OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 9 MAY 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
HOLT ENQ 12/0277 - Premier Stores, 2 Market Place
This report concerns the display of advertisements at Premier Stores, 2 Market
Place, Holt and possible enforcement action.
Background
The building is Grade II Listed and also lies within the designated Holt Conservation
Area. In November 2012 complaints were received regarding new fascia, projecting
and window advertisements installed at the premises. Although advertisement
consent is not required, listed building consent is required for these works.
Policies
Policy EN8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Representations
Four e-mails of complaint have been received on the following grounds:
1. The frontage jars with other retail premises in the Conservation Area and its
prominent position suggests to other retailers that this style of advertisement is
acceptable and sets a precedent if no action is taken to remove the
advertisements.
2. The fascia board has no moulding and makes no concession to this being a
Georgian building.
3. Advertisements have been plastered across the entire window space swamping
the frontage with inappropriate colour.
4. The advertisements are inappropriate and outrageous in an historic building in
the centre of the Conservation Area.
5. The previous shop front was ugly but this new one is appalling.
6. The worst kind of one-size fits all tacky copyshop graphics and a visual blight.
7. The display is a blatant breach of planning control.
8. This is a town of Georgian aspect and such signs are completely out of character.
On behalf of the Premier Group of Stores the Retail Development Manager advised
that:
Development Committee
1
9 May 2013
The Booker Premier Symbol Group has a corporate image to which its retail stores
(group membership is around 2800 stores) have to adhere; all the stores are owned
by independent retailers and have to reach certain standards before being accepted
into the Premier Group.
The retailer signs a membership contract with Premier before installing the Premier
fascia and imagery. Booker and Premier fund the cost of all the fascia and imagery
for Holt Stores which becomes payable if the retailer leaves within the 3 years from
installation date.
Taking into account the store‟s position in Holt, the installation included the Premier
Conservation Imagery which includes the fascia which has no illumination; this is a
toned down cream/yellow compared to our standard Premier Yellow. A standard
Premier fascia would have full trough lighting.
The Premier image includes pictorial visuals on the window graphics of products, i.e.
fruit and vegetables, wines, beers and newspapers, which were installed externally
the same as the previous Spar window graphics. Removing the external Premier
window graphics, and replacing them with white or a plain yellow (as suggested by
the Conservation and Design Officer) or removing them completely would enable the
backs of the shelving to be seen from outside the shop would not comply with the
Premier Group‟s identity. The window graphics used are part of the Premier
Conservation Imagery and have not been a problem when used in other conservation
areas.
To try and fit in with Holt town, the retailer already refused to install additional poster
frames for advertising his Premier promotions in the road next to his store, and has
not painted his window frames in purple which is also part of the Premier image.
The retailer signed to Premier to help reduce his running costs and also the price of
products to his customers. He is also spending a large amount of money towards the
upkeep of the building and the request to remove or alter the advertisements has
meant that he now feels like walking away from the business and giving it up.
Appraisal
The building is Grade II Listed and also lies within the heart of the designated Holt
Conservation Area. The building holds a prominent position in the street scene and
the commercial hub of the Town. By virtue of its age, form, detailing and materials
the building makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the
area.
Holt as a town is characterised by is unique Georgian form, layout and scale. The
traditional shopfronts and their associated detailing and proportions are a key feature
of this overall character and sense of place.
The advertisements and signage in question have been in place since
October/November 2012. The works include the installation of external vinyl sheeting
attached to the shopfront glass, the installation of a new plastic fascia sign tacked on
top of two previous fascias and a new plastic box sign at first floor level. These works
have been undertaken without the benefit of Listed Building Consent.
The Conservation and Design Officer‟s principal concerns relate to visual impact of
the advertisements and the harm to the significance of the host building and wider
historic environment context. The extent of advertisement, the strident colours, the
Development Committee
2
9 May 2013
lack of detailing and the materials used all contribute to the harsh and incongruous
appearance of the shopfront.
Following a site meeting with the store operator and owner it was stated they were
not in a financial position to negotiate over any amendments to the advertisements or
to seek the correct permissions.
In order to mitigate the impact of the advertisements and signage it was
recommended that the external vinyl sheeting be replaced with that of a neutral plain
colour (perhaps to match the render) with no additional pictorial advisements
attached. The fascia board should be properly detailed with a moulded frame. The
box sign should either be removed or alternatively a traditional hanging sign with
bracket installed which would be more appropriate. It should be noted that no historic
fabric has been lost as a consequence of the work and the advertisements in place
are fully reversible.
The adopted North Norfolk Design Guide states „advertisements need to pay due
regard to their surroundings and be part of the overall design of the host building.
Scale, form, detailing, lettering style and colour are key determinates in ensuring new
advertisements do not appear as an unsympathetic appendage‟. The works
undertaken do not comply with these principles.
In conclusion, whilst it is fully appreciated that businesses must be able to advertise
themselves successfully in order to be viable, the advertisements installed have
harmed the character and appearance of the heritage assets, the Listed Building and
Conservation Area. For this reason Officers consider that enforcement action should
be taken with a view to securing the works outlined above in line with Policy EN8 of
the Local Development Framework.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the development to which this report relates has raised 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, the commencement of enforcement proceedings as
recommended is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with
planning law.
RECOMMENDATION:
That authority is given to serve a Listed Building Enforcement Notice to secure
the works as recommended above with a compliance period of three calendar
months from the effective date of the Notice.
Reason:
In order to protect the character of the Grade II Listed Building and the
surrounding Conservation Area and to ensure compliance with Policy EN8 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
(Source: Kate Steventon, Planning Enforcement Officer, ext 6247)
Development Committee
3
9 May 2013
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0927 - Erection of first floor rear extension,
installation of first floor front balcony, removal of pitched roof and installation
of solar panels and screens to provide roof terrace and erection of attached
garage to facilitate conversion to single dwelling; Marshlands & Travellers
Rest, Coast Road for Mr S Scamell-Katz
- Target Date: 10 October 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
Flood Zones 2 & 3
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a first floor rear extension, installation of first floor front balcony,
removal of pitched roof and installation of solar panels and screens to provide roof
terrace and erection of attached garage to facilitate conversion to a single dwelling.
Amended plans have been received reducing the size of the 'picture frame' to the first
floor balcony, repositioning the roof pergola and solar panels, addition of balustrade
around edge of roof, louvred screens to glazing, flint plinth, reduced glazing at
ground floor.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments: Unable to comment without further information, but subsequently
objected on the grounds of out of character.
Comments on amended plans: Object on same grounds as previously.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received in respect of the original plans from local
residents raising the following points:
1. Proposal would detract seriously from the generally harmoniously composed
view of the Coast Road.
2. The 'picture frame' to the front of the property is inappropriate on a house on
the edge of a North Norfolk village.
3. Visual 'clutter' on roof with various screens.
Three letters of objection have been received in relation to the amended plans, two of
which are from the same objectors as above raising similar points. In addition there
are concerns over potential noise disturbance from the roof structure and concerns
over the appearance of the frontage which is felt to be out of character with the
neighbouring properties, particularly the large hardwood frame to the first floor
Development Committee
4
9 May 2013
balcony.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Original
comments: The existing property is not of any particular architectural or historic merit.
In fact, by virtue of its form, materials and ill-proportioned fenestration, it tends to
detract from the vernacular properties which generally comprise this part of the Coast
Road. It is therefore not a building which is sacrosanct from change. As a result,
there can be no Conservation & Design objections to the principle of any scheme
which seeks to rework and improve its appearance.
With regard to the proposals submitted, the alterations focus on giving the building a
more contemporary feel and an individual identity. In also seeking to establish better
links with the surrounding landscape, the potential is there to create a visually more
interesting property which could make a positive contribution to the appearance and
character of Cley‟s Conservation Area.
In terms of detail, the basic concept of having an open central core raises no
particular design concerns. The removal of the pitched roof and the alterations in and
around the margins of the building also appear to be broadly acceptable. Where
concerns have always existed, however, is in respect of the high level alterations; i.e.
the roof terrace and the various enclosures.
Although some photographs have been submitted to illustrate the architect‟s thinking,
these are very conceptual in nature and do not really provide a clear steer in terms of
appearance and materials. Given their likely prominence, and the impact they would
have on the overall look and balance of the property, it is considered that we need
rather more than just “timber screens of differing proportions”. Particularly given the
ongoing Conservation & Design concerns about the height and coherency of these
features, and the fact that they would be readily visible from the marshes, it is vital
that they are proportionate and look at home on the roof of the building. As depicted,
this is not something that we can currently be convinced about.
More generally, in the absence of any colouring or annotations, the plans rather fail
to bring the building to life. Certainly there is rather too much guesswork involved in
determining surface finishes and textures. Given these will be equally crucial in the
building gaining visual acceptance, it is considered that greater clarity should be
supplied prior to determination. Otherwise we will be unable to get a proper feel for
the building and therefore would be unable to confidently conclude whether the
scheme would preserve or enhance the designated area.
For the record, the retention of the front flint wall is considered essential to bedding
the resultant building onto the site. It is therefore welcome that the pre-app proposal
to create a new access through it has now been dropped (or at least is not mentioned
on the submitted site plan).
Comments on amended plans: On the basis that the amended plans have
satisfactorily addressed the earlier Conservation & Design concerns, there are no
longer any objections to the proposed alterations.
Given the limited appeal of the existing property, it is considered that the proposed
fundamental re-working could only add visual interest and would thus enhance the
appearance and character of the Cley Conservation Area.
In the event of the application being approved, the only architectural condition
Development Committee
5
9 May 2013
deemed necessary is to seek a more detailed drawing of the prominent roof top
pergola – this to ensure that it is appropriately detailed and does not detract from the
rest of the building. Otherwise the palette of materials raises no particular concerns.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Original comments:
Concerns raised regarding the glazing and potential for increased light pollution,
within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Attempts to limit the increased
amount of unbroken fenestration on the north elevation should be more consistent
with the applicants design aim in their Design and Access Statement of establishing
'better links with the surrounding landscape'.
Comments on amended plans: No objection.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Support the proposal subject to no objections from
Conservation, Design and Landscape and Environment Health Officers.
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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
3. Design
Development Committee
6
9 May 2013
4. Impact on Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
5. Flood Risk
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this application following a recent site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area as designated in the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy, where alterations and extensions to dwellings are
permitted in principle provided they are in accordance with other relevant Core
Strategy policies. The site is also located within the Conservation Area and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The application site contains two separate dwellings (semi-detached) which are in
the same ownership, and share the same garden, vehicular access, driveway and
parking area. It should be noted that planning permission is not required to convert
the two dwellings into one, nor is it required for the changes proposed to the
fenestration. This is because this proposal is for alterations to existing dwellings
which have permitted development rights, which allow for some changes to be made
without planning permission. The only alterations that require planning permission
are the erection of an attached garage and first floor rear extension, installation of
first floor balcony, removal of pitched roof and installation of solar panels and screens
to provide a roof terrace.
There is a significant difference in ground levels between the front (north) and rear
(south) of the site. When viewed from the front the dwelling has the appearance of a
two storey dwelling, and has accommodation over two floors. However, when viewed
from the rear it has the appearance of a single storey dwelling. The access to the
rear garden from the dwellings is via the first floor. The ground levels decrease
around the eastern and western sides of the dwellings. As a result of this difference
in ground levels the land to the east of the existing property would be partially dug
out and retaining walls constructed to allow for the erection of a garage. Steps would
then be constructed between the garage and the eastern boundary to allow access to
the rear garden and to the first floor of the property. There would be a glazed
entrance bridge leading to a door on the eastern elevation at first floor above the
garage. The door would replace an existing window in that elevation. A small flat roof
rear extension is also proposed at first floor level to create a bedroom, en-suite, and
store. It would be primarily obscured by the existing building and would measure
approximately 7.5m x 3m x 2.8m. It is not considered that these extensions would be
disproportionate in height or scale to the original dwelling and would not materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside. The extensions that form of part of this proposal are therefore
considered to be acceptable and in compliance with Policy HO8.
