OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 10 JANUARY 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 – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/1232 - Erection of two-storey side/rear
extension; Horseshoe Cottage, The Street, Corpusty for Mr S Waller
- Target Date: 21 December 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a two-storey side/rear extension, having a maximum width of 5.5m,
with an approximate depth of 6.3m. Maximum height would measure 6.55m.
Amended plan received deleting a proposed first floor side window.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is related to a member of staff.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection or comment. Council understands that there has been an objection
regarding the window that may overlook the neighbouring driveway.
REPRESENTATIONS
One objection has been received on the following ground:
Extension two metres from boundary with neighbour with a window overlooking onto
property.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Condition required for
the erection of a temporary fence to be erected at least 1.5m high a minimum
distance of 2.0m from the base of any existing trees or hedgerows identified to be
retained on the approved plan.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
1
10 January 2013
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Design
3. Impact on amenity
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Corpusty Settlement Boundary, where proposals for
extensions to dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, providing there
is compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies.
The property is a detached, two-storey house facing onto The Street.
The proposed development would involve the demolition of a smaller single-storey
extension. The extension would be two-storey, sited to the side of the property.
Whilst it is recognised that the extension would have an eaves and ridge-height to
match the existing property, and would not have a step-back from the front building
line, the proportions and scale are considered to be acceptable. The size of the
extension would be subordinate to the size of the main dwelling and it is not
considered that the proposed development would be significantly detrimental to the
host dwelling so to warrant refusal.
The design proposed is considered to be acceptable; the form and materials
proposed would be compatible with the existing property with matching render and
pantiles.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, the extension would sit close to the boundary with
the property to the south. In terms of overlooking of that property, the facing window
in the extension would be limited to ground floor level (facing bedroom and en-suite
windows). A first-floor south-facing window has been deleted from the proposals,
thus overcoming a potential loss of privacy for the neighbouring dwelling.
It is considered that the proposals would accord with adopted Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection
resulting from re-advertisement/re-consultation and subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions including the removal of permitted development
rights for the insertion of any first floor window or rooflight in the southern
elevation of the extension and a condition relating to the erection of a
temporary fence(s) to protect trees on site.
Development Committee
2
10 January 2013
2.
HAPPISBURGH - PO/12/0423 - Erection of nine replacement dwellings and
reinstatement of former residential land to provide amenity land; Sites off
North Walsham Road and Beach Road for T M Trustees Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 June 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Rural Residential Conversion Area
Archaeological Site
Coastal Erosion Constraint Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DP/11/1120 DP - Prior notification of intention to demolish nine dwellings Approved 07/10/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of nine dwellings as replacements for those which have been
demolished at Beach Road, Happisburgh and the reinstatement of the former
residential land as an amenity area. At this stage only the access, layout and scale of
the development at North Walsham Road are under consideration, with appearance
and landscaping reserved for later consideration.
An amended plan has been received which indicates that the development would be
served via a single point of access off the North Walsham Road with five dwellings
fronting the highway, three to the east of the access and two to the west. The
remaining four dwellings, garaging and parking areas for the whole development
would be to the rear of the site.
It is intended that the development would provide a mix of house types consisting of
6 three bedroom units, four of which would have floor areas of 92 sq metres and the
other two, floor areas of 110 sq. metres. The other three would be four bedroom
units, one having a floor area of 140 sq metres and the other two floor areas of 157
sq metres. With the exception of two of the dwellings set towards the rear of the site,
which would be single storey, the remaining dwellings would be one-and-half-storey.
These would have eaves heights ranging from 3.0 to 3.4 metres and ridge heights
between 6.4 and 7.4 metres.
A further amended plan has been received showing a footpath to the frontage of The
Stables and Tithe Farm, which would link the proposed footpath to the frontage of the
site and school car park with the existing footpath at the junction of the North
Walsham Road and The Street.
As far as the amenity area at Beach Road is concerned this would have a post and
rail fence to the boundaries and the site would be laid to grass.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Committee
3
10 January 2013
PARISH COUNCIL
(Original plan) - Whilst keen to support replacement dwellings in Happisburgh, the
Parish Council considers that the plans are very sketchy for such an important
change to this area of the village. They would welcome revised plans which would
allow them to provide more informed comments.
(Amended plan) - No objection
(Further amended plan showing footpath link) - Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirty five letters of objections have been received from local residents in respect of
the original plans which raise the following concerns (summarised):1. The overwhelming majority of Happisburgh villagers do not want the
development.
2. No new houses are required.
3. Is there really a need for additional dwellings in Happisburgh given the number
that are for sale?
4. The land would be better used as a school car park to avoid children being
dropped off on the main street.
5. The development of the site would hinder any potential expansion of the school.
6. Is it appropriate for dwellings to be built next to the school playing field and car
park?
7. The Council has completely ignored 164 objections following the pre-planning
consultation.
8. It would appear that the consultation exercise was merely a formality which has
had no effect whatsoever on the eventual outcome.
9. There was no consultation in respect of the alternative site and as such the
Council should initiate a consultation in respect of the alternative site before
proceeding with this application.
10. Why was money wasted with a public consultation exercise if no account has
been taken of the findings?
11. The other site on Whimpwell Street would be better, as this is an infill site.
12. The ideal spot for the development is opposite Lighthouse Close.
13. The development of the site will cause more traffic on a country road which has
no pavement.
14. The junction with North Walsham Road and Blacksmith Lane is very dangerous
and even with the staggered cross road this will increase potential traffic collision
and children being knocked over.
15. 9 dwellings in this location will increase the risk to children and other pedestrians
using the North Walsham Road, especially in the absence of a footpath.
16. Traffic congestion is already an issue especially at the start and end of school
and this will only get worse.
17. Bearing in mind the lack of public transport and the need to travel to work this will
markedly increase the environmental footprint of the village.
18. If the development goes ahead it would blight the views entering the village as
well as the view from within the village looking out across the countryside.
19. The development would adversely affect views of the village and Conservation
Area.
20. Would increase the ribbon development which already existing in North Walsham
Road, which is out of character with the rest of the village and increase the
suburban character.
21. Given the sensitive nature of the site full detail drawings should be required at
this stage.
22. The site is known to be of archaeological interest.
Development Committee
4
10 January 2013
23. Building on Grade A agricultural land is disgusting.
24. The development has no impact on the people who have lost their homes in
Happisburgh as they have already received compensation and moved on.
25. The only benefit to local residents would be if the money from the development
was ring fenced in order to provide more beach defences.
26. The proposed development will open up the way to re-site the caravan park on
the adjacent land again adversely affecting the school.
A further seventeen letters of objection have been received from local residents in
respect of the amended plan which reiterate the previous concerns and also raise the
following additional concerns (summarised):-.
1. There are discrepancies in the revised Design and Access Statement which need
to be rectified relating to the ownership of land in Beach Road and the description
of properties to the south-east of Beach Road.
2. The development does not address the need for affordable housing and first time
buyers.
3. The development is not a like for like replacement, but appears to be a money
raising development.
One letter of support has been received which makes the following comments
(summarised):1. The site is near local amenities such as the school.
2. Development of this site would mean that vehicle may not need to travel through
the village.
3. Extending the village boundary will reduce congestion within the village.
4. The site does not impact on the public right of way.
5. There is still plenty of land behind the school in order to allow its expansion.
6. The site is not within the Conservation Area.
One letter of comment has been received (summarised):1. There is insufficient information in respect of the proposed development.
A letter has also been received from Chair of Happisburgh (C of E) Primary School
Governing Body which raises the following objections (summarised):1. It is considered that the site in the middle of the village offers a much better
solution which would achieve the objectives of the Council.
2. The timing of the pre-consultation was such, coming a week before the summer
holidays, that the school had little time to inform parents and to discuss their
response.
3. The school is uneasy about a development in such close proximity to the
playground and has concerns regarding child safety.
4. The school currently has 107 pupils, the highest to date, and there are concerns
that there may be objections for residents of the development in respect of noise
from the playground during school hours and after school activities. The
Community Hall is used by parents and community groups throughout the year in
the evenings.
5. The development of the site would leave the school little room to expand and
would mask views of the Victorian part of the school, Community Hall and
classrooms which the planners were keen to maintain when permission was
granted some five years ago.
