the access onto Sculthorpe
Road, as indicated on the submitted drawing, it has no objection to the proposal. In
respect of the car parking and turning areas these would comply with the parking
standards contained in the Core Strategy.
In conclusion, it is considered that the layout, design and appearance of the
development are acceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the amenities
of neighbouring properties. Furthermore the position of the dwellings and access
driveway would not adversely affect protected trees on the site whilst the access and
parking arrangement are acceptable. As such therefore the scheme would accord
with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the
issue concerning turning facilities for emergency vehicles and the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
4.
SCOTTOW - PF/11/1426 - Construction of biomass (renewable energy) facility;
Land at Oak Grove, Scottow Road for Oak Grove Renewables
Major Development
- Target Date: 23 February 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
8
9 February 2012
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740026 MF - 33/11 KV Overhead lines
Approved 21/08/1974
THE APPLICATION
Comprises the construction of a biomass fuelled renewable energy facility of up to
2MW capacity on a 3 hectare site approximately 1km south of Swanton Abbott.
The proposal would involve "break crops" such as maize, grass silage, sugar beet,
triticale, ryegrass and fodder beet grown on surrounding fields being used to feed an
anaerobic digester to create biogas. The proposed facility would convert
approximately 33,000 tonnes of locally sourced biomass into biogas, which would be
used to produce renewable electricity, which would be fed back into the electricity
grid via adjacent power lines. In addition, approximately 24,000 tonnes of organic bio
fertiliser would be produced from the digestion process, which would be returned to
local farms as a replacement for artificial fertilisers.
The buildings and infrastructure to be constructed would comprise plant and
structures for the storage of feedstock material and bio-fertiliser, a biogas digester,
biogas holder, leachate storage tank, biogas engine and ancillary structures and
buildings for the renewable energy process and site management.
The proposed facility would consist primarily of a silage clamp of earth bund design
covering approximately 6,000 sq.m of land. This would be accompanied by three
main tanks - a fermentation tank with an external diameter of 23m and a maximum
height of approximately 9.6m and two liquid digestate storage tanks, one with an
external diameter of 28m and a maximum height of approximately 12.8m and the
other with an external diameter of 33.8m and a maximum height of approximately
15.4m.
Other structures of note include a Combined Heat and Power unit with gas engine,
which would have a height of approximately 14m to the top of the exhaust stack.
Access is proposed to be via a newly formed access/access road to Scottow Road,
immediately to the south-east of the site.
A phase 1 Habitat Survey, an Arboricultural Method Statement, a Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment, Transport Assessment and noise and air pollution reports
have been submitted with the application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Ivory having regard to the following planning issues:
Traffic, visual impact, noise and potential smell.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments awaited
REPRESENTATIONS
16 representations have been received to date, 15 objecting and 1 commenting.
Development Committee
9
9 February 2012
Summary of objections:
1. This is an inappropriate location;
2. The proposal would impact upon residential amenity;
3. The proposal will have a significant visual impact;
4. The countryside should be protected for its own sake;
5. The proposal will adversely impact upon biodiversity and geology;
6. There are concerns regarding the proposed design and landscaping;
7. The proposal should be sited on brownfield land - there is a redundant airbase
nearby which should be used instead;
8. A sequential approach to site selection should be applied;
9. The scale, mass and height of proposed buildings will be out of keeping with the
character and local distinctiveness of the area;
10. Improved landscaping mitigation is required in order to be compatible with the
landscape character of the area;
11. Tree belts along the eastern and western boundaries are required;
12. The proposed bund introduces an alien feature in the landscape;
13. A woodland corridor should be created linking Oak Grove to the woodland tree
belt to the north;
14. The proposal introduces structures into a countryside area which have an
industrial scale and character;
15. The proposal would introduce slow moving vehicles onto a stretch of road where
the 85th percentile speed is 64.7mph - this would be detrimental to highway
safety;
16. Speed reduction measures are required;
17. A routing agreement is required to limit associated vehicles from using unsuitable
surrounding roads, particularly Scottow Row;
18. The proposal does not allow for public use of historic paths from Scottow Row to
Workhouse Corner;
19. The noise report fails to consider noise from loading and unloading of vehicles,
which could be undertaken between 7am and 7pm 7 days a week;
20. Measurement of existing noise levels appears to have been limited;
21. If minded to approve, conditions should be imposed setting maximum noise
levels;
22. Scottow Row is currently a tranquil rural area with low background noise;
23. No assessment has been carried out on impact of the proposal on food
production;
24. No assessment has been carried out as to the carbon footprint/sustainability of
the proposal;
25. There will be an increase in HGV movements around the site as a result of this
proposal;
26. Concern about emissions from the plant and associated impacts;
27. There is a County Wildlife site nearby;
28. The proposal will alter the character of the landscape;
29. Concerned about impact on local wildlife;
30. Concerned about impact on air quality, smell, impact of noise etc;
31. There are more suitable sites for the proposal (former RAF Coltishall base);
32. The area currently has relatively dark skies and concern about the adverse
impact from light pollution associated with this proposal;
33. Concerned about potential adverse impact from run-off and risk to water quality
of the area;
34. Increase in traffic on unsuitable roads will increase verge erosion;
35. Use of inappropriate roads will increase risk of accidents as roads are not wide
enough for two vehicles to pass;
36. The growing of maize crops to support the facility will have a detrimental effect on
bees and their important role in sustaining the ecosystem;
Development Committee
10
9 February 2012
37. We need food before electricity and productive land should not be wasted;
38. A routing agreement should prevent the use of roads around Scottow Row, the
Fairstead in Scottow and Aylsham Road in Swanton Abbott;
39. Concerned about the safety of storing gas on the site;
40. Landscaping will take many years to mature to have the necessary screening
effect;
Summary of Comment:
1. Would it not make more sense to use the former RAF Coltishall site for the
proposed development rather than destroying perfectly good greenfield land;
2. Concerned about the ethics of energy crops when global population is rising and
land is needed for food production.