An enclosed balcony is also proposed on the front elevation framing the central area
of glazing at first floor. It would measure approximately 8m x 1m x 4m. It would be
constructed in a dark hardwood timber. The balcony has been referred to as a
'picture frame' and objectors have raised concerns over its appearance. The plans as
originally submitted showed a much larger 'picture frame'. Officers raised concerns
over this aspect of the proposal as it was considered to be disproportionate to the
building and did not sit comfortably. As a result of these concerns the agent has
reduced the size of the 'picture frame' by lowering the height so it would be more in
line with the roof of the dwelling. Whilst it would remain as part of the design it would
become a more integral part of the building rather than feeling like it was "floating" on
the front elevation. It is considered that this part of the proposal would bring visual
Development Committee
7
9 May 2013
interest to the front elevation, and would help to break up what would otherwise be a
very flat elevation with no relief.
The proposal also includes the removal of the pitched roof and erection of a rooftop
timber pergola to create a roof terrace and installation of solar panels. Whilst Officers
had no objection in principle to a roof terrace the original plans had a rather 'cluttered'
appearance and did not satisfy Officers in terms of the position of the roof terrace
and relationship to neighbouring dwellings. However, a more balanced layout to the
roof top arrangements is now proposed. The roof terrace area would be centralised
by the positioning of a timber pergola which would have louvred screens to either
side preventing overlooking of neighbouring dwellings. Instead views would be
directed north over the marshes and south over the rear garden. The location of the
solar panels to either side of the pergola would also limit the use of these areas as a
terrace directing users to the pergola area. The pergola would cover an area of
approximately 5m x 5.5m. A low balustrade would also be constructed around the
entire flat roof edge, which would add visual interest and break up what would
otherwise be a very 'boxy' building. The roof terrace would be accessed from the
upper level of the rear garden. Concerns have been raised by some residents in
relation to the potential of noise and disturbance from the roof terrace. However, it is
not considered that the roof terrace would have any greater impact in this respect
than if the existing garden area were being used. It is not therefore considered that
the roof terrace would have a significant detrimental impact on the residential
amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
In terms of design, the alterations proposed would give the existing dwellings a
contemporary appearance. The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) has no objection to the principle
of such a scheme to rework and improve the appearance of the dwellings. He does
not consider the dwellings to be of any particular architectural or historic merit, and
that by virtue of their form, materials and ill-proportioned fenestration it tends to
detract from the vernacular properties which generally comprise this part of the Coast
Road.
Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy supports innovative design which reinforces local
distinctiveness. It is accepted that the majority of the dwellings in the immediate area
are of a traditional design with pitched roofs. However, there is a mix in the type and
styles of dwellings. For example there is a chalet style property directly to the east
and a bungalow with dormer windows in the roof space to the south east off Hilltop.
Further to the east are some quite substantial 'modern' dwellings. The external
materials used in the immediate area also vary with the use of flint, brick and painted
render. A contemporary style dwelling has been constructed at Hilltop, Cley in recent
years and this is partially clad in timber, and also has a flat roof element to the
design. The existing dwellings on the site are currently clad in timber on the front
elevation. As part of the proposal it is intended that all of the dwelling would be timber
clad, apart from the first floor rear extension which would be painted render. The
plinth is proposed to be clad in flint. The use of timber cladding in a Conservation
Area is considered to be appropriate occasionally in accordance with the Design
Guide. Paragraph 2.3.1 of the North Norfolk Design Guide states that whilst
successful elevations respond to the materials seen on surrounding buildings "this
does not imply slavishly copying existing materials, rather it can involve creating
interesting contrasts and textures between complimentary materials". It is considered
that the use of timber cladding in this case would compliment the flint plinth and the
materials used on neighbouring dwellings. The removal of the pitched roof and the
use of timber cladding in the colours proposed would make the dwelling recessive in
its appearance, particularly so when viewed from the wider landscape and the beach.
Development Committee
8
9 May 2013
The colour of the timber cladding for the walls is not dissimilar to that of the flint work
on some neighbouring properties when viewed from a distance. Creating a flat roof
with a timber pergola would allow the 'green' sloping high level garden of the dwelling
to be seen from more distant views, rather than the dark and imposing existing
pitched roof. It is considered that this would allow the altered dwelling to sit
comfortably within its surroundings.
Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that "Planning policies and decisions should not
attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle
innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to
certain development forms or styles". Promoting or reinforcing local distinctiveness
needs to be considered but given the difference in dwelling types and materials used
on other dwellings in the immediate area it is not considered that the design and
materials proposed would have a significant detrimental impact upon the character
and quality of the area.
Paragraph 2.3.3 of the North Norfolk Design Guide states that "local distinctiveness it
not about sameness and uniformity. Rather it involves richness and variety in making
places special. Hence, it is perfectly possible for things to be compatible and yet very
different".
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
no objection to the amended plans and considers that they have satisfactorily
addressed earlier concerns. It is considered that the proposal would add visual
interest and would enhance the appearance and character of the Cley Conservation
Area.
The glazing and fenestration do not require planning permission and these changes
could be made now without permission. The existing dwellings already have quite
large areas of glazing. However, the agent and applicant have taken on board the
Landscape Officer's comments and have reduced the area of glazing at the ground
floor and are proposing sliding timber louvred screens at both the ground floor and
first floor areas. The Landscape Officer has now confirmed no objection to the
application following these amendments. In view of this and given the sites location
within the developed area of Cley it is not considered that the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact on the special qualities or character of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In terms of flood risk, along the whole of the site frontage for a width of approximately
7m the area is designated as Flood Zone 3. However, this designation does not
extend up to the dwelling itself, which is on higher ground. The first floor of the
property and rear garden is at a significantly higher ground level. Given that this
proposal is for external alterations to the existing dwelling only, and conversion of two
dwellings to one and that the dwelling itself is outside the flood zone it is not
considered that there would be any impact in terms of flood risk.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposal as amended is acceptable and in
accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the following conditions;
2
Except as required by Condition 3 below, this permission is granted in
accordance with the amended floor plans, elevations and roof plans received
by the Local Planning Authority on 17 December 2012.
Development Committee
9
9 May 2013
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Notwithstanding the details submitted, a detailed plan of the roof top pergola
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to its construction. The roof top pergola shall then be constructed in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the detailing an
materials to be used are visually appropriate for the development and its
surroundings in accordance with Policies EN4 and EN8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
3.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1219 - Erection of two-storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M
Warren
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 December 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19980015 PF
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of dwelling and garage
Approved 04/03/1998
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two storey replacement dwelling and detached
studio/annexe.
Amended plans were received indicating variations to the heights of the different
block elements of the design. The materials would be altered on the eastern wing
with a more even split between the use of timber cladding and brick.
Further amended plans were received which altered the height variations again and
the elevation treatment on the eastern wing was further amended by use of
materials.
Final amended plans were received which removed the frames around some of the
larger windows proposed on the north and west elevations.
The external materials proposed for the dwelling are timber cladding and brick. The
proposed studio/annexe is proposed to be constructed in brick, flint, timber and clay
pantiles.
Development Committee
10
9 May 2013
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments on original plans: No objection
Comments on amended plans: No response received
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received on the original plan from local residents
raising the following points;
1. Not in keeping with the Conservation Area
2. Opposite the iconic Grade I Listed church
3. Modern designs are threatening character of the area
4. Existing trees and hedges should be preserved
5. Should be no higher than existing building on site
6. Concerns over site traffic
Three letters of support have been received, including one from a resident of Cley.
Two letters of objection have been received in relation to the amended plans from the
same objectors. Their concerns remain as previously stated and in relation to the
increase in height of the proposed dwelling.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - No objection subject to conditions in relation to the vehicular
access and on site parking and turning.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Comments on original plans: The site lies within the designated Cley Conservation
Area and opposite the Grade I Listed St Margaret‟s Church. The plot also fronts the
highway and is visible in the street scene. Given the sensitive surroundings, any
replacement development in this locality is expected to be of high quality in terms of
design, materials and construction whilst also relating well to its architectural context.
The existing bungalow and garage are of no special architectural significance and
make little contribution to the prevailing character of the area. For this reason C&D
have no objection to their demolition in principle.
With regard to the new development, the following observations are made:In terms of footprint, scale and layout the new dwelling would be larger than the
existing bungalow; however the plot should be large enough to take a building of this
size without harming the setting or appearance of the Conservation Area. There is
therefore no objection in principle to a building of this size. Setting the building further
into the plot away from the north boundary will help in reducing the visual impact from
the street scene. It is also proposed to sink the ground floor again reducing its
impact.
Notwithstanding the above, it is the form and design of the building which is the focus
of concern. The building appears out of context and lacks the form and detailing to
make a clear architectural statement. As a general principle the modern
contemporary design approach raises no heritage cause for concern as the building
sits on its own within the plot. However, the flat roof „boxy‟ and functional form
Development Committee
11
9 May 2013
together with the elevational treatments and glazing proportions bears no relation to
its location and offers little design quality or „local distinctiveness‟.
The massing of the building is particularly cumbersome and bulky. Having the eaves
level all the same height gives the building a very harsh appearance. There is a lack
of finishing detail or subtlety to the roof, an overhang or stepping in heights would
have provided more elevational relief. In terms of materials, the overriding use of
timber cladding on all elevations will leave the building looking rather stark. It would
have been beneficial if the first floor upper sections of timber cladding jettied out from
the brick/render in order to create some depth and visual interest to the elevations –
this would also provide shadow line. The fenestration is rather eclectic with random
mixture of sizes and proportions giving the dwelling a rather incongruous feel with no
obvious coherency.
The majority of the dwelling is single plain flat roof construction which again only
contributes to the poor form of design. Whilst the profile will keep the height of the
development down the resultant roof-scape is particularly unappealing. The small
monopitch does little to disguise this floor. A larger, steeper monopitch or a concave
or convex curve to the roof would help in adding the elegance and refinement which
is currently missing. However as previously stated greater variation in eaves height
would also have helped.
Overall, the design and massing of the building lacks any real tie to its architectural
context and whilst a bold piece of high-quality contemporary design would be
supported the proposal lacks the necessary detailing, elevational treatments and
general form to be viewed favourably.
The treatment of the site's northern boundary is of particular importance; this is the
most prominent aspect in terms of the street scene and impact on the Conservation
Area. The proposal to introduce a traditional flint wall with coping tiles will be a
welcome addition to the existing fencing and block-work outbuildings. However the
current submission lacks any detail on the boundary wall or its finishing.
Retaining the existing trees and introducing more trees to the north boundary
screening the development would be welcomed. Currently the plot has a relatively
recessive character/outlook due to the dense vegetation cover. It is feared the
introduction of the boundary wall and removal of the existing trees would further
increase visibility of the dwelling.
The replacement of the existing flat roof garage will be an enhancement. The
proposed studio will be the most prominent built structure on the site.
The form and materials of the studio picks up on the local vernacular whilst
portraying a contemporary design approach of its own. The building reflects the
prevailing character of the area and works well within the street scene, for this reason
C&D have no objection to this aspect of the scheme.
The existing bungalow and site as a whole has a „green‟ and recessive character
within the street scene and wider context, the proposal would fundamentally change
this character. The building will be visible from the public domain and as it stands the
design flaws outweigh any potential benefit of the development.
The pre-application advice offered, particularly with regard to the form of the roof and
the elevational treatments have not shown through in the application, as it stands I
am unable to support the scheme.
Development Committee
12
9 May 2013
By virtue of the development's poor design form, massing, elevational treatment and
materials the proposal would harm the significance of the heritage asset, therefore it
is recommended that the application be refused under Policy EN4 and EN8 of the
Local Development Framework.
Comments on amended plans: These latest plans have to a large extent addressed
previous reservations over form and massing of the building. The additional height
variation introduced and the elevational treatments have helped to break up the
building elements more effectively.
There are still reservations over the end element of the north elevation which has the
flue attached, this still appears particularly „boxy‟, however on balance this does not
represent grounds for refusal.
The building is an unashamedly contemporary design which whilst not reflecting local
distinctiveness could now be considered an interesting piece of architectural design
in its own right. The fact that the building sits on its own within the plot and is not
immediately apparent from the street scene means the non-vernacular approach will
not impact on the wider historic environment context.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the significance of the heritage asset (the
Conservation Area), no objection is raised to the application.
In the event of the application being approved conditions in relation to materials and
joinery should be attached.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Whilst I have no
objection in principle to the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of a
replacement dwelling, I have a number of concerns regarding the trees on the site.
As part of the application an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) was submitted.
This was subsequently amended and the amended version received via email on 15
November 2012. Although the AIA indicates that six trees will be removed for
development (page 8 Section 6.3, page 9 Section 9.2), the Site Plan (Drawing No.