6. Given the school role, the buildings are now inadequate and the school has a
vision of future expansion based upon the acquisition of the field at the rear to
further enhance the outside play area and sports facilities. The development of
the site would prevent any such expansion.
Development Committee
5
10 January 2013
7. There are highways issues, with the creation of the staggered junction with
vehicles having to pull well out into the road when exiting Blacksmiths Lane, so
as to see along the North Walsham Road.
8. The Governors consider that all must work in harmony to achieve an overall
vision for the future of Happisburgh and its community and the Council needs to
listen to the local community, many of which have lived and worked in the area
for many generations.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - (Original plan) - Whilst having no objection in principle,
suggests that the development should be served from a single or minimal number of
access points to the highway. The scheme as proposed has 6 of the dwellings having
separate access points to the highway without the benefit of manoeuvring facilities. In
addition, the Highway Authority would expect a footway across both the site frontage
and continuing to the existing section of footway adjacent to the intersection of North
Walsham Road and The Street. It would appear that insufficient highway verge exists
to provide this additional footway.
(Amended plans) - No objection subject to the provision of the central point of access
into the site and a footpath link from the site to the junction with The Street and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Head of Coastal Strategy - (Original plan) – Provides detailed comments, which are
included as Appendix 1, which outline the background to the application and the
material considerations which are considered to be pertinent to its determination.
Considers that the proposal is fully in accordance with the aims, vision, and policies
of the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy and past and
current national policy.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) - (Amended plan) Of the two elements of this scheme, the reinstatement of the residential land along
Beach Road to provide amenity land raises no particular Conservation & Design
concerns. Indeed, the demolition of the nine dwellings could only have a positive
impact upon the setting of the Happisburgh Conservation Area and the Grade II*
Listed Manor.
In contrast, there have always been concerns regarding developing the land along
North Walsham Road, having objected to a housing allocation in this area as part of
the LDF Options Appraisal. Although this admittedly involved a larger land take than
the current proposal, it did flag up some of the issues that are still relevant today –
most notably the setting of the Happisburgh Conservation Area and the Grade I
Listed St Mary's Church.
By way of explanation, the historic core of the village takes its place on slightly raised
ground overlooking the farmland in the foreground. These relatively flat fields in their
undeveloped form contribute to the prominence of the centre when approaching from
the west. With this being one of the most defining views of Happisburgh, locating any
buildings on the south side of North Walsham Road would undoubtedly impact upon
views into and out of the Conservation Area. With it also inevitably impinging upon
views of the Church (particularly when viewed from the public footpath), it is not
something that this Section would be predisposed to support.
In offering these comments, however, we are obviously mindful of the wider context
and the need to look at the proposals in the round. Hence, it is necessary to factor in
the gains to be had on the cliff top, and to be aware of the wider aims and objectives
Development Committee
6
10 January 2013
of the Coastal Pathfinder project. With this in mind, dialogue has continued with the
agents to design a scheme which would at least be appropriate on the outskirts of the
village.
In terms of detail, this has involved creating a close-knit but relatively informal layout
of buildings. Not only would this have echoes of the converted outbuildings on the
other side of the school car park, but it would also reflect the sites transitional
position into the countryside. By also avoiding regimented or suburban approaches,
the development would point more towards the form and character within the heart of
the village.
Of the matters to be considered as part of the outline application, the single point of
access and the communal yard layout are instrumental in the informality of the
scheme. With ridge heights also seemingly to be kept down (1-1½ storey: 5.9-7.4m),
the scheme at least seeks to minimize its impact upon heritage assets. In practice,
however, Conservation & Design remain to be convinced that the impact of the
development would be anything other than harmful for the reasons outlined above.
In the event of other material considerations outweighing the heritage concerns,
detailed materials and landscaping conditions would need to be imposed to ensure
that a high quality scheme is achieved to befit the sensitive location. This would need
to incorporate natural materials and local reference points in its design to ensure
compatibility with its surroundings.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - (Original plan) - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – (Amended plans) –
Happisburgh and its surrounds are within the Coastal Plain Landscape Type as
defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD 2009). It is
noted that the pre-Enclosure field pattern has been diluted through loss of field
boundaries. Positive features to enhance the landscape character of the Type are
cited within the LCA as, „planting around new developments which actively blends
with existing features rather than simply „screens‟ new development. Landscape
proposals should also build upon and enhance existing features such as hedge
boundaries, and trees within field boundaries‟.
The single point of access leading to a loose „courtyard‟ arrangement does achieve
an informal layout that is in some way reflective of the converted farm outbuildings
further along the main road towards the village core. Furthermore the visual impact of
the development will be reduced by way of ridge heights kept to 11/2 storey max.
The elevations of the development should not be dominant, given the prominent
location of this site, with the raised village centre as its backdrop.
However at the present time I note that low level boundary walls are proposed to
define the gardens of dwellings fronting North Walsham Road, similar to those
existing on the other side of North Walsham Road. This is a somewhat suburban
boundary treatment and a mixed native hedge would form a more appropriate
boundary for such a rural setting, reflecting the surrounding field boundaries and
existing hedge to the fields adjacent to North Walsham Road.
Suitable landscape proposals appropriate for this rural setting will be key to the
success of this scheme and its relationship with the immediate landscape and any
proposals submitted as reserved matters should address the following:
Development Committee
7
10 January 2013
a) Enhancement of the existing field hedge along the western boundary. Proposals
should be informed by prevailing native species in the area. Inclusion of field
trees such as oaks would be appropriate.
b) A similar approach should be taken along the southern boundary.
c) Careful design of the scheme frontage onto North Walsham Road to ensure that
it is in keeping with the surrounding field boundaries and does not accentuate a
suburban appearance to the development.
Planning Policy Manager – Points to the fact that a Core Aim of the Core Strategy is
that the Council will „aim to mitigate and adapt to impacts of coastal erosion and
flooding …. and establish a sustainable shoreline management policy which takes
account of the consequences of a changing coast on the environment, communities,
the economy and infrastructure.‟ and to „ to enable adaptation to future changes‟.
However, as the proposed site extends the existing settlement into the open
countryside, in order to address the criterion outlined in Policy EN12 any scheme will
need to demonstrate that any impact will be mitigated by sympathetic design, layout,
and orientation. Importantly compliance with this criterion requires a comparison to
be made between the impacts of the existing development on Beach Road and the
new proposal. Both sites are in sensitive locations but it is difficult to envisage a
situation where any replacement development could be worse than that in Beach
Road.
In addition, it will be necessary to demonstrate compliance with a number of other
Core Strategy policies. Perhaps most important of these is the requirement to
demonstrate that any proposal would either „preserve or enhance‟ the setting of
Happisburgh Conservation Area, Policy EN8.
In my view it would be entirely appropriate to attach weight to the benefits of clearing
the existing site, which is equally within the setting of the Conservation Area and
some Listed Buildings, when reaching a conclusion in relation to the „preserve or
enhance‟ test. The two proposals are clearly directly connected and therefore the fact
that they are two separate sites should not prevent the assessment taking into
account the combined impacts of both proposals.
English Heritage - (Original plan) - The application should be determined in
accordance with national and local policy guidance.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer - (Original plan) - No objection subject to the
development complying with the requirement of Secured by Design.
Norfolk County Council - Historic Environment Services –
(Original plan) - The proposed development is located on the line of a medieval to
post medieval road or track, where in 1966 a stone coffin lid was found as a result of
ploughing. The Historic Environment Service therefore require the results of
archaeological elevation, in this instance an one site archaeological investigation to
be provided prior to the determination of the application, in accord with the National
Planning Policy Framework.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
8
10 January 2013
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 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 12: Replacement of development affected by coastal erosion risk
(specifies the circumstances under which development affected by coastal erosion
may be relocated).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact of the development on the setting of the Conservation Area and wider
landscape.
3. Design and layout of the development.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Highway safety.
6. Demolition of the existing dwellings in Beach Road.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 31 May 2012 in
order to allow Members to visit the site.
The site is located in the Countryside Policy Area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy and is also with the Undeveloped Coast and adjacent to the Happisburgh
Conservation Area where Policies EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN8 are applicable. In
addition, it is considered that Policies EN12, CT5 and CT6 are relevant.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals should demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible,
enhance and should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character
areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment.