CONSULTATIONS
Broadland District Council - No objection or comment
Buxton with Lammas Parish Council - Objection - The Council supports the
construction of a Biomass Facility but recommend that it should be sited on a
brownfield site such as the old RAF Coltishall.
Swanton Abbott Parish Council - No objection subject to conditions - resolved not to
object to this application but requests a Traffic Management Scheme with a preferred
route.
Tunstead Parish Council - No objection subject to conditions - resolved not to object,
but have concerns about air pollution.
Westwick Parish Meeting - No objection or comment
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions (See full copy at
Appendix 3).
Environment Agency - Originally objected to the scheme in respect of the submitted
flood risk assessment. Following receipt of amended flood risk assessment, raised
no objection subject to conditions (See full copy at Appendix 3).
Natural England - This proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected
sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is
the proposal EIA development.
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - No objection subject to
conditions.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - No objection subject to conditions - has no objection to this
application with regard to impacts on County Wildlife Sites. Recommend inclusion of
conditions to ensure that biodiversity enhancements are put in place as set out in the
Phase I Habitat Survey. Also recommend a condition to ensure that there is no
lighting of woodland edges in order to minimise impacts on foraging bats.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The development site
is located in a good quality landscape yet the development will result in a permanent
change to the character of the site. However integral landscape features will be
retained and the visual impact of the development is minor and limited to users of the
local road network. Impacts of the development can be reduced by utilising a
suitable colour scheme for the structures and through the implementation of a
Development Committee
11
9 February 2012
suitable landscape mitigation package. Further negotiation is still required on the
landscape mitigation package although indicative proposals are consistent with the
approach required. Integration of the suggested ecological enhancements and the
landscape mitigation package will also improve the development for both landscape
character and biodiversity in line with Development Plan policies. The size and
industrial nature of the development and the proposed location within countryside
has been carefully considered taking into consideration good practice guidelines,
character assessment, ecological assessment and policies EN2 and EN9 of the Core
Strategy. Subject to further negotiation on an improved landscape mitigation
package and conditions to protect the biodiversity and natural features of the site and
prior approval of colour schemes for the structures, it is concluded that on balance
the development would be in accordance with policies EN2 and EN9 of the Core
Strategy, therefore no objection is raised. (See full copy at Appendix 3).
Environmental Protection Team - No objection subject to conditions - (See full copy
at Appendix 3).
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to no adverse comments from
Conservation, Design and Landscape and Environmental Protection.
Historic Environment Service - No objection subject to condition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy 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 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Development Committee
12
9 February 2012
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
Principle of Development
Landscape Impact
Biodiversity
Residential Amenity (including Noise and Air Quality)
Light Pollution
Highway Safety
Flood Risk
Archaeology
Renewable Energy
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The site is located in the Countryside policy area where Policy SS 2 permits
proposals requiring a rural location, including proposals for renewable energy
projects, subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
A number of representations have suggested that alternative "brownfield" sites
should be considered to accommodate the proposal, such as the nearby former RAF
Coltishall base. There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a
sequential approach to site selection and therefore the key factors influencing
location choice for the type of development proposed include, amongst other things,
availability of land to accommodate the development, availability of feedstock to
power the plant and availability of and distance from electrical grid connection. The
principle of the proposed development in this location is considered acceptable
subject to compliance with relevant Government advice and other Core Strategy
policies.
Government advice set out in Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy
(PPS 22) states, amongst other things that "Increased development of renewable
energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government's commitments
on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates
renewable energy developments can contribute to all four elements of the
Government's sustainable development strategy:
- social progress which recognises the needs of everyone - by contributing to the
nation's energy needs, ensuring all homes are adequately and affordably heated;
and providing new sources of energy in remote areas;
- effective protection of the environment - by reductions in emissions of greenhouse
gases and thereby reducing the potential for the environment to be affected by
climate change;
- prudent use of natural resources - by reducing the nation's reliance on everdiminishing supplies of fossil fuels; and,
- maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment through the creation of jobs directly related to renewable energy developments, but
also in the development of new technologies. In rural areas, renewable energy
projects have the potential to play an increasingly important role in the diversification
of rural economies".
Development Committee
13
9 February 2012
PPS 22 also goes on to state: "The wider environmental and economic benefits of all
proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material
considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether
proposals should be granted planning permission".