2317-05d) indicates that 13 trees will be removed. The AIA does actually state in
Section 5 that 9 trees will need to be removed for development purposes, therefore
the mistake in the total number of trees removed may be put down to a typographical
error. However, an additional 4 trees are missing from the Site Plan drawing and
therefore assumed to be removed. If the four trees that are not allocated for removal
in the AIA are to be retained these need to be illustrated on the Site Plan for retention
(in order to be able to condition this as part of the planning permission). If they
actually do need to be removed then this must be stated in the AIA to clarify the
position.
Furthermore, two trees are classified as Category U trees on the roadside boundary
of the site. The AIA states that these should be removed for arboricultural reasons;
however they are illustrated for retention on the Site Plan. The AIA indicates that
two replacement Hornbeam trees are to be sited on the roadside boundary,
presumably to replace the trees to be removed. However if the Cat. U trees are not
removed then the replacement trees cannot be planted in that location. The roadside
boundary is a visually attractive part of the streetscape and Conservation Area;
therefore it is important that the visual amenity is retained through a tree screen.
Development Committee
13
9 May 2013
All trees must be accurately marked on the Site Plan and indicated whether to be
removed or retained, this in turn must correspond with the AIA and Tree Protection
Plan, if not the exact details of the development are not understood.
In addition to the above concerns, further concerns arise regarding the installation of
a new 2m high flint wall on the northern boundary. As indicated in the AIA this is
within the root protection areas of trees T7 and T10 and less than 1m from the base
of the tree stems. The AIA indicates that specialist foundations can be employed
(mini-piles) to ensure that minimal damage occurs to the trees with further details
outlined in the Method Statement in Appendix 5. The methodology and adequate
tree protection relies on an engineering solution for the wall to be designed by an
engineer. Given the proximity of the wall to the trees and the importance of this
boundary to the Conservation Area I would like to be certain prior to approval that an
engineering solution that adheres to the proposed Method Statement is possible. It
would be unfortunate to approve a design that is not practically possible which may
result in the loss of the trees on the roadside boundary to the detriment of the
Conservation Area.
Until the aforementioned issues are addressed I would recommend withholding
planning permission in accordance with Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
I would also draw attention to Section 7.2 of the AIA which states that if any changes
to the design of the building are made, the AIA will need revision.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - The proposal complies with Policy EN6. A condition is
required in relation to the dwelling achieving a Code Level 3 rating or above.
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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
14
9 May 2013
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on Conservation Area and AONB
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
5. Impact on trees
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this application following a recent site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area where replacement dwellings
are considered to be acceptable in principle providing they comply with Policy HO8
and other relevant Core Strategy policies. The site is also located within the
Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy HO8 permits the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside provided
that the proposal would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height
or scale of the original dwelling, and would not materially increase the impact of the
dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
In determining what constitutes a 'disproportionately large increase' account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which is has previously been
extended or could be extended under permitted development rights, and the
prevailing character of the area.
The existing dwelling is a bungalow of traditional form with a pitched roof, which has
a gable end facing the road. There is a flat roof extended area on the eastern
elevation. The existing dwelling is not considered to be of any special architectural
interest or merit and it makes little contribution to the area and the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
The footprint of the existing dwelling is approximately 132m². There is also a garage
on the site with a footprint of approximately 16m² and some dilapidated outbuildings
to the front of the site adjacent to the road. The intention of this proposal is to
demolish all the buildings on the site and construct a new dwelling which would sit
some 8.5m further back into the site than the existing dwelling. This would be
approximately 20m back into the site from the road. The footprint of the proposed
dwelling would be approximately 218m², which is a 65% increase. However, the total
floor area of the proposed dwelling, given that it is two storey would be approximately
337m². This is an increase in floorspace of approximately 155%. A detached
studio/annexe is also proposed in place of the existing garage which would have a
footprint of some 55m².
The height of the proposed dwelling would vary owing to the change in levels which
would be created on the site. The ground level of the application site is significantly
higher than that of the road. A new vehicular access would be created to the north
west of the site and the ground levels altered by excavating a new driveway and
Development Committee
15
9 May 2013
parking area and to allow access to a garage which would be constructed under the
two storey dwelling in the ground. At this point the tallest part of the dwelling would
be approximately 9.5m above ground level. Apart from this the tallest part of the
dwelling would be approximately 7m from the ground levels surrounding the
remainder of the dwelling. This would not be significantly taller than the ridge height
of the existing bungalow given the flat roof design, which would enable the overall
height to be kept to a minimum. However, the overall scale and massing would be
considerably larger than the existing dwelling.
The site is located within an already developed area of Cley where there is some
variety in terms of the sizes, scale, styles of buildings and materials used. Directly to
the west of the site is a large 'modern' red brick two storey dwelling, whilst further to
the west and fronting Newgate Green are flint cottages and houses of differing
scales. Opposite the site is the Grade I listed church and to the north east are other
'modern' two storey dwellings one in brick the other in brick and flint. There are also
some painted render buildings in close proximity. The more traditional style
properties tend to be located in close proximity to the road, while the modern
properties are set further back. Whilst the majority of buildings in the immediate area
are of a traditional form and constructed in brick and flint, there are some exceptions
to this. In view of this and given that the proposed dwelling would be set back well
within the site and that this is not an isolated or particularly open site, there is no
objection to a contemporary design in this location, nor to a dwelling that is larger in
scale than the existing. In fact Policy EN4 positively encourages innovative design
which reinforces local distinctiveness.
It is considered that the use of an appropriate timber cladding in a natural finish
which would weather to a recessive colour or an appropriate stain or colour to apply
to the timber cladding would help the proposed dwelling to be assimilated into its
surroundings. The materials and joinery can be conditioned in order to ensure that
the materials proposed would be appropriate for the site and its location. The use of
timber cladding in a Conservation Area is considered to be appropriate occasionally
in accordance with the North Norfolk Design Guide. It is considered where different
materials are being used that it would be appropriate for the reasons explained.
Paragraph 2.3.1 of the Design Guide states that whilst successful elevations
respond to the materials seen on surrounding buildings this does not imply slavishly
copying existing materials, rather it can involve creating interesting contrasts and
textures between complimentary materials.
The NPPF provides guidance on 'Requiring good design' and in paragraph 60 states
that 'Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles
or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative
through unsubstantiated requirements to confirm to certain development forms or
styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness'.
The matter of local distinctiveness has already been addressed in this report given
the mix of styles of dwellings in the area. Paragraph 2.3.3 of the North Norfolk Design
Guide states that "local distinctiveness it not about sameness and uniformity. Rather
it involves richness and variety in making places special. Hence, it is perfectly
possible for things to be compatible and yet very different".
In addition paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that 'In determining applications, great
weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the
standard of design more generally in the area'.
A detached studio/annexe is also proposed as part of this development. This building
would be located in the position of the existing garage. Whilst again the building
Development Committee
16
9 May 2013
would be considerably larger than the existing garage and would provide two floors of
accommodation it would take the form of a more traditional building and has
suggestions of the appearance of a converted barn or outbuilding. It would have a
pitched roof and to the south and western elevations would be constructed in brick
and flint with clay pantiles on the roof. The scale and proportions of this building are
considered to be acceptable. Given its position on the site towards the vehicular
access it would partially obscure views of the main dwelling when approaching the
site from the west. A brick and flint boundary wall is also proposed along the northern
boundary. It is considered that these aspects of the proposal reflect the more
traditional architectural styles and materials used in the area.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) has
no objection to the amended proposal. It is considered that the amended plans have
largely addressed the previous concerns raised over form and massing. The
additional height variations introduced and the amended elevational treatments
would help to break up the building elements more effectively. He still has
reservations regarding the northern elevation where the external flue is attached in
terms of it still appearing particularly 'boxy'. However, on balance this alone is not
considered to be a sufficient ground for refusal. The building is considered to be an
unashamedly contemporary design which could be considered an interesting piece of
architecture in its own right. The fact that the building sits on its own within the plot
and would not be immediately apparent from the road means that a non-vernacular
approach would not impact on the wider historic environment context. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would significantly harm the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area.
Whilst the site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is an
already developed area and not a stand-alone isolated site within open countryside.
The site is also very well screened by trees and hedging. It is not considered that the
proposal would be detrimental to the surrounding countryside, nor to the special
qualities or setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The nearest dwelling to the application site is located to the west and has a blank
gable facing the site. The proposed dwelling would be some 20m from this
neighbouring property and would therefore comply with the amenity criteria contained
within the Design Guide. There are open fields to the south and east and the church
grounds are directly opposite. The site is well screened to the boundaries. It is not
therefore considered that the proposed would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the privacy and amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
In relation to trees affected by the proposed development the Committee will note
that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) has no
objection in principle to the erection of a replacement dwelling but has raised some
concerns in relation to trees on the site as the Arboricultural Impact Assessment
(AIA) and the submitted plans contain conflicting information regarding how many
and which trees are to be removed. Further information and clarification is required in
order for further consideration on the impact of trees can be given. Concerns have
also been raised in relation to the construction of a new 2m high flint wall on the
northern boundary which would be located within the root protection area of two of
the trees and less than 1m from the base of the tree stems. The AIA report states
that specialist foundations can be employed. However, the methodology and
adequate tree protection relies on an engineering solution for the wall to be designed
by an engineer. Given the proximity of the wall to the trees and the importance of this
boundary to the Conservation Area it needs to be demonstrated prior to approval that
Development Committee
17
9 May 2013
an acceptable engineering solution can be found. At the time of writing this report a
response from the agent to these comments was awaited.
In conclusion, the replacement of the existing dwelling and studio/annexe along with
the contemporary design proposed and its relationship to neighbouring dwellings are
considered to be acceptable. Whilst the replacement dwelling and studio/annexe
would be substantially larger in scale than the existing it is considered that, given the
mix of development in the immediate area and that the overall scale and massing of
the proposed dwelling would be broken down into a series of elements, on balance
the proposed dwelling and studio/annexe would be acceptable. However, further
information is currently awaited in relation to the impact of the development on the
trees on the site. Subject to the receipt of a satisfactory response on this matter it is
considered that on balance the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) in relation to the impact of the
proposal on trees and to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
materials, joinery, removal of permitted development rights for alterations and
extensions, landscaping, access, parking and turning, studio/annexe to be
used as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling only, and any other
conditions that may be required by the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape).
4.
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1299 - Variation of Conditions 2, 7 and 8 of planning
permission reference: 11/0344 to permit revised design and siting of dwelling
and to regularise the removal of the existing hedge along the eastern
boundary; Land to rear of 75 Norwich Road for Mr J Hammond
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 January 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/1346 HOU - Formation of vehicular access
Approved 14/01/2011
PF/11/0344 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 17/06/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to amend the design for a two-bed detached single-storey dwelling approved
under PF/11/0344. The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 141sq. m
(an increase of approximately 28sq. m from the original footprint).
The dwelling would have a maximum height of 5.5m to ridge. A section of the site
has been submitted indicating that the majority of the ground level would be lowered
to a maximum depth of 0.8m, given the existing varying ground level across the site.
Development Committee
18
9 May 2013
However, at the southern end of the dwelling the ground level would be raised
approximately 0.15m.
The height of the previously approved dwelling design was approximately 4.3m to the
ridge.
Access to the site would remain as previously approved from Orchard Close.
Application amended to remove previously shown rooflights.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management in the light of a representation
received following miscommunication between a Member and an objector.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection or comment
REPRESENTATIONS
12 representations have been received (11 objections from 7 objectors and 1
comment), raising the following representations (summarised):
Objections:
Suitability of Orchard Close and Norwich Road access for additional traffic;
Increased size, height and massing for latest application. No longer a modest
bungalow;
Size of footprint and orientation within plot. Significant increase in footprint;
Addition of an extra storey;
Parking with larger garage and additional car park space. Concern over mention
to raise roofline of garage - why?