Development Committee
9
10 January 2013
Policy EN3 states that in the undeveloped coast only development which it can be
demonstrated requires a coastal location and will not be significant detrimental to the
open coastal character will be permitted.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, is suitably designed for the context within which it is set and that
the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and
existing important landscaping and natural features are retained. In addition the
policy requires the creation of safe environments, addressing crime prevention and
community safety and to ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible. A
further requirement is that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect
on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
As far as Policy EN8 is concerned, development proposals should preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated asset, in this case the
Happisburgh Conservation Area and its settings through high quality, sensitive
design.
It terms of Policy EN12 this states that proposals for the relocation and replacement
of dwellings affected by erosion will be permitted, provided that:
the development replaces a permanent dwelling (with unrestricted occupancy),
which is affected (or threatened) by erosion within 20 years of the date of the
proposal;
the new dwelling is comparable in size to that which it is to replace;
the relocated dwelling is within or adjacent to a selected settlement and is
beyond the Coastal Erosion Constraint Area shown on the Proposals Map;
the site of the dwelling it replaces is either cleared, and the site rendered safe
and managed for the benefit of the local environment, or put to a temporary use
that is beneficial to the well-being of the local community, as appropriate. The
future use of the site should be secured (by legal agreement) in perpetuity.
Interim use as affordable housing will be considered beneficial to the well-being
of the local community in interpreting this clause; and
taken overall (considering both the new development and that which is being
replaced) the proposal should result in no detrimental impact upon the
landscape, townscape or biodiversity of the area, having regard to any special
designations.
In addition, within the National Planning Policy Framework, adopted in March 2012,
paragraph 106 states that Local Planning Authorities should reduce the risk from
coastal change by avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas or adding
to the impacts of physical changes to the coast. They should identify as Coastal
Change Management Area any area likely to be affected by physical changes to the
coast, and make provision for development and infrastructure that needs to be
relocated away from Coastal Change Management Areas.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that the development is capable of being served by
safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of
the locality, and that there is adequate car parking to serve the needs of the
development.
In March 2010 Defra published “Adapting to Coastal Change: Developing a Policy
Framework”, as a result of which the District Council embarked on a project to
relocate those properties at Beach Road in Happisburgh that were at imminent risk.
Development Committee
10
10 January 2013
The District Council bought nine properties, from owners willing to co-operate, with a
view to replacing them on a suitable site elsewhere and for the dwellings to be
demolished in advance of their loss to erosion.
However, since the District Council does not own a suitable site in Happisburgh for
the replacement properties agreement was reached with a landowner for the siting of
the dwellings at North Walsham Road.
Since the submission of the application the existing dwellings in Beach Road have
been demolished due to their poor structural condition and potential risk to public
safety. Policy EN12 requires that development replaces dwellings which are affected
or threatened by erosion. However in this case the dwellings are no longer in
existence. As a result, although the proposed development of the nine dwellings
broadly accords with the aims and objectives of Policy EN12, the application has
been re-advertised as a departure from policy. Since the reason for demolishing the
dwellings was the urgent need to maintain public safety, it is considered that there
are reasonable grounds to depart from policy in this case in permitting their
replacement.
A key concern is the potential impact of the development on the setting of the
Happisburgh Conservation Area and the wider landscape. The principal view of this
development would be when approaching Happisburgh from the west along the
North Walsham Road. From here although views of the site are partially masked by
field hedges it would be inevitable that the dwellings and in particular their roofs,
would be seen against the backdrop of the historic core of this attractive north Norfolk
village. As such the development would undoubtedly impact upon views into and also
out of the Conservation Area. Furthermore when viewed from the public footpath
which runs along the western boundary of the site the development would inevitably
impinging upon views of Happisburgh church. However as outlined in the comments
from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, when considered in the
wider context there are conservation gains to be had with the removal of the nine
dwellings, which would have a positive impact on the setting of Happisburgh Manor,
a Grade II* Listed Building and the wider Conservation Area. Therefore, whilst it is
inevitable that the development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the
historic core of village and the Conservation Area this harm has to be weighed
against the removal of the dwellings affected by coastal erosion and other planning
gains.
In terms of impact on the wider landscape the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has raised no objection, but has indicated that the success of the scheme
would rely on the field boundaries around the site being reinforced with the
introduction of additional planting, including field trees. In addition, the frontage of the
site needs to be careful designed so as not to accentuate a suburban appearance to
the development.
In terms of the actual design and layout of the proposed development, it is
considered that the revised scheme has resulted in the creation of a close-knit, but
relatively informal layout of buildings that would have echoes of the converted
outbuildings to the other side of the school car park. Furthermore the single point of
access and the communal yard layout are instrumental in the informality of the
scheme. In addition, unlike other regimented suburban approaches to the village, the
development as proposed would reflect the site's transitional position into the
countryside. Ridge heights would be kept to between one and one-and-half storey,
which would help to minimise the development's impact on the surrounding area. In
addition, the amenity space for each dwelling would comply with the requirements of
Development Committee
11
10 January 2013
the North Norfolk Design Guide. However, key to the success of the scheme at the
reserved matters stage would be the inclusion of a palette of materials which reflects
the local vernacular.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, the dwellings potentially affected
by the development would be those on the northern side of the North Walsham Road
from the junction with Blacksmiths Lane in a westerly direction. However, the
separation distance between the front windows of these properties and those of the
proposed dwellings, which would be in the region of 22 metres at the closest point,
would comply with window to window distances contained in the North Norfolk
Design Guide. Furthermore, most of these properties have frontage wall and hedges
together with planting within their front gardens which would reduce any potential
direct overlooking or loss of privacy.
The position of the access would be almost opposite the driveway to Glen Haven, a
semi-detached bungalow set some 13 metres back from the edge of the carriageway
to the frontage of which is a privet hedge some 1.8 metres in height. Given the
position of the dwelling together with the frontage hedge it is not considered that the
amenities of the occupiers of this property would be significantly affected by vehicles
leaving the development, particularly at night.
As far as the access and parking provision are concerned the Highway Authority has
confirmed that it has no objection to a single point of access whilst the parking
provision would accord with the requirements of the standards contained in the Core
Strategy. The proposed provision of a footpath link from the site to the junction with
The Street satisfies previous concerns in respect of highway safety.
In terms of concerns raised by objectors, in respect of the proximity of the
development to the school playing field the only dwellings which would adjoining the
playing field would be Units 6 and 7 both of which are single storey. As such subject
to a satisfactory boundary treatment there would be on direct overlooking of the field
from these properties, and the development is not considered to have any impact on
child safety. The Norfolk Constabulary Police Architectural Liaison Officer has
confirmed that there are no areas of the development which cause concern. In
respect of concerns regarding the potential noise of users of the playing field
affecting the amenities of residents of the development, given the relatively limited
hours of use of the school playing field this is not considered to be a significant
amenity issue.
As far as the demolition of the nine properties in Beach Road is concerned, in view of
their dangerous condition since the submission of the application they have been
demolished, the site cleared and the area laid to grass. In addition, a post and rail
fence has been erected around the site, with a pedestrian gate in order to allow
public access to the site. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that the demolition of the dwellings has had a positive impact on the setting
of the Happisburgh Conservation Area and the Grade II* Listed Manor.
In summary, it is clear that the development of the site would have an adverse impact
on the setting of the historic core of village and the Conservation Area. However this
harm has to be weighed against one of the key aims of the Core Strategy to mitigate
and adapt to impacts of coastal erosion and flooding. In addition, the demolition of
the dwellings has had a positive impact upon the setting of Happisburgh Manor a
Grade II* Listed Building and the wider Conservation Area.
Development Committee
12
10 January 2013
Moreover, the replacement dwellings would not have a significantly detrimental
impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties and the introduction of a new
footpath to the southern side of the North Walsham Road, would help to improve
highway safety.
It is therefore considered that on balance the scheme is acceptable and would
accord with the objectives of Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to, no new ground of objection
following re-advertisement, no Parish Council objection in respect of the
further amended plans and no objection from Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services following the archaeological investigation of the site,
and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0993 - Erection of two wind turbines (14.97m to hub,
5.5m diameter blades); Blue Tile Farm, Fulmodestone Road for Mr M Knights
Minor Development
- Target Date: 01 November 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
National Air Traffic Service
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of two 5kW 'Quiet Revolution' wind turbines which would each
be 14.97 metres to the hub with a blade diameter of 5.5 metres, giving an overall
height to the tip of the blades of 20.5 metres.