With particular reference to Biomass Projects and Energy Crops, PPS 22 states: "For
biomass projects, the need to transport crops to the energy production plant does
have the potential to lead to increases in traffic. Local planning authorities should
make sure that the effects of such increases are minimised by ensuring that
generation plants are located in as close a proximity as possible to the sources of
fuel that have been identified. But in determining planning applications, planning
authorities should recognise that there are other considerations (such as connections
to the Grid and the potential to use heat generated from the project) which may
influence the most suitable locations for such projects."
Adopted Core Strategy Policy EN 7 specifically considers renewable energy
proposals and states as follows:
Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on:
•
•
•
the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not
be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are
not compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures
and meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area.
Landscape Impact
The structures required for the development are of a considerable scale and
industrial in nature. Therefore successful integration into the rural setting is a factor
which needs to be properly addressed. The structures would be constructed in a
plain, grey concrete finish and the silage clamps will be a concrete lined earth bund
design with tapering ends. Some landscaping and mitigation planting is proposed,
which includes an earth bund, new hedgerow planting on the northern boundary and
adjacent to the new access track and some native shrub and tree planting to the west
of the bund. Included with the application is a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, an
Arboricultural Method Statement and a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
Development Committee
14
9 February 2012
The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) is a thorough document which
has been prepared in accordance with recommended good practice guidelines.
The LVIA concludes that the landscape surrounding the development site is an area
of ‘good quality landscape’, with variety in farmland cover, reasonable distribution of
semi-natural vegetation, trees and shrub cover, and that the overall view of the area
is ‘pleasant’. It is suggested that there is a strong landscape structure to the area
with a maturity of landscape and stature trees and woodland (with heights up to 25m,
taller than any of the proposed structures).
The LVIA suggests that the development site, currently an arable field, is relatively
self-contained within the landscape, enclosed and visually isolated from the wider
landscape, aided by the belts of tree cover which provide screening for longerdistance views. The main visual receptors are acknowledged as car-users and other
vehicles passing through the area which have a relatively low sensitivity. The LVIA
acknowledges that the proposed development would result in a permanent change to
the character of the site, but suggests that the retention of the majority of the existing
mature tree belts and field boundaries would provide a landscape structure for the
development and aid visual screening.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) has indicated that
consideration must be given as to whether the style and appearance of the structures
is suitable in the rural, agricultural setting. The applicant states that consideration
has been given to the North Norfolk Design Guide and attempts have been made to
make the structures ‘interesting whilst acknowledging their utilitarianism’, but it is not
clear how this is realised in the design of the structures. It is stated that the
structures will have a concrete, matt grey finish to appear recessive in the landscape
and although grey is a recessive colour, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager is concerned that, in certain situations, it can appear in stark contrast when
seen against a darker background, for example a belt of trees or woodland.
Furthermore, a single colour finish to the structures would help accentuate their size
and massing and the grey emphasises the industrial nature of the buildings. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that getting the right finish
to the structures is difficult as they would be seen against a back drop of both
woodland and sky depending on the direction viewed.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that a darker colour
finish to at least the side walls of the tanks would be more appropriate, for example a
dark olive green or van dyke brown. It is also suggested that a darker grey to the
dome of the two fermentation and post digester tanks would also aid integration into
the landscape. Should planning approval be given, a condition is recommended to
require prior approval of the colour and material finishes to all the proposed
structures.
Although the site is relatively well enclosed, it is considered that there are still places
where views of the site, and therefore structures within, would be visible from public
vantage points. These are notably from the roads at Scottow Row to the west/northwest of the site, from the junction of Scottow Row and Scottow Road, and from the
east on Scottow Road (albeit at intervening intervals where the roadside hedgerow is
missing). There are no public rights of way on or adjacent to the site. Although the
impact is considered to be minor the LVIA has suggested a series of landscape
mitigation measures which aim not simply to screen the development but also to
integrate it into the landscape. These measures include protecting the existing trees
and hedgerows during construction, reinforcing the existing hedgerows by planting
Development Committee
15
9 February 2012
up the gaps, hedgerow creation on the northern boundary and alongside the new
access track, and new tree planting along the western side of the site (by the
proposed bund).
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the proposed
landscaping and mitigation planting in the LVIA failed to mitigate sufficiently the
visual impact of the development on the landscape, particularly in terms of views
from the west. The proposed tree planting area adjacent to the bund, illustrated on
the submitted plans and LVIA document, would be too narrow to be an effective
landscaping tool. As a result of these concerns and further consultation with the
applicants, additional landscaping mitigation has been proposed. This includes
additional tree and shrub planting on the bund resulting in a 16m wide planting belt
on the western boundary and a 12m tree planting belt on the northern boundary.
The aim of the landscaping mitigation package is to reduce the visual impact of the
development yet maintain the integrity of the landscape character. The landscape
surrounding the site is punctuated by woodland and belts of trees of varying
character and species.
Therefore it is arguable that the landscape can
accommodate significant tree planting without having detriment to its character.
However, a balance has to be struck between suitable screening in terms of the
development without introducing artificial features or planting. The Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager considers that the suggested improvements to the
landscape mitigation package are a worthwhile enhancement to the development
and, over time, would provide effective integration of the structures into the
landscape without introducing an incongruous feature into the landscape. However,
further improvements to the landscaping mitigation package are desirable, for
example by re-instating the hedgerow along the Scottow Road field boundary,
introducing some tree planting at the northern end of the access road and varying the
size and age of the tree planting to provide a varied structure and immediate impact
to the planting. The applicant has been made aware of these views and has agreed
to further landscape mitigation. The Committee will be updated to confirm the extent
of the further landscape mitigation improvements that have been negotiated.