Rooflights overlooking and reflection;
Closeness of proposed dwelling to boundaries (north and west);
Hedging - concern that western boundary hedge has already been cut back
below 2.5m and thinned out. Request that this is rectified. Request that height of
hedge is increased in proportion to new proposed height of dwelling;
Visually intrusive (illumination and impact on view) and acoustic impact;
Impact of residential amenities including loss of light, privacy, tranquillity,
enjoyment;
Loss of view;
Impact on character of area;
Application aims to achieve a two-storey dwelling by stealth;
Detrimental to principle of woodland dwelling;
Out of balance both within plot and within surrounding area;
Materials less in keeping with natural woodland surroundings and more obtrusive
than original materials proposed, particularly aluminium windows and drainpipes;
Cannot properly and legally be called a single-storey dwelling. This is not a
variation;
Application site must be smaller than originally anticipated given earlier scheme
assumed that significant boundary hedges were in control of site;
Required loss of hedge and replacement with fence means that changes are
even more significant in terms of view and privacy;
Over development;
Asked that application be brought before Planning Committee and site visited;
Parking concerns of large vehicles;
Development Committee
19
9 May 2013
Concerns over pedestrian safety;
Contrary to P53 of NPPF which requires inappropriate development of residential
gardens to be resisted.
Comments:
Why are rooflights needed for storage areas?
Is the dwelling too big for such a small plot?
Traffic concerns
A further objection letter received prior to the meeting of the Committee on 11 April
can be found in Appendix 1..
CONSULTATIONS
County Highway Authority - No objection
Building Control 1. Unprotected area appears excessive on the North and East boundary elevations,
where walls are 1m from the boundary the maximum area should be 5.6m2 and
where 3m from the boundary this should be limited to 18m2.
2. There is insufficient detail on the plans to assess B5 access provisions but
consideration should be given to the width of the access drive and turning areas.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Further to the
amended documents received and the subsequent removal of the Cupressus hedge
on eastern boundary resulting in the requirement to vary the conditions of the
previous approval, the Council's Landscape have no option but to accept the removal
of the hedge and consent to the variation of the condition. The particular dimensions
and environmental conditions of the site do not render themselves sympathetic to the
reinstatement of a hedge along the eastern boundary therefore it is not worthwhile
considering this option. The character of the site is changing from what was originally
envisaged for the development and this is regrettable and unfortunate.
Condition requiring compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement should be
imposed as per reference PF/11/0344.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council‟s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
20
9 May 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and scale and impact on the form and character of the area
2. Impact on amenities
3. Parking
APPRAISAL
The application was approved by the Committee at its last meeting. After the
meeting, but before the decision was issued, further representations were received
from one of the objectors concerned that they had not had the opportunity to attend
the meeting or speak on the application, given miscommunication between a
Member and them as to the date of the meeting.
The site lies within the Fakenham Settlement boundary and within an established
residential area, where proposals for the erection of new dwellings are acceptable in
principle, providing compliance achieved with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
This application seeks to amend a previously approved scheme.
In respect of design, Policy EN 4 requires all development to be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. In addition proposals should have regard for
the North Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect
on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide
acceptable residential amenity.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, sufficient private garden
areas of adequate size and shape to serve their intended purpose would be achieved
on the proposed plot and, in line with North Norfolk Design Guide recommendations,
the area of the plot given to private amenity space would be no less than the footprint
of the dwelling.
In terms of the design proposed, it is considered to be acceptable and compatible
with the setting and nature of the site. In terms of materials, natural timber cladding
(horizontal, feather edge, stained basalt grey) with brick plinth and smut weathered
coloured pantiles have been proposed. Whilst it is unfortunate that joinery would be
aluminium as opposed to timber, it is not considered that this change in materials
makes the scheme refusal, especially given that the plot is not overly visible within
the wider landscape.
The site is bordered by hedging to the northern, southern and western boundaries. In
a variation to the previous scheme, the mature conifer hedging to the eastern
boundary indicated to be retained on the original application, has since been
replaced with timber fencing by the neighbours. Whilst it is considered unfortunate
and regrettable that this hedge has been removed, changing the character of the site
somewhat, it is not considered that the change in boundary treatment makes the
scheme unacceptable. It is not considered that the environmental conditions of the
site render themselves sympathetic to the reinstatement of a hedge along that
boundary. The condition in relation to the northern and western boundary hedging
being retained and maintained at a minimum of 2.5m above ground level would be
re-imposed.
In respect of the residential amenities of adjacent dwellings, the dwelling would be
single-storey and window-to-window distances between the proposed dwelling and
neighbouring dwellings are considered to be acceptable and compliant with the
recommended Basic Amenity Criteria distances. Previously shown rooflights serving
a storage space/attic have been removed to try and alleviate neighbour concerns.
Development Committee
21
9 May 2013
The property to the east is a two-storey dwelling. The proposed secondary kitchen
windows would not face directly towards the neighbouring dwelling. There would be
approximately 18m between the proposed secondary bedroom 2 window and the
neighbouring dwelling to the east. Even with facing windows on the neighbouring
property serving Primary rooms, the Basic Amenity Criteria recommendations would
be met.
In respect to the garden to the north, a neighbouring outbuilding is sited close to the
boundary. However, this is considered acceptable given that the building is purely an
ancillary building and given that the proposed dwelling would be single-storey and
fairly well-screened by existing boundary treatment.
Relationships with properties to the south and west would be in excess of the
requirements of the Basic Amenity Criteria. In addition, any overlooking would be
minimal, given that the dwelling proposed would be single-storey and given existing
boundary treatment (hedges and fence).
It is recognised that the height and size of the proposed dwelling would be increased
under this scheme. Eaves height would, however, remain modest, with the main roof
then sloping away from eastern and western boundaries. Whilst it is recognised that
the northern gable would be presented to the northern boundary, there would be little
bulk above 3.7m, with a modest apex. Further, this scheme proposes lowering of the
ground level across the majority of the proposed site, which would, again, help to
minimise any impact on neighbouring properties.
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and compliant with the
aims of Policy CT 6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposals, subject to the previous
conditions being imposed.
In summary, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with
adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of conditions including the retention and
maintenance of the existing hedgerow along the northern and western
boundaries at a minimum height of 2.5m from ground level and the compliance
with the Arboricultural Implications Assessment document, with the exception
of the retention of the eastern boundary hedge.
5.
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/0110 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Cromer Road for Mrs Crick
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 March 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Development Committee
22
9 May 2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling with detached double garage
and the erection of a single garage to serve the existing dwelling on the site. The
proposed dwelling would require the subdivision of the garden of 5 Cromer Road and
a slight repositioning of the access which would then be shared between the existing
dwelling and the proposed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Fitch-Tillett for the following planning reason:
Impact of proposed surface water drainage
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection or comment other than the surface water disposal should be to mains
drainage, not to soakaway.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority: No objection - This proposal incorporates my informal highway
advice regarding re-siting of the vehicular access. Requests conditions and
informatives.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): No
objection subject to requested condition.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection subject to
the imposition of requested conditions in relation to a full AMS and landscaping plans
Sustainability Co-ordinator: The application does not comply with policy EN6 as no
rating has been proposed. Recommends that application only be approved subject to
imposition of requested condition.
Anglian Water: No record of any dedicated public surface water sewer to connect to.
Do not wish to see any connection to the foul sewer. The Environment Agency
should be consulted on the suitability of soakaways in this location and potential cliff
damage. Can make further comments on a drainage strategy dependent on the
views of the Environment Agency.
Building Control: Initially raised concern that access for fire vehicles did not comply
with regulations. Following discussion with the applicant advice amended to the
following: As they can get the appliance to within 45m of the furthest part of the
dwelling then the access would just about be acceptable. If the access could be
widened to allow access closer to the dwelling then it would be preferable but this is
probably something that can be negotiated at Building Regs application stage.
Environment Agency: 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.
Development Committee
23
9 May 2013
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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Access.
4. Relationship with neighbouring properties.
5. Impact of proposed surface water drainage.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a designated residential area and the Overstrand Conservation
Area. Proposals of this nature are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
the relevant Core Strategy policies.
The proposed dwelling is considered acceptable in its design being positioned
generally in line with the existing dwelling, to retain the 'set back' nature of
development along the street. The relationship between the existing and proposed is
considered acceptable in terms of distance and the proposal would not introduce any
significantly detrimental impacts on the amenities of occupiers of the existing dwelling
or neighbouring properties. The impact in the street scene would be minimal. The
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager considers that the general layout and
footprint raises no cause for concern. In terms of design the proposal picks up on
some of the prevailing architectural characteristics of the area including projecting
gables, dormer windows and barge boards. In terms of materials the use of tiles and
a mixture of brick and render is considered acceptable in principle. The proposal
would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Amenity space for both the proposed and that retained for the existing dwelling is
considered sufficient. The positioning of proposed windows would not introduce any
significant loss of privacy to the neighbouring dwellings. At first floor level on the
eastern elevation two obscure glazed windows are proposed to bath/shower rooms.
This elevation would be 2m from the boundary and some 12 metres from the nearest
Development Committee
24
9 May 2013
elevation of the neighbouring dwelling. The mature hedge along the eastern
boundary would be retained to maintain privacy. The locations and designs of the two
garages are considered acceptable.
The Parish Council raised concern that surface water drainage should be to mains
drainage and not to soakaway as indicated on the application. This matter was
discussed with the Council's Building Control Team who advised that soakaways are
considered acceptable for developments south of the Cromer Road but not
necessarily to the north of it. This proposal lies on the southern side and therefore it
is considered that the use of a soakaway for the disposal of surface water is
acceptable. Anglian Water have advised that surface water drainage would not be
allowed to discharge into the foul sewer and that there is not a dedicated public
surface water system on their records to which to discharge; the appropriate method
of disposal of surface water is by soakaway. The Environment Agency has been
contacted for advice regarding feasibility of the use of a soakaway in this location and
whether soakaways in this location would cause damage to the cliffs.
The applicant has agreed by way of compromise for the imposition of a condition
requiring a sustainable urban drainage scheme to be agreed which would be likely to
reduce the amount of surface water needing to be disposed of by infiltration.
Subject to no objection to the use of a soakaway by the Environment Agency and
subject to the imposition of conditions requested by consultees and other appropriate
conditions, including the agreement of a scheme for SUDs, it is considered that the
proposal complies with the policies of the Development Plan and is therefore
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Environment
Agency and the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the following:
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the
site, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
3
Prior to the commencement of development, brick and tile samples shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved
details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
25
9 May 2013
4
The first floor windows on the eastern elevation of the development hereby
permitted shall be installed with obscured glazing with a degree of obscurity
equivalent to Pilkington level 5. The glazing shall thereafter be retained in
accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5
The dwelling hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating or above in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:
Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house design
that replaces that scheme). The dwelling shall not be occupied until a Final
Code Certificate has been issued and submitted to the Local Planning
Authority certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved unless an
alternative timescale is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
Prior to the commencement of development a full Arboricultural Method
Statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The AMS shall include full details of the construction of the
driveway using a 'no-dig' method of construction in accordance with the details
specified in BS 5837 - 2005 - Trees in Relation to Construction.
Reason:
In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a hard and
soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall indicate the species, number and size of new trees and
shrubs at the time of their planting.
The scheme shall also include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows
on the land, with details of any to be retained (which shall include details of
species and canopy spread), together with measures for their protection during
the course of development.
The scheme shall also include mitigation planting for all trees removed from
the site; such planting shall be in accordance with improving or maintaining
biodiversity.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available
planting season following the commencement of development or such further
period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Development Committee
26
9 May 2013
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan (drawing
number: Job No. 5198/11 Proposed Site Plan) in accordance with the Highway
specification (drawing number: TRAD 1) attached to this Decision Notice. In
addition arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be
intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or
onto the highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous
material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy
CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9
Vehicular access to and egress from the adjoining highway shall be limited to
the access shown on drawing number: 'Job No 5198/11 Proposed Site Plan'
only. Any other access or egress shall be permanently closed, and the footway
shall be reinstated in accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed with the
Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority,
concurrently with the bringing into use of the new access.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted visibility
splays shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the
approved plan. The splay shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from
any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
Any access gate, bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall be hung to
open inwards, set back, and thereafter retained a minimum distance of 5
metres from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway.
Reason:
To enable vehicles to safely draw off the highway before the gate(s) or
obstruction is opened, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
12
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access and on-site car parking and turning areas shall be laid out,
demarcated, levelled and surfaced in accordance with the approved plan.
They shall be retained thereafter available for those specific uses.
Development Committee
27
9 May 2013
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6.