The tower of the turbine would have a matt grey galvanized finish. The blades would
be of a white fibreglass construction. Each turbine would have three blades.
The two turbines would be sited to the north-west of the farm complex and would be
set approx 25m apart.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cabbell Manners having regard to the following planning
issue:
Landscape Impact
PARISH COUNCIL
Wish to highlight the fact the turbines would be adjacent to a listed building and
would have a detrimental impact on Blue Tile Farm and the other listed buildings in
the area. Furthermore, the Parish Council is concerned about the adverse effect the
turbines will have on people living in the vicinity.
REPRESENTATIONS
9 letters in support of the application on the following grounds:
1. Hindolveston needs more green energy.
2. The proposed turbines will not be highly visible.
Development Committee
13
10 January 2013
3. Gives the opportunity of green energy to landowners/business people and ensures
rural businesses are economical in the future.
CONSULTATIONS
County Highway Authority In relation to highways issues only, this proposal is not considered to generate any
additional vehicular movements, therefore, notice is hereby given that Norfolk County
Council does not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Support the proposal which will bring a small
contribution to the supply of renewable energy in the District.
Environmental Health The applicant has provided a desk top site specific noise assessment for the
proposed site. A calculation has been used to predict the noise level at the closest
boundary and this is plotted against the wind speed. It is recommended that the
noise level from the wind turbines should not exceed 5dB above the background
level. The prediction of sound power level from the turbine against the background
level calculates that the noise from the proposed two turbines would be well below
this target limit. Therefore I am satisfied with this prediction and so not feel any
further noise monitoring is required. A condition should be appended to require the
turbines to be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Norwich Airport - No safeguarding objection
NATS - No safeguarding objection
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MOD) - Object. The turbines will be 27.7km
from, detectable by, and will cause unacceptable interference to the AD radar at RAF
Trimingham. Trials carried out in 2005 concluded that wind turbines can have
detrimental effects on the operation of radar which include the desensitisation of
radar in the vicinity of the turbines, and the creation of 'false' aircraft returns. the
probability of the radar detecting aircraft flying over or in the vicinity of the turbines
would be reduced, and the RAF were unable to provide a full air surveillance service
in the area of the proposed wind farm.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) The Landscape Section does not object to the proposed development based on the
following assessment of the application.
The proposed turbine is located within the Tributary Farmland Landscape Character
Type, specifically within the Snoring, Stibbard and Hindolveston Character Area (as
defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (LCA)). This notes
that the Area has a more enclosed feel than the rest of the Type mainly due to the
large pockets of woodland within the landscape and the high hedges commonly seen
around some of the settlements. This enclosed sensation is heightened north of
Hindolveston through the presence of the Wooded with Parkland Character Type,
located approximately 600m away from the proposed development. The condition of
the landscape character is fair to good depending on the quality of the features
associated with the Area and is moderately sensitive to development changes.
A landscape and visual impact assessment was not provided with the application,
therefore site visits and desk study have been undertaken to provide an insight into
the impact that the two turbines may have on the landscape character and visual
receptors.
Development Committee
14
10 January 2013
The LCA notes that turbines situated in the more rural of locations would be
inappropriate. This assessment is based on the landscape having an open character
with long uninterrupted views, and in which the erection of a turbine or turbines could
have a significant adverse effect. As noted previously the landscape around
Hindolveston deviates slightly from the characteristic Type features and is more
enclosed. This coupled with the high hedges and trees around Blue Tile Farm
reduce the impact the turbines would have on the Landscape Character.
Views of the turbines would be gained within the landscape, particularly when
observed from the Fulmodeston Road from the west. However, the turbines will be
viewed collectively with a number of individual trees and woodland and will not
contribute to the degradation of the open skyline significantly further.
Visual receptors are limited to a few residential properties along the Fulmodeston
Road and users of the local footpath network. Due to the small numbers of those
receptors affected together with the broken views of the turbines the impact overall is
minor.
The conclusion can therefore be drawn that the impact of the two turbines will be
limited to discrete views within the landscape, with no major adverse impact on
landscape character or visual receptors. Although Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy
seeks to enhance the landscape in accordance with the guidance contained in the
LCA, it also serves to protect the landscape without further erosion of the key
features. I do not consider that the two turbines would lead to the further erosion of
the landscape character and do not therefore raise an objection under Policy EN2.
The proposed turbines are due to be located approximately 24m and 25m
respectively from the agricultural hedgerow which borders the field to the east. The
hedgerow is a continuous feature and as such provides foraging habitat and acts as
a commuting corridor to the wider countryside for bats (a protected species). In
general the surrounding countryside has good foraging habitat for bats with
numerous opportunities for bat roosts and activity (Swanton Novers Ancient
Woodland is 1.2km to the north-west, and Wood Severals Ancient Woodland
(replanted) is located 750m to the north-east of the proposal), therefore it can
reasonably be concluded that they are active within the landscape. This is further
corroborated by biological records received from Norfolk Biodiversity Information
Services (NBIS) which identify four different species of bat in the area.
There is the possibility that individual bats may come into contact with the turbines,
yet the turbine cannot be positioned so that it complies with the recommended
guidance of maintaining a 50m buffer from any „bat‟ feature (i.e. trees or hedges)
(Natural England Guidance Note TIN051). However, research suggests that most
common species of bat typically use the airspace up to around 10m from ground
level or a particular feature, yet the proposed turbine blade tip is 9.5m above ground
level. If a sufficient buffer is placed between the hedgerow and the blade tip, taking
into account general bat behaviour patterns, this may be sufficient to effectively
eliminate any potential bat collisions.
The primary advice from Natural England, when assessing the impact of wind
turbines on bats, is to assess the likely risk based on a number of factors such as
predicted use across the site, identification of sites of significant concentrations of bat
activity, location of roost sites, knowledge of the site throughout the year, and types
of species likely to be encountered. It is generally considered that the main bat
populations in the area are linked with the Ancient Woodlands to the north of the site,
and that the general habitat in the immediate vicinity of the proposed turbines is not
Development Committee
15
10 January 2013
of sufficient quality to attract significant numbers of individuals. Furthermore, within
the wider habitat surrounding the site, the most significant feature is the small brook
running parallel with the site and some 100m away from the proposed turbines with
no direct connectivity. Given the record of bat species in the area, the quality of the
habitat in the immediate vicinity of the turbines and the distance from the hedge, it
would be reasonable and proportionate to conclude that the proposed wind turbines
will not significantly affect local bat populations.
Based on the above assessment it is unlikely that the development will result in an
offence being committed to bats under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended) or the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, therefore
no objection is raised regarding Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (C&D) - 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.
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 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 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Landscape impact
3. Impact on the setting of listed buildings
4. Aircraft and radar – implications for public safety and security
5. Noise impact
6. Neighbouring amenity
Development Committee
16
10 January 2013
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area, where renewable energy
projects are permitted provided they accord with other relevant policies in the Core
Strategy and comply with policies within the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF).
The NPPF came into effect on 27 March 2012. Annex 1 to the NPPF reaffirms that
planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. Paragraph 214 also provides that full weight should be given to policies in
Local Plans adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the
NPPF. The definition of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other
current development plan documents. The Core Strategy (CS) was adopted as
recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the NPPF and the relevant
provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the determination of this
application.
When assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF states: „When
determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need
for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale
projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if its
impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and
low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should
also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these
areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in
identifying suitable areas‟.
The principle of the proposed turbines is therefore acceptable under the NPPF
unless material considerations indicate otherwise, subject to their impacts being
acceptable and subject to compliance with the Development Plan.
Policy EN7 of the Core Strategy states that renewable energy proposals will be
supported and considered in the context of sustainable development and climate
change, taking account of the wide environmental, social and economic benefits of
renewable energy gain and their contribution to overcoming energy supply problems.
Proposals for renewable energy technology will be permitted where individually, or
cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on the surrounding landscape,
residential amenity, highway safety and designated nature conservation or
biodiversity interests or broadcast interference.