Notwithstanding the benefit that further improvements would bring, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager considers that, on balance, the current improved
landscaping scheme mitigates the impact of the development on the landscape and
would eventually integrate the proposals into the landscape without detriment to its
character, such that the proposal would be broadly compliant with relevant
Development Plan policies.
Impact on biodiversity
A Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Badger Survey were submitted with the application.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the surveys were
conducted according to approved methodologies for ecological surveys and the
conclusions of the reports appear sound. The surveys concluded that the site had
generally low ecological value consistent with an intensively managed arable field.
There were some small habitats of note surrounding the site, notably small areas of
rough grassland, hedgerow trees and the woodland to the south. The proximity of
the County Wildlife Site to the north was identified, but it was not considered that the
development would have any affect on the ecological integrity of the site. No
protected species were identified within the site and the badger survey revealed no
signs of badger on the site or within 30m of the site. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey
concluded that if the development could be contained within the footprint of the
arable field (save for the removal of the section of hedgerow for the access road)
then there would be minimal disturbance to local wildlife. The Conservation, Design
Development Committee
16
9 February 2012
and Landscape Manager recommends that hedgerow removal be undertaken outside
the bird nesting season or under ecological supervision, and should be made a
condition of planning if the Committee are minded to approve the application.
A number of enhancement recommendations were included in the surveys, which
included the erection of bird and bat boxes in Oak Grove, planting of native and
wildlife attracting trees and shrubs, and re-planting of any gaps in the hedgerows
influencing the site and local ecology. Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy states that all
development proposals should maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement
and connection of natural habitats therefore the recommendations of the report
should be included as part of the application. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers that the ‘gapping up’ of the hedgerows with a mix of
native species, particularly the hedgerow noted as Target Note 9 on the Phase 1
Habitat Survey, would have an enormous benefit for wildlife and would act as an
ecological corridor between the proposed mitigation planting and the woodlands to
the north and south of the site. However, the proposed landscape mitigation
package needs to make more reference to the enhancement recommendations,
particularly the species mix for restocking the hedgerows, made in the ecological
reports.
Residential Amenity (including Noise and Air Quality)
In respect of impact on residential amenity, the nearest properties to the site are
Scottow Hall (approximately 400m to the south), Workhouse Corner (approximately
400m to the northeast), Scottow Row (approximately 550m north) and Grange Farm
Cottages (approximately 800m to the west). To the north and south of the site the
development would be screened by existing mature and semi-mature woodland
cover and this would significantly limit the visual impact on surrounding residential
properties, such that the scheme could not be considered to have a significant
overbearing or overshadowing impact on any nearby property.
A number of representations have raised concerns about the potential impact of
noise, impact on air quality and the impact of odour as a result of the proposal.
Reports have been submitted assessing the potential impacts of noise and air
pollution, which the Council's Environmental Protection Team have considered in
detail (See Appendix 3).
Noise
The Environmental Protection Team conclude that the noise levels that are predicted
to be experienced at the representative locations would be significantly below the
measured background noise level. The noise assessment was completed using BS
4142:1997 which is the standard method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed
residential and industrial areas. The methodology is designed to assess the
likelihood of complaints from residential properties as a result from industrial noise. It
uses a baseline of the existing background noise levels. Whilst the operation would
run for 24 hours a day, deliveries to and from the site would only take place between
07:00 and 19:00, with the exception of urgent maintenance requirements.
Environmental Health have assessed the noise report and consider the methodology
to be robust. The conclusions reached, indicate noise levels should not cause
disturbance to residential properties and these are supported by the data. Should
complaints occur then Environmental Health would assess the complaints through
the Statutory Nuisance process laid down under the Environmental Protection Act
1990.
Air Pollution
Development Committee
17
9 February 2012
Having reviewed the Air Quality Assessment, Environmental Health support the
methodology used. The assessment compared the emissions from the engine to the
Ambient Air Quality Limit Values for the pollutants to be emitted. The data showed
that there are not expected to be any health risks associated with emission from this
site.
The Local Authority is expected to monitor developments and assess the likely
cumulative impact of multiple sources (eg the development combined with local traffic
and other sources). Should complaints regarding air quality be raised then these
would be assessed by Environmental Health through its air quality assessment
process.
An additional concern has been raised in representations regarding the potential for
acid rain as a result of the proposal. Environmental Protection have commented that
acid rain results from the transformation of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
into dry or moist secondary pollutants - sulphuric acid (H2SO4), ammonium nitrate
(NH4NO3) and nitric acid (HNO3). The transformation of SO2 and NOx to acidic
particles and vapours occurs as these pollutants are transported in the atmosphere
over distances of hundreds to thousands of kilometres. Therefore this application
does not pose any significant risk.
Having considered the available evidence, it is not considered that the proposed
development would give rise significant adverse impacts on residential amenity.