RUNTON - PF/13/0017 - Conversion of barn to ground floor agricultural storage
and sea food outlet, first floor living accommodation; Brick Kiln Farm, Cromer
Road, West Runton for Mr & Mrs Matthews
Minor Development
- Target Date: 01 March 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Article 4 Direction
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19940361 PF - County reference: c/94/1003 - renewal of planning permission
reference c/93/1009 for the disposal of surplus materials
Approved 04/05/1994
NP/10/1201 PF - To re-roof agricultural storage building
Approved 25/01/2011
PF/12/0260 PF - Conversion of barn to dwelling and sea food bar
Withdrawn by Applicant 26/04/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is to convert a building that has recently been extended upwards by re-roofing for
agricultural purposes to a dwelling within the roof space, and a sea food bar with
seating area on the ground floor whilst also retaining some agricultural storage on the
ground floor. Permission was originally also sought for a tractor shed on the north
side of the building
Amended plans have been received withdrawing the tractor shed originally included
in the proposal, detailing the location of the piggeries to be removed and clarifying
the seating area for the sea food business. However, whereas the original plans
indicated four parking spaces, the amended plans now indicate ten.
The agent has clarified that the applicant envisages that the seafood business would
operate on a modest scale, on a seasonal basis mid-March to the end of October,
selling freshly caught seafood, crabs and lobsters to take away or eat on site. The
seafood business would be located on the western side of the building, with a boiler
room, servery and an outside seating area under a glazed canopy, with extra seating
potentially available to the north of the building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Eales having regard to the following planning issue:
The redevelopment of this building in relation to the competing policy issues of
economic development, residential use, and preservation of undeveloped cliff top.
Development Committee
28
9 May 2013
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects
1. Inappropriate development will have a negative impact on the visual amenity of
the area. It is a rural location and not for development.
2. Highway safety with extra traffic movements in and out of the site onto a busy A
road.
3. The conversion cannot come under barn conversions; there is no barn to be
converted. The building was simply a covered brick kiln which closed in 1951.
Also the description Brick Kiln Farm is incorrect. There has never been a farm
here. The applicants are in the fishing trade; what agricultural use would the
building be for?
REPRESENTATIONS
101 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
Proposal is contrary to policies EN 1,EN 2 and EN 3 and the Landscape Character
Assessment.
Concern that the previous planning application has not been correctly implemented.
Application to convert to a dwelling has been submitted prior to the completion of the
previous approval to re-roof the building.
Unsuitable development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Lack of information and clarity about the sea food bar.
Development out of character.
Smell from fish processing.
Traffic increase.
Light pollution.
Visual characteristics of the development would be harmful to open undeveloped
nature of the gap between the East and West Runton caravan sites.
Asbestos dumped on site.
Would encourage other ribbon development.
Highway safety.
Car parking is unsightly.
Core Strategy paragraph 3.2.24 states 'buildings.....that have recently been
constructed for another purpose will not be eligible [for reuse as a dwelling]'. As the
second floor has recently been constructed and re-roofed for agricultural purposes it
is clearly contrary to policy HO 9.
The building has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plan, the
timber cladding on the outside has not been completed.
The site is close to an internationally important SSSI.
The West Runton Elephant was excavated out of the cliffs a few hundred feet to the
north of the proposed development.
The site is within 20 metres of a watercourse.
The septic tank run-off would be deleterious to the cliff top with water seepage
through the gravel hastening cliff falls.
This is an area of coastal erosion, eroding on average one metre a year.
Smell from the crab wastage.
Septic tank and crab wastage would harm the fragile nature of the cliff top.
Site is unsuitable for parking 8 cars.
Scar on the landscape.
Photographs submitted with the application are misleading Contrary to Policy EN 3
which states 'only development that can be demonstrated to require a coastal
location and will not be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character will be
permitted'.
Fields around the site have a covenant in perpetuity in favour of the National Trust
preventing building on them.
Development Committee
29
9 May 2013
Oxwell Cross is of local historic importance as an ancient resting place for
pallbearers.
Site encompasses the remains of early Runton manufacturing history with the brick
kiln ruin and clay pits.
Location encompasses an important landfall area and critical flight path for the winter
nocturnal migration of Woodcock from Scandinavia, the Baltic and Russia. Lights,
parking lighting and other obstructions will have a deleterious effect on the migration
flight path.
A copy of a letter of objection is attached as Appendix 2 covering in more detail the
content of many of the objections received.
Three letters of support
Following the closure of the Cromer Crab Factory as a local traditional industry
fishing needs all the local support. Having a local outlet can only help towards
sustaining what has become a reduced source of local employment and tradition.
The site has deteriorated over the years and become an eyesore. To have the site
tidied, used and maintained will be a huge benefit to the area.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - The site would appear to have previous uses generating
vehicular traffic and has good access and footway links to East and West Runton
villages; therefore no highway objections to the proposal.
Coast and Community Project Manager - The site is outside the indicative coastal
erosion zone.
Environmental Health - No objection, subject to a condition on contaminated land
investigation.
National Trust - The National Trust holds extensive covenants over land in close
proximity to the site the purpose of which is to ensure the landscape and rural
character of the area is protected and upheld. While the National Trust has no
specific objections to the proposals relating to the existing barn, it is concerned there
is no justification for the new tractor shed. Also concerned that the impacts of the
development on the landscape have not been demonstrated, nor how the
landscaping of the development will affect the open landscape character. The
National Trust therefore objects that the development will be detrimental to the visual
and landscape amenities of the area.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)
The barn is located to the north of the main coastal road between the settlements of
East and West Runton and is readily visible from the road and Incleborough Hill. It is
surrounded by agricultural land, with the nearest dwelling over 130m away towards
West Runton. A further agricultural building is located to the south-west of the barn
and access is gained via an un-made track and through a makeshift
farmyard/storage area. The area has very little in the way of landscaping, some
areas of scrub and banking but no substantial features. The overall character and
appearance of the immediate surrounds is that of a rural agricultural setting.
The site is located adjacent to the North Norfolk Coast AONB area and within the
Coastal Towns and Villages Landscape Character Type (as defined by the North
Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment SPD).
Development Committee
30
9 May 2013
The building is located within an area designated under Policy HO9 as suitable for
conversion and re-use to residential subject to certain criteria. Of these criteria the
most relevant to the Landscape Section are those that stipulate that:
a) the building is worthy of retention due to its appearance, historic, architectural
or landscape value; and
b) the building is structurally sound and suitable for conversion to a residential
use without substantial rebuilding or extension and that the alterations protect
or enhance the character of the building and its setting.
CDL recognise that due to its recent repairs under the previous planning permission
the building is now of a suitable condition which would suggest conversion is readily
achievable, and due to its former use as a brick kiln the building has an interesting
history and architectural features worthy of retention. However, there is a concern
that the alterations required for conversion would fail to protect or enhance the
building and its setting.
The required alterations include the provision of roof windows/lights, balconies,
fenestration and door openings, chimney flue and car parking, together with formal
landscaping (although this is to be agreed). These alterations, which affect all
elevations and the roof, are sufficient to alter significantly the appearance of the
building from agricultural to residential. Whilst this may not necessarily be an issue
in some areas of the District, the agricultural setting and open land in between the
coastal settlements are of paramount importance to the protection of the landscape
character.
The Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) states that it is the open, arable land
that provides the separation between the coastal towns and villages which makes
each settlement a distinctive unit and the separation of considerable importance. In
the analysis of the Landscape Character Type, the LCA recognises the considerable
threats from development which reduce and enclose the landscape, threats to the
views over the landscape from the types of development proposed and the
inappropriate re-use of barns and agricultural sheds. The LCA states that barn
conversions within the open countryside which introduce „suburban features such as
overly large windows, domestic style gates/fences, planting and external lighting can
erode the landscape character.
Specifically within the Sheringham to Overstrand Landscape Character Area the LCA
states that the small areas of open space (farmland, heath etc.) are the essential
element which underlies the character of this Area. Reductions in this element
during the last 70 years have significantly eroded the character of the Area.
It is worth noting that the 20 year vision for this part of the AONB, as stated within
their Integrated Landscape Character Guidance, is “Villages and towns are
separated by areas of high quality undeveloped countryside”.
Changes to the appearance of the barn, the associated car parking, landscaping and
change of use required as a result of the dwelling and proposed sea food bar will all
contribute to the erosion of the landscape character and setting.
The small pockets of farmland and agricultural buildings are of such importance to
the protection of the landscape character that the Landscape section considers that
the proposals would be sufficiently damaging so as to warrant refusal of the
application.
Development Committee
31
9 May 2013
This is supported through policies HO9, EN 1, EN 2 and EN 3 of the Core Strategy
and through the Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning
Document.
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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document Policy pages
143 - 145
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of residential and commercial re-use of building.
2. Impact of development on landscape character and Undeveloped Coast.
APPRAISAL
The building to be converted is a former brick kiln which in 2011 was granted
planning permission for re-roofing with a pitched roof. It lies within the Countryside
Development Committee
32
9 May 2013
policy area and an area designated in the Core Strategy as Undeveloped Coast, and
is adjacent to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It also lies within the area
defined in Policy HO 9 where buildings worthy of retention for their appearance,
historic, architectural or landscape value may be granted permission for a permanent
residential use. Policy EC 2 may also permit economic uses if those uses are
appropriate in scale and nature to the location.
The National Planning Policy Framework is supportive of economic growth in rural
areas and of taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. Re-use of
redundant or disused buildings for residential purposes is encouraged where it would
lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting.
While the principle of both types of development may therefore be acceptable, each
application must be considered on its merit and both of the above Core Strategy
policies are clear that the acceptability of any development is conditional upon the
proposal not having a harmful impact on the character of the area within which the
building is set.
From any direction the building is prominent within the landscape located as it is
among open fields on the seaward side of the A149 midway between East and West
Runton. While not directly on the cliff top, because of the open character of the
landscape it appears as part of the cliff top and identified as 'Undeveloped Coast' in
the Core Strategy. Policy EN3 indicates that in such areas only development that
can be demonstrated to require a coastal location and that will not be significantly
detrimental to coastal character will be permitted.
The agent advances the argument that in the context of the land along the cliff top it
is already littered with camping and caravan sites. However, it should be noted that
the camping development is seasonal and activity associated with caravans reduces
in the winter. Moreover, Policy EC 10 actively promotes the relocation of those
caravan sites to new sites away from the cliff top and the designated 'Undeveloped
Coast'.
Policy EN2 requires the protection of settlement and landscape character as defined
by the Landscape Character Assessment. This identifies the landscape between
Sheringham and Overstrand as having the largest physical amount of settlement in
the District, yet it still manages to retain parts which are relatively untouched.
Distinctive features are the presence of the cliff, the landform of the area and the
layout and distribution of settlements. The trend has been for development to extend
out in concentric rings from settlements and large caravan parks which mean that
some settlements have nearly joined. Small areas of farmland, woodland, heath and
other open spaces, separate the settings of towns and villages and are vital elements
of the character of the area. It identifies the retention of small areas of open space
as critical for the preserving the character of the landscape, and the necessity of
preventing the piecemeal erosion of the character and maintaining the physical
separation between the settlements
The design of the building for agricultural purposes was constrained by the existing
buildings. The resulting proportions and appearance are not those of vernacular
agricultural buildings, since it incorporates the old brick kiln, and the walls were
raised and the roof constructed above the new walls. The approved application
stated that additional materials for the construction would be reclaimed bricks and
roof tiles; unfortunately it is unclear quite what materials were used as those
materials do not have the weathered appearance expected from reclaimed materials
nor are they a particularly good match for the original bricks. However, the form of
Development Committee
33
9 May 2013
the building has been approved and part of the original building has some historic
value. On balance therefore its retention is considered to be justified.
However, several physical alterations to the building are necessary to convert it to a
dwelling and sea food business and these include the addition of the glazed seating
area, rooflights and balcony on the southern elevation. Those changes would
constitute a further domestication of the site which, together with the car parking and
increased activity associated with the proposals, would lead to the development
having a significant impact on the landscape.
A landscaping scheme has been proposed which would offer little by way of
screening or mitigating the adverse impacts of the development. The landscaping
that would be necessary to offset those concerns is likely to be contrary to the open
character of this area of undeveloped coast between East and West Runton.
For these reasons it is considered that the development would be significantly
detrimental to the open coastal character of this stretch of land; moreover it has not
been demonstrated that a coastal location is required for the commercial or
residential aspects of the development and the development would therefore conflict
with Policies EN3 and EN2.