In respect of the landscape impact of the proposal, Policy EN2 requires that
proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment. In addition proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale and
design will protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and
distinctiveness of the area and visually sensitive skylines.
Views of the turbines would be gained within the landscape, particularly when
observed from the Fulmodeston Road to the west, but the turbines would be viewed
collectively with a number of individual trees and woodland and would not contribute
to the degradation of the open skyline significantly further. The Council's Landscape
Officer has advised that the impact of the two turbines would be limited to discrete
views within the landscape, with no major adverse impact on landscape character or
Development Committee
17
10 January 2013
visual receptors. Although Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy seeks to enhance the
landscape in accordance with the guidance contained in the Landscape Character
Assessment, it also serves to protect the landscape without further erosion of the key
features. It is not considered that the two turbines would lead to the further erosion
of the landscape character and the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable
form a landscape perspective and accord with Policy EN2.
In respect of the impact on protected species, Policy EN9 requires proposals not to
cause direct or indirect adverse effects on protected species. In addition where there
is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications should be
accompanied by a survey assessing their presence. In this case the Council's
Landscape Officer confirms that given the record of bat species in the area, the
quality of the habitat in the immediate vicinity of the turbines and the distance from
the hedge, it would be reasonable and proportionate to conclude that the proposed
wind turbines will not significantly affect local bat populations. The Council's
Landscape Officer therefore confirms that there is no objection in respect of
protected species and as such the proposal accords with policy EN9.
In respect of the impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings, Blue Tile Farm to
which the application relates is Grade II Listed as is Tipples Farm to the north. There
are intervening landscape features and buildings between the proposed turbines and
those listed buildings. Comments are awaited from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager as to whether the proposed turbines are considered to affect the
setting of those listed buildings.
In respect of the impact on aircraft safety, whilst Norwich Airport and NATS have no
objection, the MOD Defence Infrastructure Estates have raised an objection. They
advise that the turbines will be 27.7km from, detectable by, and will cause
unacceptable interference to the AD radar at RAF Trimingham. Trials carried out in
2005 concluded that wind turbines can have detrimental effects on the operation of
radar which include the desensitisation of radar in the vicinity of the turbines, and the
creation of 'false' aircraft returns. The probability of the radar detecting aircraft flying
over or in the vicinity of the turbines would be reduced, and the RAF would be unable
to provide a full air surveillance service in the area of the proposed wind farm. These
objections are considered to be sufficiently serious to justify a refusal on grounds of
public safety and security.
Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22, which is a saved
document following the introduction of the NPPF, makes air safeguarding a material
consideration, advising that if an objection is raised by either a civil aviation or
Defence Estates consultee, the onus is on the applicant to prove that the proposal
will have no adverse effect on aviation interests. Furthermore the NPPF advises that
Local Planning Authorities should approve the application (for renewable energy)
unless material considerations indicate otherwise if its impacts are (or can be made)
acceptable. Consequently, whilst the adopted Core Strategy does not contain a
policy that specifically addresses safety in respect of aircraft movements, this is a
material consideration in the determination of this application and in view of the
objection received from the Ministry of Defence the application is unacceptable from
a public safety and security perspective.
In terms of the potential impact on nearby residential dwellings from noise from the
proposed turbines, Policy EN13 requires that all development proposals should
minimise, and where possible reduce, all emissions and other forms of pollution,
including light and noise. Proposals will only be permitted where, individually or
cumulatively, there are no unacceptable impacts on the natural environment and
Development Committee
18
10 January 2013
general amenity, health and safety of the public. Furthermore Policy EN4 is only
acceptable of development which has no significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers. The Council's Environmental Health Officer
confirms that based on the submitted noise report the predicted noise levels should
be below the maximum level of 5dB and as such and subject to a condition requiring
the turbines to be erected in accordance with the manufacturers specifications, that it
is not considered that any adverse impact in terms of noise would result on the
amenities of those nearby dwellings. It is not therefore considered that the proposal
would have a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of occupiers
of neighbouring properties.
The turbines would be visible from only a small number of dwellings surrounding the
site. The dwelling to the north (Tipples Farm) is approximately 590m from the
proposed turbines, the dwelling to the south (Park Farm) approximately 150m, those
to the south west approximately 300m away and those to the south east fronting
Fulmodeston Road approximately 270m away. The majority of these dwellings
would have only limited views of the turbines due to intervening screening within the
landscape. It is therefore considered that, given the relative distances and
intervening features within the landscape (hedging and tree belts), the proposed
turbines would have no significantly harmful impact on the visual amenities of
occupiers of those dwellings.
In respect of shadow flicker, the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for
Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22 states:
„Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may
pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring
properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known
as „shadow flicker‟. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a
narrow window opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be calculated from
the geometry of the machine and the latitude of the site….Only properties within 130
degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes
in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side…. Shadow
flicker can be mitigated by siting wind turbines at sufficient distance from residences
likely to be affected. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor
diameters of a turbine‟.
The two proposed turbines would have a maximum rotor diameter of 5.6m and
therefore, using the guidance within the PPS22 Companion Guide, only properties
within 56m (10 x 5.6m) of the turbine and within 130 degrees either side of north
would be likely to be affected.
There are no residential properties which fall within the identified shadow flicker
zone. The closest neighbouring residential dwelling is 150m away. The host farm
house (Blue Tile Farm) in the applicant‟s ownership is approximately 100m away.
Officers therefore consider that the proposal would be unlikely to give rise to
instances of shadow flicker affecting neighbouring residential properties due to the
relative distance and the height of the turbines.
In respect of the highway impact of the proposal, the Highway Authority has
confirmed that the proposal is not considered to generate any additional
vehicular movements and therefore have no objection. The proposal would
therefore result in no adverse impact on the highway and would accord with Policy
CT5 of the Core Strategy.
Development Committee
19
10 January 2013
It is therefore considered that whilst there is no significantly adverse impact on the
surrounding landscape character, residential amenity, highway safety, or designated
nature conservation or biodiversity interests, the proposal conflicts with public safety
and security requirements, specifically the ability of the RAF radar at Trimingham to
detect aircraft. The proposal is therefore unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to refuse, subject to any further comments from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager in respect of the impact on the
setting of listed buildings and for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO 9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
EN 7 - Renewable energy
In addition the Government's Companion guide to Planning Policy Statement 22:
Renewable Energy and the NPPF is considered relevant to the proposed
development.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed wind turbine would not
desensitise Air Defence radar in the vicinity of the turbine, as identified by the
Defence Infrastructure Organisation, by impacting on its ability to provide a full air
surveillance service in the area, which could have adverse implications for public
safety and security.
4.
HOLT - PF/12/0713 - Siting of two mobile trading barrows; 16 High Street for
The James Hay Trustees
Minor Development
- Target Date: 21 August 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Retail Frontages
Conservation Area
Settlement Boundary
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Public Realm
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to site two mobile trading barrows on a forecourt to the rear of the footway in
the High Street.
Amended plans submitted indicating repositioning of the barrows.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Baker and High having regard to the following planning
issues:
Development Committee
20
10 January 2013
Safety concerns of pedestrians using the cash point and seat within a congregational
area. Concerns in relation to the size and lack of details submitted on the barrows.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:
1. Security concerns. The proposed site is adjacent to a cash point and bank.
2. Not appropriate to centre of our Georgian Town and would set a precedent for
further requests.
3. Concerns about noise. The site is on the High Street but there is a considerable
amount of residential accommodation in the area immediately above the shops.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been submitted on the following grounds:
Site is one of few more open spaces on High Street. People often congregate
there, town's pavements are otherwise narrow. Should not lose open aspect on
town;
Holt Society should be consulted as Barclay's building one of more unsightly
frontages on High Street. Would support proposal if owner of property submitted
plan to include significant improvement to building frontage as supported by the
Holt Society;
Would they be a permanent structure, or would they be removed when not in
use? If so, where would they be stored?