Light Pollution
In respect of concerns about light pollution, the applicants are not proposing to erect
external lighting, except for a small security (pedestrian) light at the doors to the site
office and control building. The Environmental Protection Team has raised no
objection to this limited lighting and, in any event, were the Committee minded to
approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent further
external lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
Highway Safety
A Transport Assessment has been submitted setting out the likely trip numbers
associated with the proposed development and seeking to assess the likely impact
on the existing highway network. The report indicates that the 33,000 tonnes of
biomass required to power the plant will be sourced from 12,000 acres
(approximately 5,000 ha) of surrounding farm land. The actual amount of land
required each year to produce the biomass crop is likely to be 1,650 acres
(approximately 700 ha) (based on a crop yield of 20 tonnes per acre) which is about
14% of the total farm land being used to produce biomass crop.
In respect of trips associated with the delivery of the feedstock to the application site,
the Transport Assessment indicates that this would be by tractor and trailer, likely to
be in the region of 15 tonne loads (although for the purpose of the assessment the
applicant has assumed 13 tonne trailers would be used). Simply dividing the 33,000
tonnes of feedstock required to power the plant by 13 tonne loads gives a vehicle trip
number of 2,538 during the harvesting period. The applicant has suggested a two
month harvesting period and, depending on the number of working hours in the day
(10, 12 or 16) the average number of vehicle trips per hour would be in the region of
3-4, which typically equates to 40-48 vehicle movements per day over the period.
In respect of trips associated with the output of bio fertiliser (solid and liquid) the
applicants have indicated that 24,000 tonnes would be produced, of which 14,000
Development Committee
18
9 February 2012
tonnes would be removed by vehicle annually, the remaining 10,000 tonnes being
distributed via an existing irrigation network around the site. The applicants have
indicated that collection of bio fertiliser would occur outside the harvest time. 14,000
tonnes of bio fertiliser divided by 13 tonne loads equates to some 1,077 trips annually
and 21 trips per week (approximately 4 trips per day assuming a 5-day working
week.
The applicants have indicated that staff trips associated with the proposal would be
1-2 per day, given that 1-2 members of staff would be based on-site and would be
likely to remain on-site throughout the day.
In summary, the proposal would create approximately 2,538 vehicle movements in
relation to the delivery of feedstock to the site (over a two month harvesting period),
1,077 vehicle movements in relation to the removal of bio fertiliser (over a 12-month
period) and approximately 520 staff vehicle movements each year based on a five
day working week. The applicants indicate that the proposed development would, in
the worst case, result in a 3.2% increase in traffic using the surrounding road network
over a 10 hour working day.
The Highway Authority has indicated that the location of the stated ‘input’ sites
cannot be relied upon to remain the same in perpetuity; however, the location of
these sites is expected to be controlled by economic and agricultural constraints
which, to some extent, should restrict distances travelled on the highway network in
servicing the site.
Having considered the information submitted in the transport assessment, the
Highway Authority raises no objection to the granting of permission subject to the
imposition of planning conditions, including the requirement for appropriate visibility
splays and wheel cleaning facilities (for the construction period).
In respect of a routing agreement to identify which roads cannot be used by vehicles
associated with the proposed development, the Highway Authority has indicated that
it does not believe it practicable or reasonable to require a routing agreement. The
reasons for this view are that the site is well located in highway terms being located
on Scottow Road (C245 HGV Access Route) and close to the North Walsham Road
(B1150 Main Distributor Route). Whilst it is accepted that some traffic would travel to
the site via other routes it is likely that this traffic would already be on the
highway network as agricultural traffic resulting from normal crop production
associated with surrounding fields.
Notwithstanding the views of the Highway Authority and in response to local
concerns, the applicant has agreed to a routing agreement to prevent vehicles using
the adjacent Scottow Row road (which is signposted as being unsuitable for HGVs)
and also part of The Fairstead in Scottow. The applicant has submitted a unilateral
undertaking to this effect. Some local residents have also asked for Aylsham Road in
Swanton Abbott (at the Jolly Farmers public house) also to be excluded from
associated traffic. The applicant has been made aware of this request and the
Committee will be updated orally on this issue. Clearly it is a matter of judgement for
the Committee as to whether or not there are sound planning grounds to require a
routing agreement, and if so to ensure that it is limited to those roads considered
absolutely necessary to make the development acceptable.
In summary, it is considered that the highway impacts associated with the proposed
development would be acceptable without the need for a routing agreement and the
proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Development Committee
19
9 February 2012
Flood Risk
The proposed development would result in a large area of the site being hard
surfaced and this would affect the rate at which water would drain through the site,
particularly in high rainfall events. Given that the application site is over 1 hectare in
area, the applicant was required to submit a flood risk assessment, which has been
considered by the Environment Agency. The applicant proposes, amongst other
things, to construct an infiltration pond, which would accommodate surface water in a
storm event before it infiltrates into the ground below.
Whilst the Environment Agency had raised some concerns about the initially
submitted Flood Risk Assessment and the size of the infiltration pond required,
following amendments to the report, the Environment Agency has raised no further
objection subject to the imposition of a condition.