Although objectors have raised concerns regarding archaeology and coastal erosion
the application site is not within the Site of Special Scientific Interest which is
designated along the cliff edge and it is not within the area at risk from Coastal
Erosion and so those matters are not material to the determination of the application
Finally there is considered to be doubt as to whether the building is no longer
required for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the agricultural storage proposed
on the ground floor and the additional tractor shed originally sought as part of this
application. The agent has explained the applicant's legitimate agricultural interests
as harvesting reeds, working and harvesting land elsewhere and contracts for
clearance work. Even if this were the case it is considered that other, lower-key
alternative uses could be found for the building which would better suit its sensitive
location.
In summary, this is considered to be a finely-balanced application. The merits of
bringing an underused building and semi-derelict site back into use, including an
economically beneficial one, are acknowledged. However, there remain concerns at
the impact of the development on the character of the area and consequently the
proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies HO9 , EN2 and EC2 of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse the application because the proposed conversion works and
associated development of a dwelling and seafood business would harm the
open landscape character of the area where the objective of the Authority is to
protect the landscape from inappropriate development in conflict with Policies
HO9, EN2 and EC2 of the Development Plan.
Development Committee
34
9 May 2013
7.
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0961 - Conversion of agricultural storage building to
residential dwelling; The Old Pavilion, Old Playing Field, Waxham Road for Mr
P Brown
Minor Development
- Target Date: 06 November 2012
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Flood Zone 2 and 3
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740319 PF - Proposed sports pavilion and car parking with tennis courts
Approved 05/08/1974
PLA/19800023 HR - Snooker hall
Refused 14/04/1980
PLA/19801323 HR - Erection of snooker hall and clubroom
Refused 25/11/1980
PLA/19810232 HR - Erection of snooker hall
Approved 23/03/1981
PLA/19980494 PF - Change of use of playing field to the keeping of horses,
pavilion to storage of feed and equipment and the erection of seven stables
Approved 26/06/1998
PLA/20041500 PF - Change of use of playing field to keeping of horses and
conversion of changing rooms to one and a half storey dwelling
Refused 30/09/2004
PLA/20042146 PF - Conversion of store (former pavilion) to dwelling
Refused 09/02/2005 Appeal dismissed 26/07/2005
PLA/20060268 PF - Conversion of store to dwelling
Refused 03/04/2006
PLA/20061569 PF - Conversion and extension to provide one unit of holiday
accommodation
Refused 12/12/2006
THE APPLICATION
Conversion of former playing field pavilion to a dwelling by raising the roof and
creating two bedrooms in the first floor with a living room and kitchen on the ground
floor.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Development Management because of the policy issues
pertaining to Policies HO 9 and EN10
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects
REPRESENTATIONS
The agent has responded to concerns raised regarding the development. His
response and an amended design and access statement are reproduced as
Appendix 3.
Development Committee
35
9 May 2013
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to implementation of sustainable
construction checklist condition.
Environmental Health - No objections on contaminated land grounds.
Civil Contingencies Manager - I understand my consultation is only on the flood
evacuation plan and not the potential risks to the development. As long as the
resident has followed the advice from the Environment Agency, followed their flood
plans and the advice from the Sea Palling/Waxham flood wardens they would have
evacuated the property before any flood water arrives. Sea Palling Village Hall is
only used as an initial Muster point and if there is a likelihood of flooding a rest centre
would be set up in a safe area; for this it is likely to be Stalham High School.
Environment Agency (summarised) - (Original comments) - The site is located within
Flood Zone 3a the high risk zone, and is at residual risks of flooding in the event of a
breach in the coastal flood defences. The application is therefore required to pass
the Sequential Test. The Local Planning Authority should ensure this is done before
considering the grant of planning permission.
(Further comments) - In light of the revised Flood Risk Assessment, we are able to
remove our previous objection to the grant of planning permission provided that you
and your Emergency Planner, are satisfied with the safety and sustainability of the
proposed development in the event of a breach of the flood defences, and the ability
of the proposed mitigation measures of a Flood Response Plan to enable this.
If you are minded to grant planning permission then we recommend that you append
conditions on Flood Response Plan, Flood Resistant and Resilient Construction
measures and floor levels.
A copy of the full response is attached as Appendix3..
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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Development Committee
36
9 May 2013
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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.
Merit of retaining the building to be converted.
2.
Flood risk issues.
APPRAISAL
The application site lies outside the development boundary for Sea Palling in an area
identified in the adopted Core Strategy as Countryside and defined by the
Environment Agency as within Flood Zone 3a. The main considerations in the
determination of this planning application are whether the proposal complies with
Policy HO 9 for the conversion of buildings to dwellings and the risk to life and
property from flooding.
1.
Quality of the Building
Policy HO 9 sets out the tests as to whether a building is suitable for its conversion
and re-use as a dwelling. The first test is whether the building lies within a defined
area around settlements as sustainable location. This proposal passes this test as it
is within the area defined around Sea Palling.
The second test is whether the building is worthy of retention due to its appearance,
historic, architectural or landscape value. The property is the former pavilion in the
corner of a larger area of former playing field which is currently used for the keeping
of the applicant‟s horses. The pavilion is a square functional building, constructed of
poor quality brick and faded concrete pantiles, with high level windows serving the
former changing rooms, and a roof overhang forming an open porch on the field side.
In terms of its existing appearance there is considered to be little of merit to
commend its retention, although the applicant's architect has sought to support its
retention in the revised Design and Access Statement (Appendix 3).
The Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document assesses
the area between Sea Palling and Waxham as a relatively simple area of landscape,
of an isolated and remote character, having a lower landform which becomes almost
sub-sea level in places. The area is mainly in arable land use with poultry units and
touring caravan sites being the jarring elements in the landscape. Features are the
boundaries are mostly ditched and reed fringed, with very few hedge boundaries and
boundary trees that are mostly willows.
The amount of alteration proposed, which includes re cladding the exterior walls in
timber, a new roof about 1.3m taller to accommodate the first floor, as well as
enclosing the porch with glazing and new window openings mean that the alterations
Development Committee
37
9 May 2013
would result in a dwelling in which the original building is no longer recognisable, with
the appearance of a chalet bungalow in its layout and proportions that are considered
to be of little merit as a rural building in a local landscape of open character.
2.
Flood Risk
Core Strategy Policy
Policy EN 10 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy explains that the Sequential
test will be rigorously applied across North Norfolk. The policy further sets out that in
Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3a „changes of use will be restricted to those of an equal or
lower risk category in the flood risk vulnerability classification where there is no
operational development‟. 'Operational Development' is defined in a footnote to the
policy and includes physical alterations to buildings that by themselves would require
planning permission.
The agent disputes that the Sequential Test should be applied to this proposal as he
considers it to be a change of use.
In this case, while there is a material change of use there is also substantial
operational development involved. The roof is to be replaced with a new pantile roof
1.3 metres higher than the original to facilitate a first floor in the building, clad the
exterior walls in timber and many new openings and windows created. Given the
degree of operational development involved the scheme is considered to amount to
redevelopment and redevelopment to a more vulnerable use as defined in Table 2:
Flood risk vulnerability classification of the Technical Guidance to the NPPF.
Consequently it is concluded that this proposal is not simply a change of use and that
the Sequential Test should apply to this proposal.
Sequential Test (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 101)
The Sequential Test is set out in Paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy
Framework it states;
101. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with
the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or
permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed
development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. A sequential approach
should be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding.
Sequential Test General Considerations
Normally the Sequential Test should be applied before considering such matters as
Site Specific Flood Risk Assessments. However, in practice there are circumstances
in which a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (SSFRA) demonstrates that a site
should be within Flood Zone 1 though generally this only occurs on the inland fringes
of the flood zones 2 and 3. Consequently, the Environment Agency's evaluation of
the SSFRA provides additional information to aid the Local Planning Authority in the
application of the Sequential Test. As the SSFRA shows that flooding would extend
inland around the site, at best this site could be considered a dry island as explained
in paragraph 3.3.57 of the Core Strategy.
While the Local Planning Authority relies heavily on the Environment Agency to
examine the SSFRA, it remains the responsibility of the LPA to determine whether
the Sequential Test should be applied to this site and whether the dwelling and its
occupants would be safe in the event of flooding events. In this situation, while the
SSFRA shows that the pavilion would not flood under that scenario, there remains
very significant uncertainty that the site would be safe in the event of a breach
Development Committee
38
9 May 2013
elsewhere. It should be noted that the Environment Agency's removal of its previous
objection is subject to the proviso that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied with
the safety and sustainability of the proposed development in the event of a breach in
coastal defences.
When applying the Sequential Test to this development, with an abundance of
buildings throughout North Norfolk on land outside the defined flood risk zones, there
is no sequential justification for the conversion of this particular building. While the
agent contends that the applicants desire a dwelling in this location to be close to
their horses kept on the field adjacent to the building, this is clearly a matter of
personal interest which should carry little weight as a material consideration in the
determination of the planning application.
To comply with Policy EN 10 it would be necessary for the SSFRA to demonstrate
that the site is within the area at lowest risk from flooding. The applicant has
submitted two site specific flood risk assessments for this proposal. The first SSFRA
was considered by the Environment Agency as insufficient as the first breach
modelled was too far from the site and used the wrong flood level and so objected to
the proposal. A subsequent SSFRA was submitted in January 2013 modelling a
breach to the east of that identified in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
commissioned for the Local Development Framework. The Environment Agency
has not objected to that proposal but advises the Local Planning Authority should
assess whether the proposal passes the Sequential Test before it considers granting
planning permission.
The Local Planning Authority had a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment prepared as
part of the documentary evidence base for the Core Strategy and it demonstrates
one potential breach event for the area. In terms of probability, breaches, while they
may be less likely given the present condition of the defences, could nevertheless
occur anywhere along the vulnerable coastline. The Strategic FRA demonstrates
that the site would be highly vulnerable in the event of a flood closer to the site.
So on one hand a SSFRA, based on 1D modelling (a less reliable method of
assessing flood risk), has been submitted and claims the site would be safe in the
event of a flood, whilst on the other hand a more thorough 2D modelled Strategic
FRA shows the opposite. They are using different breach scenarios, but the point is
that the defences have a limited lifetime and there are many uncertainties regarding
the future of flood defence during the lifetime of the proposed development which the
Environment Agency regard as 100 years.
For clarity the 1D modelling technique used by the agent considered a single land
level using a rough approximation of the contours and spot heights and an average
depth of water. In contrast, 2D modelling is more accurate because it looks at how
the floodwater would actually propagate over the floodplain, dependent on
topography and levels and volumes of floodwater, and the maximum depths,
velocities and hazards that would be experienced.
The Strategic FRA cannot be dismissed as out of date on the basis of a subsequent
inferior model of risk assessment. Although at this point in time the likelihood of a
breach may currently be greater where the SSFRA identifies it, vulnerabilities in the
defences could change in subsequent years and breaches are possible elsewhere
and cannot be entirely discounted.
Should the proposal pass the Sequential Test then it is required by the National
Planning Policy Framework to pass the Exceptions Test.
Development Committee
39
9 May 2013
Exceptions Test (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 102)
102. If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible,
consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be
located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be
applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed:
it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider
sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk,
informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been
prepared; and
a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the
development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the
vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and,
where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.
Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be
allocated or permitted.
Had the application have passed the Sequential Test then it is considered that it
would not pass the Exceptions Test because there are no wider sustainability
benefits to the community arising from this development.
The SSFRA assumes that the coastline will continue to be defended for the lifetime
of the development to a 1:1000 flood risk event. What will happen post 2055 is
uncertain, as the only commitment is to maintain the defences until 2055, i.e. 42
years hence. Although, they would not disappear at that date if not maintained the
defences could become more vulnerable and breaches could occur.
To summarise the concerns about the residual risk are as follows:
The Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment assumes that the sea defences will be
maintained for the lifetime of the development. While there is a commitment to
maintain the defences until 2055 there is considerable uncertainty after that.
The Environment Agency has agreed to the SSFRA chosen breach location but
pointed out there remains a residual risk of breaches elsewhere in the vicinity of
the site.
This is backed up by the conflicting evidence in the form of the Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment in which considerable confidence can be had given that the 2D
modelling was undertaken.
The site specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that land to the west, south
and south-east of the application site would flood and either side of the two
possible evacuation routes from Sea Palling. It remains questionable as to
whether these escape routes would be safe.
Residual risk in the accuracy of the site specific flood assessment given that the
1D is a less accurate method of modelling.