If remain in situ, could they become a target for vandalism? Security issues;
Trade or opening hours not specified. Conflict of retail with existing shopkeepers
who may be commercially disadvantaged with higher overheads;
Should food/catering be proposed, no washroom facilities indicated to comply
with hygiene regulations;
If refrigeration required, would this involve use of a generator or would provision
of electrical supply be made;
Impedes access for wheelchair/push chair in busy central area, particularly for
Barclay Bank customers;
Unattractive, unnecessary, intrusive proposal, out of keeping and cheapening
unique ambiance of historic Georgian town and cluttering one of few open
pedestrian spaces in Holt;
How would arrangements be made to stock, service and manage barrows at one
of Holt's busiest road junctions with double yellow lines in all directions. Should
be noted that security vehicles mount pavement and park on forecourt when
servicing Barclay's Bank;
More of same retailing to weaken fragile trading in Holt.
CONSULTATIONS (to amended plans)
County Council (Highways)- In relation to highways issues only, this amended
proposal is not considered to encourage congregation on the frontage footway but
provides an area fronting the barrows within private land. Therefore, subject to the
positioning of the barrows as per the approved plan, does not wish to object nor
restrict the grant of consent.
In addition, the servicing of the barrow could either take place from the High Street,
where the prohibition of loading, unloading and waiting restrictions prevent this from
taking place in the vicinity of New Street/High Street Junction and they would
therefore park in the areas permitted for loading and unloading which service other
shops in the area, or, the barrows, if removed each night could be re-stocked then
returned into position, neither of which would affect highway safety. Contravention of
this could result in activity from the enforcement body.
Development Committee
21
10 January 2013
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
amended plan does not alter the previous Conservation & Design comments, i.e. that
the two barrows proposed would not harm the character and appearance of this part
of Holt‟s Conservation Area.
Environmental Health - Condition required restricting opening hours to between 9am
and 5pm Monday to Saturday.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 5: Public realm (proposals should enhance the appearance and usability of
these areas).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of 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. Impact on street scene, public realm and town centre.
3. Potential safety concerns, noise disturbance and vandalism.
APPRAISAL
The plans indicate the siting of up to two mobile trading barrows outside Barclay's
Bank on the High Street in Holt.
The site is located in an area identified as Town Centre, within a Primary Shopping
Area and designated as Primary Retail Frontage. On the basis that Policy SS5 of the
adopted Core Strategy supports a broad range of uses including shopping
commercial and cultural, the siting of trading barrows is acceptable in terms of
adopted Core Strategy policy. The site also lies within a Conservation Area, where
development proposals are required to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the area.
The proposal is for the siting of trading barrows restricted to A1 use, thus fully within
planning policy in this primary Town Centre location.
Development Committee
22
10 January 2013
The site has been designated as an area of public realm, an area seen as being
important for the function and attractiveness of the town. Proposals are expected to
enhance the overall appearance and usability of the area. In this instance, it is
recognised that the proposed development would result in the existing seating being
relocated on either side of the barrows and the loss of flower pots currently
decorating the area. Balanced against this, it is recognised that the development
proposal would be likely to bring an additional trading area into use and add an
element of vitality to this area. It is considered that the barrows would be of
appropriate scale and design in this location and would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
In terms of potential safety concerns, noise and disturbance, the Committee will note
that the Environmental Health Team considers the proposal to be acceptable subject
to the imposition of a condition restricting opening hours. The Highway Authority
does not consider that the amended proposal would encourage congregation on the
frontage footway as it provides an area fronting the barrows within private land.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions restricting the use of the barrows
to A1 use and opening hours as recommended by Environmental Health, the
proposed development is considered acceptable and compliant with the adopted
Core Strategy policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
restricting the barrows to an A1 use and restricting opening hours to between
the hours of 9am and 5pm Monday to Saturday.
5.
HOLT - PF/12/1164 - Change of use from A4 (public house) to A1 (retail) and
two residential flats, conversion of barn to two dwellings and erection of two
one and a half storey dwellings; The Railway Tavern, 2 Station Road for
Capricorn Estates Partnership
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 December 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use of the ground floor on the main Grade II listed building
fronting Station Road, from Use Class A4 (public house) to A1 (retail) having a floor
area in the region of 90 sq. metres and the conversion of the first and second floors
to two flats. Each flat would have two bedrooms with the smallest flat having a floor
area of approximately 64 sq. metres whilst the other flat would have a floor area of
some 87 sq. metres.
Development Committee
23
10 January 2013
The former barn linked to rear of the main building, which forms the western
boundary of the site would be converted from its current use as a kitchen and
function room, in connection with the public house, to two, one-and-half storey
dwellings. Each unit of accommodation would have two bedrooms and a total floor
area of approximately 89 sq. metres.
In addition, the scheme would involve the demolition of an outbuilding which is
attached to the southern gable end of the barn and the erection of a further one and
half storey extension. This building would have similar proportions and detailing to
the existing barn and provide for a three bedroom unit of accommodation having a
total floor area in the region of 120 sq. metres and a further two bedroom unit having
a floor area of approximately 91 sq. metres.
Access to the site would be via the existing entrance off Station Road and there
would be nine parking spaces to the rear of the site adjacent to the eastern boundary
wall, two of which would be allocated to the retail unit and the remaining seven for
use by the occupiers of the dwellings. In addition, the four units to the rear of the
main Listed Building would each have a private amenity space, which would be
separated from the car parking area by a new hedgerow, into which would be set a
bin storage area for each dwelling.
Amended plans have been received showing alterations to the internal layout and a
reduction in the number and size of rooflights, the allocation of parking spaces,
together with minor changes relating to drainage, means of escape and fire safety
issues.
It is intended that the accompanying listed building consent application (LA/12/1165)
will be determined under delegated powers.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Baker and High in respect of the following planning
issue:
Loss of the public house.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds that whilst there are other licensed
premises in the town these are not traditional public houses but restaurants. Since
the public house has been sold by Punch Taverns there is clear evidence that it is
making a profit. Therefore the viability test to retain the premises as a pub can be
proved. The development would result in the loss of the premises as an important
local facility and service to our community.
The development to the rear is considered to be overdevelopment of the town centre
and would add to the existing problems which the town has of parking and access
onto the highway around the Market Place. The proposed shops are just outside the
defined Primary Shopping Area of the town centre.
REPRESENTATIONS
Fifty four letters of objection have been received, thirteen of which are a duplicate
letter signed and addressed by individual objectors, and further six duplicate letters
individually signed and addressed by members of the ladies darts team, which raise
the following concerns (summarised):1. The proposal will result in the loss of the last original local public house in Holt
that doesn‟t have to rely on bed and breakfast or three course meals to survive.
Development Committee
24
10 January 2013
2. The public house currently has ladies and men‟s darts teams and a pool team
and holds charity fund raising nights that support local communities, all of which
would be lost.
3. If the plans are past it would destroy many, many years of local history.
4. The public house is a valued part of our society and is the only true local public
house in Holt.
5. We have enough boutiques and expensive holiday lets whilst traffic and parking
are a real problem.
6. At this time Holt only has two public houses.
7. Holt already has some empty shops and we should be looking to find occupiers
for them rather than increasing capacity.
8. Paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that
planning decisions guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and
services such as public house, particularly where this would reduce the
communities ability to meet its day to day needs.
9. The Railway Tavern is essential in enabling the local community to meet their
social needs.
10. The closure of the Railway Tavern would restrict the choice of the ordinary
drinking man and woman.
11. The public house is a viable business which is not losing money.
12. How can NNDC turn down an application to convert the Hare and Hounds at
Hempstead yet approve this application?
13. Perhaps it is poor management that has led to a decline in trade rather than a
reflection of the premises which are at the heart of the bustling town of Holt.
14. Poor vehicular access and little parking provision.
15. In the right hands and with the right marketing the Railway Tavern can be viable.
16. Support for the Railway Tavern would demonstrate that the Local Planning
Authority truly supports the localism agenda.
17. The proposed housing and shops does not fit in with the character of the town
centre.
An objection has also been received from Holt Chamber of Trade who suggests that
the site is not suitable for housing and should be used for commercial development
and could easily accommodate a small hotel. Also that the Holt Vision and LDF point
to the need to protect and enhance the commercial offer of the town centre. In
addition, they do not accept the contention that the public house is not viable and
suggest that the façade of the listed building is not suitable for an A1 use.