Archaeology
The results of a phased programme of archaeological evaluation (geophysical survey
and trial trenching) carried out at the proposed development site have been
submitted to Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service. The evaluation
identified two distinct phases of activity at the site; an undated, possibly prehistoric or
Roman, field system and post medieval field boundaries. A sparse scatter of
medieval pottery may also indicate some activity of this period at or close to the site.
It is also likely that additional archaeological features not identified during the
evaluation phases will also be present at the site.
If planning permission is granted, Historic Environment Service have asked that this
be subject to a condition for a programme of archaeological work in accordance with
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning and the Historic Environment (2010), Policy
HE7.7. In this case the programme of mitigatory work would comprise an
archaeological excavation (strip, map and sample) in accordance with a brief issued
by that Service.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would accord with Policy EN 8.
Renewable Energy
Policy EN 7 requires that large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area. The
applicants have commented as to how the proposal would comply with this element
of Policy EN 7. In respect of economic benefits, the applicants have referred to their
submitted Economic Supporting Statement (see Appendix 3). In respect of
environmental benefits the applicants consider these to be principally two-fold: those
accruing from the sustainable production of renewable energy/reduction in CO2
emissions; and those from the production and application of digestate, which would
provide an organic fertiliser to the land and would reduce the amount of artificial
chemical fertilisers required. In addition, the planting and landscaping proposed
would also create new and improved habitat and biodiversity.
On balance, subject to the imposition of conditions it is considered that the proposal
would comply with these further requirements of Policy EN 7.
Summary
Whilst the installation of an anaerobic digestion plant would, amongst other things,
have some visual impact on the surrounding landscape and would result in a slight
increase in traffic on the local network, it is considered that the proposal would not
Development Committee
20
9 February 2012
have a significant impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
policies.
In respect of highway considerations, whilst not considered necessary by the
Highway Authority to make the scheme acceptable, the applicant has offered to
submit a routing agreement by way of Unilateral Undertaking to prevent vehicles
associated with the proposal from using Scottow Row road. The applicant is also
considering inclusion of other roads within the routing agreement and the Committee
will be updated further in this respect.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to further clarification on the routing
agreement proposal, agreement on further landscaping mitigation proposals
and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/11/1446 - Erection of outbuilding; Tollbar, Thwaite
Common, Erpingham for Mr A Moore
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/11/1302 - Conversion of outbuilding to annexe and
installation of cladding to entrance porch and rear extension; The Cottage, The
Street, Thurgarton for Mr M Watts
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/11/1309 - Installation of stand alone photovoltaic array; Villa
Farm House, Villa Farm, The Street, Thurgarton for Mrs North
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - LA/11/1346 - Installation of replacement window; Thurgarton
Lodge, School Road, Thurgarton for Mr R Gilkes
(Listed Building Alterations)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/1181 - Erection of one and a half storey/single-storey side
extension and one and a half storey rear extension; Spring Cottage, Park Road
for Sutherland Homes
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/1425 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Rodavia,
Church Road for Mr & Mrs Wilson
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - LA/11/1440 - Installation of two roof lights; Park Wall Farm, Park
Road for Mr & Mrs A Colman
(Listed Building Alterations)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/1495 - Erection of one and half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent Walnut Cottage, The Street for Mr & Mrs R Bacon
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
21
9 February 2012
BACTON - PF/11/1366 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions; 10 Eden Close
for Mr & Mrs Killington
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/11/1457 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Grange Farm, Off
Pollard Street for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/11/1285 - Erection of single-storey rear annexe extension;
Heron Wyke, Berry Hall Road for Mr Davidson
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - LA/11/1497 - Replacement of existing windows in south and
west elevations; Abbey Farmhouse, Cromer Road for Mr Pegg
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1358 - Erection of two-storey side extension, single-storey
rear extension, side bay extension and detached garage; The Birches, 2
Coronation Lane for Mr & Mrs Alexander
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/1389 - Installation of doors and guttering to tithe barn; The
Old Rectory, 6 Wiveton Road for Mr Smedley
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1409 - Installation of timber cladding to pump house and
installation of doors to tithe barn; The Old Rectory, 6 Wiveton Road for Mr
Smedley
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1454 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
10/1440 to permit change of materials; South View, 59 New Road for Novus
Homes
(Full Planning Permission)
BRINTON - PF/11/1144 - Raising height of boundary wall; The Coppice, The
Street for Mrs L Laws
(Householder application)
BRINTON - LA/11/1145 - Raising height of boundary wall; The Coppice, The
Street for Mrs L Laws
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/11/1370 - Erection of two-storey rear extension, porch,
replacement conservatory/sunroom and detached replacement garage/store
with studio above; Ridlands Cottage, Ridlands Road for Mr B Thomas
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LA/11/1207 - Internal alterations, installation of
replacement render, internal beams and roof lights, erection of single-storey
side extension, opening up of fireplace and demolition of garage; The Pightle,
Town Yard for Mr & Mrs Darby
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
22
9 February 2012
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/1291 - Erection of single-storey side extension &
detached garage with two open bays; The Pightle, Town Yard for Mr & Mrs
Darby
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/1399 - Retention of replacement one and
a half storey extension; The Beeches, Heath Road, Corpusty for Mel-Able
(Householder application)
DILHAM - PF/11/0908 - Erection of cart lodge/garages with studio/office in roof