Conclusion
It should be borne in mind that the Local Planning Authority must consider the safety
over the next 100 years of any dwelling created. Where there is uncertainty over the
residual flood risk it is considered that the precautionary principle should be invoked
and the application should therefore be refused on grounds that it fails the Sequential
Development Committee
40
9 May 2013
Test as the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the site is not at risk
from flooding for the 100 year expected lifetime of the proposed dwelling.
In summary, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the
Development Plan because if fails to comply with Policy HO 9 in that it does not
meet the test as a building worthy of retention and Policy EN 10 as it involves
redevelopment for a more vulnerable use within an area at high risk of flooding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse, on the basis that the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan
because if fails to comply with Policy HO 9 in that it does not meet the test as
a building worthy of retention and Policy EN 10 as it involves redevelopment
for a more vulnerable use within an area at high risk of flooding.
8.
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0199 - Installation of solar panels; The Studio, 18 St
Peters Road for Stead Mutton Griggs Architects
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 April 2013
Case Officer: Mr C Mohtram
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Sheringham Conservation Area
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0199 PF
Installation of solar panels
THE APPLICATION
Is for the installation of 16 solar panels along the roof of a single storey property on
its southern elevation fronting Railway Approach.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah having regard to the following planning issue:
Visual impact of solar panels in the Conservation Area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objection - Concerned that solar panels are not in keeping with the Conservation
Area.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection due to the solar panels being attached to a building that is considered a
fairly modern design. The panels will hold a prominent position in the street scene as
the host building fronts onto the highway at the junction of St Peters Road and
Station Approach which are within Sheringham Conservation Area. However a large
proportion of the tiles and roof slope will still remain visible thus reducing the impact
on the host building and the wider area. Therefore it is considered that the proposal
will not harm the significance of the heritage asset.
Development Committee
41
9 May 2013
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection
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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The visual impact of the solar panel within the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The location of this proposal is within the Conservation Area whereby Policy EN8 is
applicable. Members will note the comments of the Conservation, Design &
Landscape Manager and the proposal is not considered detrimental to the character
of the surrounding area or the host building.
The proposal accords with adopted Development Plan policies EN4, EN8 and EN7.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following conditions:
2
When the hereby approved solar array is no longer reasonably needed for
micro regeneration it shall be removed from the site within six months of the
cessation of it's use, except as may otherwise be approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure the land is returned to its previous condition once the solar
equipment is no longer required for electricity generating purposes, in the
interest of the visual appearance of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 3, EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
42
9 May 2013
3
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the
site, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
9.
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0214 - Retention of timber entrance gates; Berry Hall,
Westgate for Walsingham Estate Management Ltd
- Target Date: 23 April 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
See also LA/13/0215 below
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade II*
Archaeological Site
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the retention of a pair of ledged and braced dark stained timber entrance
gates hung from oak posts within an existing opening. Each gate is approximately
1.8m wide by 1.8m high. The posts are approximately 2.25m in height.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Fitzpatrick having regard to the following planning issues:
Impact on Listed Building
Design
PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council is concerned that the gates are not suitable for a Grade II Listed
building with the history of Berry Hall. They look modern and forbidding and block a
view of the front of the house which has been part of the historic landscape of Great
Walsingham for many years. While it is appreciated that the tenant has a desire for
privacy, anyone living in an historic building within a conservation area needs to
accept that views of the property should remain.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design): No objection
Highway Authority: No objection. In relation to highway issues only, as this proposal
does not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic and the gates are
set back over 5m from the highway boundary the Norfolk County Council does not
wish to restrict the grant of permission.
Development Committee
43
9 May 2013
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on listed building
Design impact in Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Policy EN8 requires that development proposals should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets and their setting through high quality
sensitive design and that development that would have an adverse impact on their
special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted. (Permitted development
allowances for the erection of gates and fences do not apply in this case because the
proposed development is surrounding a listed building).
The property that the entrance serves is Berry Hall, a 16th century flint property with
pantiled roof. This is a Grade II * building. The property is set back from the western
site boundary by some 37m and from the public highway by some 46m. The gates
have been hung on oak posts which are set behind the existing brick piers. The gates
open inwards and when closed partially obscure the view of the property from public
view. The most prominent view into the site is directly opposite the entrance to the
west of the site. When the gates are closed the view of the property would be
restricted to one of the first floor level and above.
No objection has been raised by the Highway Authority as the proposal would not
impact on highway safety.
Whilst the design of the gates is plain and low key the form and detail are considered
acceptable within the setting. It is considered that they sit comfortably within the
existing opening and do not introduce an adverse impact on the special historic or
archaeological interest of the listed buildings, their setting or the wider Conservation
Area. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised no objection to
the proposal.
Given the above the proposal is considered to comply with Policies EN4 and EN8 of
the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
Development Committee
44
9 May 2013
10.
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/0215 - Erection of timber entrance gates (retrospective);
Berry Hall, Westgate for Walsingham Estate Management Ltd
- Target Date: 23 April 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Listed Building Alterations
See also PF/13/0214 above
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade II*
Archaeological Site
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks retrospective Listed Building consent for the erection of a pair of ledged and
braced dark stained timber entrance gates hung from oak posts within an existing
opening. Each gate is approximately 1.8m wide by 1.8m high.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Fitzpatrick having regard to the following planning issues:
Impact on Listed Building
Design
PARISH COUNCIL
Is concerned that the gates are not suitable for a Grade II Listed building with the
history of Berry Hall. They look modern and forbidding and block a view of the front of
the house which has been part of the historic landscape of Great Walsingham for
many years. While it is appreciated that the tenant has a desire for privacy, anyone
living in an historic building within a conservation area needs to accept that views of
the property should remain.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design): No
objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
45
9 May 2013
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on Listed Building
APPRAISAL
Policy EN8 requires that development proposals should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets and their setting through high quality
sensitive design and that development that would have an adverse impact on their
special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
The property that the entrance serves is Berry Hall, a 16th century flint property with
pantiled roof. This is a Grade II * building. The property is set back from the western
site boundary by some 37m and from the public highway by some 46m. The gates
have been hung on oak posts which are set behind the existing brick piers. The gates
open inwards and when closed partially obscure the view of the property from public
view. The most prominent view into the site is directly opposite the entrance to the
west of the site. When the gates are closed the view of the property would be
restricted to one of the first floor and above.
Whilst the design of the gates is plain and low key and it is considered that they sit
comfortably within the existing opening and do not introduce an adverse impact on
the special historic or archaeological interest of the listed building or its setting. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised no objection to the
proposal.
Given the above the proposal is considered to comply with Policy EN8 of the Core
Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
11.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
January to March 2013, covering the turnround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and land charge searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 4) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the final quarter of 2012/13
9 major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 117 minor
applications and 142 other applications, a total of 268 applications, a decrease of 48
compared with the previous quarter.
Members will recall from the discussion at the January Development Committee
meeting the strenuous efforts being made to determine major applications more
quickly in the light of the possibility of “special measures” sanctions being introduced
by the Government under its „Planning Performance and the Planning Guarantee‟
proposals, which were the subject of consultation at the end of 2012.
The most recent quarter saw 8 of the 9 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, i.e. 88.89%. This has meant that the performance for the
year as a whole has lifted to 58.33% of these applications determined within time;
Development Committee
46
9 May 2013
over the two year period during which the Government proposed that the sanctions
regime might be assessed 20 out of 43 applications were determined within time, i.e.
46.51%. This is comfortably above the 30% figure mooted for special measures in
the consultation paper. As yet, however, the Government has not published its final
decision as to how the Planning Guarantee is to be taken forward.
In terms of minor applications, performance increased by some 2.5% to 39.32% over
the quarter leaving the figure for the year as a whole at 38.35%, as against the
Council‟s target of 72%. As far as „other‟ applications are concerned performance
increased by almost 1% to 52.82% with the annual figure standing at 53.38%, again
well below the Council‟s target of 80%. It will be noted that for both of these
categories of applications the outturn figure is very similar to that achieved in 2011/12
and this is the subject of further comment below.
Table 1B indicates workload for the Service during the quarter and shows that 361
applications were submitted, i.e. some 93 more than the number determined. At the
present time the Service is still failing to keep pace with incoming work for planning
applications. Pre-application enquiries, „Do I Need Planning Permission?‟ and
discharge of conditions applications were together at similar levels to the previous
quarter, but Duty Officer enquiries increased by more than 100; this means that
Officers have had to spend significant time above and beyond the duty period in
responding to queries which could not be dealt with during the allocated time, thus
having an impact on application performance. Steps are being taken to manage this
situation.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure dropped to 90.67%, but this
remained above the Council target and the figure for the year as a whole was
92.48%.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 6
decisions were made, of which 3 were dismissed and 3 were allowed, thus giving a
success rate for appellants at 50%, with the cumulative figure for 2012/13 at just over
35%. This is very close
to the national average. Recent appeal decisions have confirmed that the Planning
Inspectorate is giving greater weight to the National Planning Policy Framework and
in some cases this is overriding adopted Council policies. This matter will be the
subject of a seminar for Members in the near future.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 572 were handled during the quarter, a
decrease of some 44 when compared with the previous quarter, but an increase of
some 35 when compared with the final quarter of 2011/12. For the year as a whole
the number of searches was 2450, an increase of 95 when compared with 2011/12
and of 23 when compared with 2010/11, possibly indicating a welcome increase in
economic activity in this sector.
Conclusions
In summary, the final quarter has seen a significant improvement in planning
performance in determining major planning applications within the statutory timescale. This has been achieved through the diversion of significant Member, Officer
and management time. To an extent improved delivery against this priority has had
an adverse effect in other areas of the Service.
2 Planning Assistants on 12 month contracts were offered appointments at the end of
2012 but only 1 has taken up his post. The Senior Planning Officer who had
Development Committee
47
9 May 2013
responsibility for determining major residential applications was replaced through an
internal promotion and in turn her Planning Officer post has recently been filled by
one of the Planning Assistants. This has meant that the Service is still operating with
2 Planning Assistants short of the agreed establishment. It is therefore not surprising
that performance on minor and other applications has failed to improve over several
quarters. Recruitment into one of these posts is intended to take place shortly; the
other will be considered as part of a review following the forthcoming appointment of
the new Head of Planning.