Summary of information submitted by the applicants:
Information prepared by Everard Cole submitted as part of the application includes a
summary of the business over the past six years, which has been provided by the
previous owners, Punch Taverns. This indicates that since 2006 there has been a
50% fall in turnover and this has now dwindled to an unsustainable level. This decline
is considered to be due in part to the smoking ban, supermarket alcohol sales,
increased duty on licensed sales and the severe recession. In addition, it is
suggested that there has been a change in drinking habits which favour food
orientated pubs.
In 2008/09 the premises were marketed on a leasehold basis with apparent little
interest, leading to the public house being leased on a relatively short term lease to
the current landlords. A letter from the landlords to the Local Planning Authority
states that trading has been more difficult than anticipated and turnover has dropped
from 2009 through 2011. As a result, Punch Taverns granted a 20% concession on
the rent. In addition, due to poor trading performance, following an appeal in
February 2011, the Business Rates of the property were reduced by £3,500. The
Development Committee
25
10 January 2013
letter also indicates that at various times they informed Punch Taverns that repairs
were needed to the roof and chimney of the building, but these have not been
undertaken.
A snapshot of the trading reality of the business in the viability assessment indicates
that based on declining annual wet turnover, staff wages rates, heating, lighting and
other variables the net profit of the Railway Tavern would be no more than £20,000
before rent. Whilst a letter from the applicant indicates that at the present time repairs
in the region of £65 -£70K + VAT are required to maintain the buildings fabric, which
is equivalent to 3-4 years‟ worth of rent and the building will then require over half of
the rent to be paid in annual maintenance, which it is suggested is clearly not
sustainable.
This view is supported by Everard Cole in their assessment who point to the fact that
in April 2012 they undertook a full and open marketing campaign which included
advertisements in the press and trade magazines, on their web site and the erection
of for sale boards. In addition, there were direct mailings to licensed operators. Whilst
6 viewings took place none of the prospective purchases were interested in the
property for continued licensed use. The feedback generally being that due to the
disjointed layout the premises were not conducive for a viable modern pub offering
food and that significant investment would be required to install commercial kitchen
and link the rear building, which could be difficult given the listed status of the
premises.
The assessment also points to the fact that Holt also benefits from a number of other
places to eat and drink including The Feathers and the King‟s Head public house,
both of which trade well and hold a prominent position along with several other
licensed premises. It is therefore suggested that the town has ample establishments
to eat and drink, which has contributed to the decline of the Railway Tavern.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – Due to the current use of the site and the potential level
of patronage it is considered that the proposed mixed use development provides an
acceptable reuse of these historic buildings with a comparable level of traffic. In
addition, the amended plan shows parking in accordance with the requirements
previously requested.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) – The amended plans
have addressed all previous built environment concerns, and as such there are no
longer any sustainable objections to this application.
Building Control - No objection to the amended plans.
Environmental Health - No objection to the amended plans.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Planning Policy Manager - Considers that whilst the loss of a public house in Holt
town centre is regrettable. As this is not the only such facility in the area and the
scheme would include the use of the ground floor for retail purposes the proposal
would comply with Policies SS5 and CT3 of the Core Strategy.
English Heritage - No objection.
Development Committee
26
10 January 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 SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Acceptability of conversion and extension of the existing premises.
3. Impact on the Listed Building and setting of the Conservation Area.
4. Provision of amenities and impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Parking and highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located with the Town Centre of Holt, a Principal Settlement as defined by
the adopted Core Strategy and is also within the Primary Shopping Area and
Conservation Area, whilst the building itself is listed Grade II. Core Strategy Policies
SS5, EN4, EN8, CT3 and CT6 are considered to be relevant in this case.
Policy SS5 states that within town centres a broad range of shopping, commercial,
cultural and other uses will be supported. Residential proposals will be permitted
where they do not result in the loss of shops or other main town centre uses
including, retail, leisure, entertainment, offices, arts, culture and tourism which are
located within a defined Primary Shopping Area. In addition, proposals should also
have regard to the integration of public transport in town centres and seek to provide
pedestrian friendly environments.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area. In addition, proposals should
not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby
occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Development Committee
27
10 January 2013
Policy EN8 requires that development proposals including alterations and extensions,
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated asset, in this case
the Grade II Listed Building and wider Holt Conservation Area.
Policy CT3 states that development proposals that would result in the loss of sites or
premises currently, or last used for, important local facilities and services, including
public houses will not be permitted unless:
alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available in the area or will
be provided and made available prior to commencement of redevelopment; or
it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and if it is a commercial operation, that a viability test has
demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12
months.
Policy CT6 requires the provision of adequate car parking in accordance with the
Council‟s Parking Standards.
In terms of the adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Annex 1 states
that the policies in Local Plans should not be considered out-of-date simply because
they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework. Furthermore for a
period 12 months from the day of publication, decision makers may continue to give
full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited conflict
with this framework. In terms of ensuring the vitality of town centres the NPPF states
that the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas be defined based on
clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres and set
policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such location. Whilst the
NPPF recognises that residential development can play an important role in ensuring
the vitality of centres the Framework also states that it is important that the needs for
retail, leisure, office and other main town centre users are met in full and are not
compromised by limited site availability. In addition, it suggests that planning policies
and decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and
services, particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet its dayto-day needs.
Based on the information provided, it is clear that the premises in their present form
are not viable and that given the current poor state of the building and the level of the
upgrading required there is little prospect of the retention of the public house without
significant investment. This was demonstrated in the marketing exercise which took
place in the summer of 2011. Furthermore there are other public houses within Holt
town centre together with other licensed premises which provide alternative provision
of equivalent or better quality. It is therefore considered that although the loss of this
local facility is regrettable the application complies with the requirement of Core
Strategy Policy CT3 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, the
provision of a retail unit having a net sales area of some 90 sq. metres would be
acceptable in principle within the Primary Shopping Area of Holt.
As far as the conversion and extension of the building is concerned the primary
alterations to the main listed building would involve internal alterations in order to
provide for the retail unit at ground floor and the two flats above. Externally the only
changes to the front elevation, facing Station Road, would involve the reinstatement
of a door in place of an existing window opening and replacing the existing leaded
lights to the windows with plain glass. The remaining works would be those of repair.
Development Committee
28
10 January 2013
To the rear of the main building the alterations to the barn would involve lowering the
sills of the four existing east facing openings so as to provide an entrance and light to
the two units at ground floor and the insertion of high level rooflights to each roof
slope in order to light the first floor.
In addition, the scheme would involve the demolition of the outbuilding which is
attached to the southern gable end of the barn and the erection of a one and half
storey extension containing two further units of accommodation. This building, which
would be of clay pantiles and stock bricks would have similar proportions and
detailing to the existing barn, with the ground floor being lit by large openings to the
eastern elevation, whilst the upper floor would be lit by high level rooflights to each
roof slopes.
Overall it is considered that the scheme of conversion of the existing building would
preserve the character and appearance of the main Listed Building and the barn to
the rear. The proposed extension would, in terms of its scale and massing, be in
keeping with the host building and in context with the surrounding area would
enhance the appearance of this part of the Holt Conservation Area. This view is
supported by the Council‟s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, considers that the scheme as
amended has addressed all previous built environment concerns.
As far as the provision of private amenity space and the potential impact on
neighbouring properties is concerned, it is considered that the scheme would accord
with the requirements of the North Norfolk Design Guide in that the four dwellings
would each have adequate private amenity space and there would be bin storage
provision for each dwelling, plus the retail unit. In addition, as it is the intention that
the upper floors of the new dwellings would be lit by means of high level rooflights
this would preclude any potential overlooking of adjoining properties.
In respect of the access and car parking arrangements at the present time the public
house car park is served by a narrow access between the eastern gable end of the
premises and Nos. 4 and 6 Station Road and provides informal parking for
approximately 20 vehicles. The scheme as proposed would utilise the same access
and there would be nine parking spaces to the rear of the site adjacent to the eastern
boundary wall, two of which would be allocated to the retail unit and the remaining
seven for use by the occupiers of the dwellings.
Based on the parking standards contained in the Core Strategy a minimum of twelve
spaces would be required for the 6 dwellings whilst a further five parking space would
be required for customers and staff in respect of the retail unit. Based on these
standards there would be a shortfall of eight spaces but the Core Strategy makes
provision within Conservation Area for a reduction in the parking requirements for
residential properties where there are acceptable levels of public transport, which is
the case in Holt. In respect of the lack of parking for customers of the retail unit this
would be no different from the majority of other premises within Holt town centre.