space; Woodstock, Chapel Road for Mr Butcher
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/11/0922 - Erection of storage barn; Gothic Cottage, Mill
Road for Mr & Mrs Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1252 - Erection of first floor side extension, single-storey
rear extension, front porch and 1.8m high boundary fence; 21 North Park for Mr
A Claxton
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1424 - Variation of Conditions 15 and 21 or permission
reference 10/0109 to allow the soft landscaping scheme to be submitted within 3
months of commencement of the development and energy consumption details
to be submitted prior to the commencement of the construction of any dwelling;
Land adjacent Anglian Water Tower, Holt Road for Pigeon Investment
Management Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/11/1390 - Extension of outbuilding to provide car port/storage;
Jarvis Farm, Felbrigg Road for Mr A Rounce
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/11/1469 - Erection of garages with annexe above
(extension of period for commencement of planning permission ref: 08/1602);
Lower Farm, Binham Road for Mr & Mrs G Dorricott
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/11/1255 - Conversion and extension of barn to provide two
holiday units; Hall Farm, Hall Road for Mr I Peters
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/1203 - Erection of replacement single storey dwelling;
San Dunes, Doggetts Lane for Mr & Mrs Oakes
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/11/1379 - Change of use of land from timber storage to
garden; Land adjacent 39 Park Lane for Mr & Mrs Pugh
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PM/11/0595 - Demolition of garage/workshop and erection of four
two-storey dwellings; Andrew Garage/Bay Cottage, The Green for Ms S Blaxell
(Reserved Matters)
Development Committee
23
9 February 2012
HICKLING - PF/11/1356 - Erection of one and a half storey side and rear
extensions, raising of roof and construction of dormer window; Rustic
Bungalow, Heath Road for Mr J Clark
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/11/1436 - Erection of side extension and reconfiguration of roof
to provide habitable accommodation in roofspace; Broad Dyke, Staithe Road for
Mr & Mrs Deane
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/11/1105 - Erection of single-storey detached dwelling with
detached double garage/workshop; 82 The Street for Mr & Mrs Wingate
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/1433 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 5
Hindringham High Barns, Blakeney Road for Mr & Mrs P Wheeler
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/11/1509 - Erection of detached annexe; 12 Kelling Close for Mr R Cox
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/11/1083 - Installation of solar panels; Financial House, Tilia
Business Park for Taylor & Taylor Associates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/11/1226 - Erection of side and rear extensions; Casita, 20
Church Road for Mr Burton
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/11/1335 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and detached
garage; Sunpatch, 22 Church Road for Mr L Buck
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/11/1364 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and attached
garage; 24 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs Hunt
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/11/1479 - Construction of pitched roof to front extension and
formation of covered way; Station Road Business Park, Horning Road West for
E Bates and Sons Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/11/1324 - Erection of rear conservatory; 19 The Cornfield for Mr
Cooper
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/11/1402 - Erection of cart shed garage (extension of
period for commencement of permission reference: 08/1435); Jex Farmhouse,
Thursford Road for Mr S Harvey
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/11/1374 - Removal of Conditions 4 & 5 of permission reference;
10/0195 to allow dwelling to be occupied as private/personal holiday
accommodation; War Museum & Control Tower, Malthouse Lane for Mr Dean
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
24
9 February 2012
MORSTON - PF/11/1357 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
11/0583 to permit erection of two single-storey extensions; Scaldbeck House,
Stiffkey Road for Mr Keith
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/1322 - Erection of extension to restaurant, refuse store and
alteration to bay window; Royal Hotel 30 Paston Road for Mr A Fotis
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/1360 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 51 Sea
View Road for Mr P Nearney
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1361 - Alterations to garage/wash down area to
provide additional sorting office and toilets; North Walsham Delivery Office,
New Road for Royal Mail Group PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1372 - Erection of side extension; North Walsham
Football Club, Greens Road for North Walsham Town Football Club
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1395 - Erection of single-storey side extensions and
pitched roof to conservatory; 41 Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Broom
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - AN/11/1530 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 57A
Mundesley Road for Murrell Cork Funeral Directors
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1009 - Change of use of Unit 4 from B1 (business) to D1
(veterinary surgery); Unit 4, Norwich Road for Miramar Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1284 - Erection of two-storey side and single-storey front
extensions; 121 Broadgate Close for Mr & Mrs Gray
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1441 - Erection of rear extension (amended design);
Peaceholme, Norwich Road, Cromer for Ms Tebbutt & Mr Cole
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - NMA1/11/0855 - Non material amendment request for revised
roof, window and door arrangements; 2 School Lane for Mr Poole
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
PASTON - HZ/11/0929 - Storage of 138 tonnes of propane, 606 tonnes of natural
gas and 7940 tonnes unstabilised condensate associated with existing
operations and for the storage of 226 tonnes of natural gas and 142 tonnes of
unstabilised condensate associated with future planned development; Western
Bacton Gas Terminal, Paston Road for ENI Hewett Ltd
(Hazardous Substance)
Development Committee
25
9 February 2012
PASTON - PF/11/1487 - Erection of side extension and raising of roof to provide
accommodation in roof space; Mill View, Stow Hill for Mr T Moran
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/11/0178 - Continued use of former agricultural buildings
for B8 (storage) use; Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1382 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Keepers
Retreat, Old Turnpike Road for Mr & Mrs D Williams
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1384 - Erection of 1.8m high boundary fence; 1A Compit
Hills for Mr F Arnold & Miss S Sweeney