Members will be aware that the Service participated in the National Planning
Benchmarking Exercise and a final set of comparisons between North Norfolk and
some 17 other similar shire district councils will be provided for Members shortly. The
Service has also been subject to a Peer Review by the LGA and the final report from
this exercise is awaited shortly and will be circulated as soon as possible.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management)
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/13/0101 - Installation of security railings; Electricity Sub-station,
Abbey Street for UK Power Networks
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/13/0048 - Erection of garages; Captain's Haunt, Keswick Road for
Mr & Mrs Brown
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/0166 - Construction of balcony; The Red House, Paston Road
for Mr & Mrs Arnup
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - PF/12/1392 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and flue; 3 Old
Farm Court, Fakenham Road, East Barsham for Mr L H Elliott
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0328 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2
Hillside Road for Mr & Mrs C Gibbons
(Householder application)
BINHAM - NP/13/0372 - Erection of lean-to extension to agricultural building;
Copse Farm, Walsingham Road for Mr H D Howell
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BLAKENEY - LE/12/1296 - Demolition of workshop buildings; Stratton Long
Marine, Westgate Street for Mr P Long
(Conservation Area Demolition)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/0169 - Installation of replacement windows; Quay Barn, 6
The Quay for Mrs C Comber
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/0217 - Part removal of internal piers; 93 High Street for Mr &
Mrs D Burlison
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
48
9 May 2013
BRISTON - NMA1/12/0693 - Non material amendment request to increase
bedroom 1/shower/WC and study width, repositioning of ground floor front WC
window, widen front porch, amend ground floor size and increase in size first
floor velux; land at rear of 23 The Lane for Mr & Mrs Reynolds
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/12/1355 - Siting of mobile home for agricultural worker, retention
of partially constructed agricultural building, erection of livestock building and
continued use of agricultural building as office, catering kitchen and
freezer/chiller area; Brambles Farm, Thurning Road for Mr M Holden
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/13/0285 - Erection of rear conservatory; Woodcroft, Wood Street
for Dr Bacon
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0103 - Removal of single-storey side extension
and erection of two-storey side extension; Loke Cottage, Taylors Loke for Ms E
Skeate
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1249 - Erection of replacement two-storey
dwelling; Ladyholme, Hilltop for Fleur Developments Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/0332 - Internal alterations to facilitate conversion
of two dwellings into one dwelling; 1 & 2 Bank Cottages, High Street for Mrs A
Holden
(Listed Building Alterations)
COLBY - PF/12/0578 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extensions and singlestorey rear extension; 2 The Cottages, Bridge Road for Mr R Robinson
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/13/0147 - Continued use of land as residential garden and erection
of first floor rear extension and single-storey side extension; The White House,
Long Lane for Mr & Mrs Scott
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0309 - Erection of attached greenhouse;
Dairy Barn, Monks Lane, Saxthorpe for Mr D Butler
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/0212 - Retention of building used as pharmacy; Cromer Group
Practice, 48 Overstrand Road for Cromer Group Practice
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/13/0172 - Alterations to front elevation including installation of
door, light over front door, secondary glazing to shop front, painting of joinery
and render and installation of chimney pot; The Old Pottery, 16 Jetty Street for
Mr D Saunders
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
49
9 May 2013
CROMER - PF/13/0190 - Change of use from A1(retail) to A2 (financial and
professional services); 9 Bond Street for Saffron Insurance
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0196 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Fieldfare, 32 Roughton Road for Mr & Mrs N Crayford
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/0353 - Erection of side extension; The Oaks, 17 Cliff Avenue
for Mr Phillips & Ms Knowles
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/13/0150 - Removal of internal first floor wall and installation of
replacement front door; 2 Chesterfield Villas, West Street for Mr A Fraser
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/13/0127 - Erection of front entrance lobby; 23 Roughton Road for
Mr Smith
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/0140 - Erection of extension to conservatory.; Ormesby House,
1 Cliff Avenue for Mr Kent & Mrs Kilshaw
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/0073 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
ref: 11/0540 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Barn, Land to rear
of Poplar Farm for Ms Hopton
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/0216 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Brandywell, Youngmans Lane for Mrs Walpole
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/0185 - Erection of single-storey front link extension and
single-storey rear extension; Kingfishers, 21 Jubilee Close for Mr & Mrs Carr
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0275 - Extension and re-roofing of garage to provide
garage/car port; 2 Toll Bar for Mr B Sofrin
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - AN/13/0156 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Sue
Ryder, Greenway Lane for Sue Ryder
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PO/12/1005 - Erection of 6 detached dwellings and conversion of
dwelling to 4 apartments; Abbeyfield, 134 Norwich Road for Raven Land
Management Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0143 - Use of land for the temporary re-location of 12
mobile homes.; Manor Caravan Park, The Hill for Happisburgh Estates
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
50
9 May 2013
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0264 - Erection of side extension to pole barn;
Larksfield, Hall Farm, Grub Street for Mr G Berry
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/0163 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
day/waiting room facility; Pine Heath Ward, Kelling Hospital, Cromer Road for
The Friends of Kelling Hospital
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/0124 - Erection of detached
garage/workshop; Brackendale, Vale Road for Mr R Pigott
(Householder application)
replacement
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/0346 - Erection of replacement detached garage; 60
Pineheath Road for Mr & Mrs J M Nicholson
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/13/0193 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
extension to garage to provide car port; 6 The Street for Mr C Tomkinson
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0200 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 97/0524 to permit permanent residential occupation; Bob's Cottage,
Blakeney Road for Mr A Moncur & Ms F Thompson
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/0187 - Raising of roof pitch to provide first floor
habitable accommodation, construction of pitched roofs onto existing flat roofs
and cladding and rendering of existing walls; Cintanna, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs
Davies
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/13/0170 - Installation of window in blocked-up opening; 1 Albert
Street for Mrs H Wright
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/13/0248 - Erection of rear conservatory; 20 Grove Lane for Mr & Mrs
B Whiffin
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/13/0267 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with dormer
window above and alterations to front dormer windows; 17 Grove Close for Mr L
Harris
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/13/0133 - Erection of two-storey front extension and porch; 7 Kelling
Road for Mr S Gates
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/13/0125 - Erection of first floor extension to weights room;
Gresham's School, Cromer Road for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
51
9 May 2013
HOLT - LA/12/1165 - Demolition of outbuilding and alterations to public house
and barn to facilitate conversion to residential flats/dwellings; The Railway
Tavern, 2 Station Road for Capricorn Estates Partnership
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/12/0942 - Retention of smoking shelter; The Kings Head, 19 High
Street for Mr I Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - PF/13/0181 - Re-roofing of front dormer window; 7 Hillside Road,
Horning for Mr & Mrs Evans
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/13/0154 - Erection of rear extension; Hoveton & Wroxham
Medical Centre, Stalham Road for Hoveton and Wroxham Medical Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/13/0096 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and garage;
Hawthorns, Tunstead Road for Mr B Wells
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/13/0144 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (coffee shop).;
Unit 6, Station Road Business Park, Horning Road West for H Semmence & Co
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/13/0255 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 29 Two
Saints Close for Mr R J Scales
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/13/0186 - Removal of conditions 9, 10 and 11 of planning
permission reference 11/0134 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Junction Farm Barn, Sydney Street for Mr J Deane
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - PF/13/0066 - Variation of Condition 9 of planning permission
reference: 02/1700 to permit permanent residential occupation; Coachmans
Cottage, Sea Palling Road for Mr D Gibbard
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/13/0234 - Erection of detached cart-shed garage; North Acre,
Pond Road for Mr Sayer
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/13/0046 - Conversion of barn and outbuildings to two-storey
dwelling; Beeches Farm, Yarmouth Road for E J Brooks and Son
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/12/1384 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Hedges, Malthouse Lane for Mr M Peake
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/13/0208 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
15 Gordon Road for Mr W Basham
(Householder application)
Development Committee
52
9 May 2013
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0155 - Erection of chimney stack; 13 Gunner Close for Mr J
Brightman
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0352 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 29 Trunch
Road for Mr & Mrs A Adcock
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1315 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0500 to permit revised front boundary wall; The Royal Hotel, 30
Paston Road for The Royal Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/13/0015 - Erection of side/rear extension; 7 Stanley Avenue
for Mr J Green
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0237 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 74
Brick Kiln Road for Mr & Mrs Beard
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0161 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 54
Mundesley Road for Mr Self
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - NMA2/10/1453 - Non material amendment request to permit
change to surfacing material of car parking spaces serving Plots 17-25; Railway
Triangle site, Norwich Road for Hopkins Homes Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/0165 - Erection of replacement single-storey side/rear
link extension; 43 Cromer Road for Mrs D Hartley
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/0195 - Erection of single-storey side extension (revised
design); The Rose Garden, 3 Harbord Road for Mr & Mrs N Allsop
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/0142 - Erection of replacement rear conservatory; 14
Mundesley Road for Mr D Thompson
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/13/0167 - Erection of first floor rear extension; The Ark, Chapel
Road for Mr P Stemp
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/13/0131 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 02/0903 to permit occupation of dwelling independently of adjacent
shellfish processing unit; Tiddlers Cottage, Mill Lane, East Runton for Mr K
Jonas
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/13/0223 - Erection of rear conservatory; Portland, 71 Moor
Lane for Mr & Mrs Crich
(Householder application)
Development Committee
53
9 May 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0021 - Variation of Conditions 8, 25, 30, 39, 45, 47 and 50
of planning permission reference 10/0920; Land at Cromer Road for Tesco
Stores Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0030 - Variation of Condition 40 of planning permission
reference: 10/0920 to permit amendments to design and car park layout and
Condition 34 to permit details of pedestrian link to be submitted within three
months of commencement of development; Land at, Cromer Road for Tesco
Stores Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0088 - Erection of attached garage; 10 Cliff Road for Mr N
Manson
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0209 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 18B St
Nicholas Place for Mr T Claydon
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0192 - Formation of covered verandah and construction
of access ramps; Sports Pavilion Recreation Ground, Weybourne Road for
Sheringham and District Sports Association
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PM/12/1389 - Erection of two-storey dwelling with single-storey
wing and detached garage; Land off Weston Terrace for Mr R Hall
(Reserved Matters)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0327 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 19 Cliff
Road for Mr & Mrs M Stursberg
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0331 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 32 St
Austins Grove for Mr L Hunter
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/13/0130 - Erection of storage shed (retrospective); Woodlands,
Norwich Road for Mr B Crow
(Householder application)
SLOLEY - PF/13/0077 - Removal of condition 5 of planning permission reference
98/1644 to permit permanent residential occupation and variation of Condition 2
to permit conversion of shower block to habitable accommodation
(retrospective); Piggery Cottage, High Street for Mr & Mrs Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0177 - Erection of verandah; Hall Farm House, Hall Road
for Mr P Peal
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0114 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front
porch; 4 Sandy Lane for Mr Harrison
(Householder application)
Development Committee
54
9 May 2013
SOUTHREPPS - LA/13/0063 - Alterations to garden room, erection of rear
extension, cladding to wood store and replacement of rear elevation PVC
windows with timber; Manor Farm, Long Lane for Dr & Mrs Gair
(Listed Building Alterations)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0064 - Erection of attached garage extension, cladding of
wood store and alterations to garden room; Manor Farm, Long Lane for Dr &
Mrs Gair
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0005 - Retention of detached outbuilding; Hall Farm
Bungalow, Hall Road for Mr N Storey
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/13/0224 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Peveril Keep,
Brumstead Road for Mr P Gotts
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/13/0233 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission ref:
03/2011 to permit full residential occupancy; Barn 12 West End Farm, Chapel
Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr Eldridge
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - NMA1/10/0548 - Non material amendment request to revise window
and door details and change roof, wall, window and door materials; Land at 2
Albion Drive for Mr & Mrs Barber
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STODY - PF/13/0205 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions and
installation of first floor French doors and balcony and rendering of existing
walls (part retrospective); Wayside Bungalow, Pinkney Lane, Hunworth for Mr N
Massingham
(Householder application)
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1106 - Conversion of barns to D1 (instructional art studio) and
one unit of holiday accommodation; Elm Farm, Felmingham Road for Mr S
Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1399 - Conversion of detached garage to self-contained unit
of holiday accommodation; Edgecombe House, North Walsham Road for Mr D
Gould
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - PF/13/0279 - Raising of roof to study/studio building; Glen Farm,
Glen Farm Lane, Metton for Mr & Mrs D Barrett
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/13/0164 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Firs Cottage, The
Street for Mr P Stirland & Ms M Pye
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/13/0265 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Holly Farm,
Moor Road for Mr and Mrs Norris
(Householder application)
Development Committee
55
9 May 2013
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/13/0228 - Erection of single-storey front extension;
Briar Patch, The Street for Mr K Goodwin
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/13/0044 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and
detached garage; Green Farm, Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs J Perry
(Full Planning Permission)
THURNING - PF/13/0222 - Installation of first floor side window and pitched roof
to porch; Lime Tree Farmhouse, Saxthorpe Road for Mr & Mrs T Hume
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/13/0040 - Installation of chemical disposal point to serve
exempted caravan site; Manor Farm, Brewery Road for Mr Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/13/0318 - Erection of front porch; The Ings, Anchor Street for
Mr & Mrs Dazeley
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/0351 - Installation of external door; 4 Swan Entry for Rev
D Davis
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/0270 - Removal of lintel and brickwork above
gate and erection of brick pier and insertion of posts and gates; The Well
House, Standard Road for Mr & Mrs Eyre
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0280 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference: 12/0418 to permit amended siting of retail store; Polka
Road Caravans, Polka Road for Lindum Group Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/0764 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 06/0274 to permit permanent residential occupation of Unit 2, The Old
Stable; The Old Stable, Millfield, Beach Lane for Mr M Grey
(Full Planning Permission)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
KELLING - PF/12/0711 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of public
house/restaurant with letting rooms; Two Oaks, Weybourne Road for Kelling
Estate LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/1445 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land at Purdy
Street for Mr Hudson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PO/13/0176 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; 11
Havelock Road for Mrs Buck
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Committee
56
9 May 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0148 - Erection of first and second floor rear extensions
to provide self-contained unit of holiday accommodation; 8 Morris Street for
Helene Whelan
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0568 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings with
garages; Land adjacent 25 Cremers Drift, Sheringham for Mr S Pigott
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items.
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0387 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1783 to permit use of chapel of rest/office building for a mixed use
of chapel of rest/office/overnight sleeping accommodation; Abbey Pets
Remembrance Gardens And Crematoria Ltd, Britons Lane for Mr R Edwards
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
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1179 - Installation of five replacement front
windows; 5-7 High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Committee
57
9 May 2013