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1419 - Erection of front and rear single-storey extensions,
two-storey side extension to link to cart shed block and insertion of dormer
windows to front and rear; Highview House, Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Last
(Householder application)
RUNTON - LA/11/1423 - Installation of en-suite WC; Incleborough House, Lower
Common, East Runton for Mr N Davies
(Listed Building Alterations)
SCOTTOW - PF/11/1349 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extension
and detached garage; 8 Park Avenue for Mr M Price
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1396 - Erection of rear extension; 12 Meadow Way for Mrs
Hewitt
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1444 - Erection of 13 solar and wind powered lighting
columns; East Promenade, Off Beach Road for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1445 - Erection of two-storey front extension and first
floor side extension; 34 Common Lane, Sheringham for Mr C Paton
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1491 - Erection of front extension to garage; 5 Orchard
Close for Mr D Smith
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1540 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions
and replacement garage; 4 Churchill Crescent for Mr Barstow
(Householder application)
SLOLEY - PF/11/1306 - Erection of rear conservatory to form covered courtyard
and insertion of windows in rear gable; Sloley Lodge, Low Street for Mr A
Brown
(Householder application)
Development Committee
26
9 February 2012
SMALLBURGH - NMA1/11/0568 - Non material amendment request to increase
width of two-storey extension, insert rooflights and revise window and door
arrangements; Primrose Cottage, Union Road for Mr & Mrs Mintz
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
STALHAM - PF/11/1354 - Variation of Condition 3 of permission reference:
03/2011 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn 8 West End Farm,
Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr F Mayes
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/11/1413 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission ref:
06/0214 to permit permanent residential occupation of southern barn; South
Barn, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for H A Overton & Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - LA/11/1411 - Installation of replacement staircase and alterations to
landing; 5 Bridge Street for Mr Hamment
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/11/1383 - Erection of two-storey side extension, attached
garage and garden room extension; 1 Station Cottages, Station Road for Mr &
Mrs Van Woerkom
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/11/1488 - Erection of detached car port/storage building; The Old
Barn, Brick Kiln Lane for Mr M Pardon
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1199 - Erection of replacement agricultural
storage buildings; Mill Farm for Mr D Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1377 - Erection of 4 semi-detached houses, 2
semi-detached bungalows and 2 flats; Former Depot, Blowlands Lane for
Broadland Housing Association
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1414 - Installation of solar panels; Lodge Farm,
Sheringham Road, West Beckham for R J Pope Farmers
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - AN/11/1420 - Display of three non-illuminated
advertisements; Pretty Corner Woods, Pretty Corner Lane for North Norfolk
District Council
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/1403 - Siting of Oil Storage Tank; Angel Cottage,
Hindringham Road for Mr & Mrs M Napier
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/1412 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
11/0528 to permit extension of warehouse, erection of sub-station and minor
variation to position of refuse store.; Land off Edgar Road, Egmere, Little
Walsingham for Scira Offshore Energy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
27
9 February 2012
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1463 - Installation of solar photo voltaic array;
Land at, Holkham Park for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1466 - Installation of solar panels; Pinewoods
Holiday Park, Beach Road for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
WICKMERE - NMA1/10/1315 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of chimney, dormer window and circular window; The Old Rectory, Watery Lane
for Mr C Buchan
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WITTON - PF/11/1355 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and conservatory;
Heath Farm Cottage, The Street, Ridlington for Mr M Ross
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/11/1418 - Erection of two-storey and first floor rear extensions,
single-storey side extensions and installation of ground-mounted solar array;
Jasmine Cottage, Rookery Farm Road, Ridlington for Mr Parkinson & Mrs Lord
(Full Planning Permission)
6.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - PF/11/1451 - Installation of rooflight; 6 Clarence Mews, Brook Street
for Mrs E Giraschi
(Householder application)
HONING - PF/11/1204 - Demolition of garages and erection of building to
provide A1 (hairdressing salon/art gallery) use; Chandlers, East Ruston Road
for Mr N Watson
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/1198 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Plot 1, Land at Newell
Crescent, West Runton for A G Brown (Builders) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
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
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1238 - Construction of new roof to provide habitable
accommodation in roofspace; 15 St Austins Grove, Sheringham for Mr Welch
(Householder application)
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
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1325 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission
reference: 09/1107 to permit change of window materials to UPVC; Store At,
Jolly Sailor Yard for Mr & Mrs J Needham
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
28
9 February 2012
APPEALS SECTION
7.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/11/1099 - Erection of conservatory; Flat 1, Kingswear, 30 Cliff
Avenue for Mrs Gibbons
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane for Isis Builders Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0986 - Erection of car port; The Poppies, Thorpe Market
Road for Mr O Read
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
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
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
8.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
9.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1371 - Change of use of land and field shelter from
agricultural to D2 (leisure); Land at The Quay for Mr W Sankey
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road for Mr T Merchant
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing single-storey
wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells Road for
Mr & Mrs Baker
10.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No items
Development Committee
29
9 February 2012