Therefore, given the existing use of the site and the fact the Highway Authority has
raised no objection to the access arrangements and car parking provision it is not
considered that refusal of the application would be justified on these grounds.
In summary, it is considered that applicant has provided sufficient justification to
demonstrate that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12
months; moreover it is considered that there is alternative provision of equivalent or
Development Committee
29
10 January 2013
better quality available in the town centre. In respect of the actual scheme of
conversion and extension this is considered to preserve the character and
appearance of the listed building and wider Conservation Area. Furthermore there
would be adequate amenities to serve the needs of the development and there would
no adverse impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In respect of the
access and car parking facilities although there would be a shortfall in parking
provision, given the town centre location and the adequate provision of public
transport links this is not considered to be sufficient justification to warrant refusal of
the application.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as amended would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1120 - Installation of ATM; Rays Stores, 25 Cromer Road
for Tesco Stores Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 21 December 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Undeveloped Coast
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20040955 PF - Erection of single-storey rear extension
Approved 25/06/2004
PF/11/1163 PF - Erection of single-storey and first floor extensions
Approved 16/11/2011
PF/11/1533 PF - Variation of Condition 3 of permission reference: 11/1163 to refer
to external surface materials only
Approved 06/02/2012
AI/12/1119 AI - Display of illuminated of gantry sign
Approved 13/12/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is for the installation of an ATM on the frontage of the existing shop premises.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Smith having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Highway safety
2. Security
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. Noise
2. Security
3. Parking congestion near bus stop
Development Committee
30
10 January 2013
REPRESENTATIONS
The agents have responded to the Police Architectural Liaison Officer's
requirements.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - No objection
Environmental Health - No objection
Police Architectural Liaison Officer/Safety Officer - Original comments: The Police
Architectural Liaison Officer provided some advice in terms of what measures should
be imposed to mitigate the risk of ATM theft, which included anti-ram raid bollards,
alarm systems, ground anchors, CCTV, line of site maintained between cash in
transit personnel vehicle and the ATM, and a privacy box painted on the ground. A
copy of these comments are contained in full in Appendix 2.
Comments following agents‟ response: I am pleased to see that this ATM installation
will comply with the majority of my recommendations, but further comments made in
relation to recommendations for Anti-ram raid bollards.
Summary of comments following further response from agents: A solution has been
agreed that the area immediately adjacent to the ATM housing is to be protected by
four of Tesco's standard Security bollards, these are to be sited at equal positions
across the opening at a max 1300 centres at the same distance from the building as
shown in the drawing. They are to be fitted as follows: - the steel inner rod is to be
sunk in concrete to minimum depth of 500, the outer sleeve is to be filled with
concrete or resin and fitted over the remaining rod and secured in place.
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
See Police Architectural Liaison Officer‟s comments above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact upon amenities of neighbouring dwellings
2. Highway safety
3. Security
Development Committee
31
10 January 2013
APPRAISAL
The ATM is proposed to be installed in the front elevation of the existing shop
premises on the Cromer Road, and forms part of some other works that are taking
place at this site which benefit from planning permission.
The principle of the installation of an ATM in this location is considered to be
acceptable given the existing lawful use of the building. The ATM sits comfortably
within the existing frontage of the building and it is not considered that it would have
a significant detrimental impact upon the overall form of the building and character of
the area.
In relation to noise Environmental Health have raised no objection. This site has an
existing lawful use as a shop (A1 Retail) and therefore there would be a certain
amount of activity at the site. It is not considered that the installation of an ATM would
have a significant detrimental impact given the existing lawful use, and would not
have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring dwellings in
terms of noise.
In terms of parking congestion near a bus stop a car park is proposed to the rear of
the site, and there is unrestricted parking in the vicinity. The Highway Authority has
raised no objection to the application. It is not therefore considered that the proposal
would have any detrimental impact upon highway safety.
In relation to security the Committee will note the responses received from the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer who has provided advice on what security measures are
required and has confirmed that he is satisfied that his recommendations have been
addressed.
The development is fully compliant with adopted Development Plan policies and
approval is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the following condition:
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications
and email from the agent dated 20 November 2012, and email from Tony Orford
the Technical Security Manager at Tesco Bank in relation to the anti-ram raid
bollards dated 11 December 2012.
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.
Development Committee
32
10 January 2013
7.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1046 - Change of us from B1 (business) to D1 (place
of worship/church hall); 1A St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for New Life
Church North Walsham
- Target Date: 12 November 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19960627 PF - Change of use of shop (Class A1) to careers office (Class A2)
Approved 08/07/1996
PLA/19882214 PF - Change of use from office & storage to offices (part 1st floor)
Approved 16/11/1988
PF/11/1134 PF - Change of use from A2 (careers office) to B1 (general office),
insertion of new windows in first floor on north, west and south elevations and air
conditioning units
Approved 23/12/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of the building from a B1 (general office) use for Norfolk
County Council Children‟s Services to a D1 (Place of worship/church hall) use. The
building is currently vacant.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Uprichard having regard to the following planning issue:
Vitality and viability of the Town Centre
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of potential loss of shop and large unit.
1A St Nicholas Court is the largest vacant retail site and has been reported in the
recent press release on the town centre, the town needs a multiple or medium retail
outlet to relocate here and this is the only size unit which would be attractive to such
businesses.
The Town Council very reluctantly approved the change of use from retail to B1
(Office) for the Children's Services as it was thought that the staff level of 80 would
bring footfall into the precinct and hopefully the shops. This of course never
happened.
Members agreed that if the Compulsory Purchase of 4 Market Street goes ahead and
the buildings demolished and landscaped it will open up St Nicholas Court and
therefore attract a suitable size outlet into 1A St Nicholas Court.
The Town Council does not believe that the applicants will bring sufficient footfall into
the precinct and if approved would tie up this building for at least 6 years. No retail
outlet would wait that long.
Members also felt that it would not be difficult for the County Council to make the
building into an indoor market and give smaller outlets the opportunity to trade and
bring more people into the town and precinct.
Development Committee
33
10 January 2013
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of support on the following grounds:
1. Will provide a ground floor venue for the meeting of the youth group which will
improve accessibility compared to the existing venue for this group at the Charis
Centre in North Walsham.
2. There are lots of empty shops in the precinct - one less vacant building can only
be a good thing.
3. The application is to change the use of the existing office to a place of worship
therefore no retail would be lost.
4. The church will bring more people more regularly to the area than the existing
office use.
5. This will allow the church that has been in North Walsham for 18 years to
expand.
6. The town centre location with its easy access for those with disabilities would
benefit the church and community.
Four letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. The proposed change of use will reduce the retail space in St Nicholas Court to
an unsustainable level (the percentage of retail space across St Nicholas Court
has been reducing steadily over recent years through redesignations and
closures).
2. North Walsham needs all the retail in St Nicholas Court to retain its viability.
3. It is unlikely that the premises will be used or occupied to any meaningful extent
during normal Monday to Saturday trading hours.
4. This would result in the loss of the largest retail space currently available in North
Walsham.
5. The space should be used for retail. There is a church only 100 yards away.
6. If the town centre is to be revived then reasonable sized retail spaces need to be
available to potential investors.
7. Lessons should be learnt from the contribution the previous change of use of this
building had on the decline of the St Nicholas Court area.
CONSULTATIONS
Coast and Communities Partnership Manager –
I will leave you to determine whether this application raises any issues of conflict with
policy; however I have provided observations relating to the wider aspirations and
plans to improve the vitality and viability of North Walsham Town Centre.
This property is the largest vacant retail premises in the town. There are very few
units of this size in the town centre and as a consequence North Walsham is deemed
to be suffering from a lack of representation of multiple of multiple retail outlets, which
is perceived to impact negatively on its ability to retain expenditure on comparison
goods and therefore maintain a healthy retail core. I accept however that this unit
has not been in retail use for a considerable time and that it currently has permission
for B1 uses. The approved (B1) use was understood to be for office accommodation
for Norfolk county Council‟s Children‟s Services North Walsham team and it was
anticipated that this would form a base to some 82 employees. This would have not
only secured the refurbishment of the building itself but would have brought a great
deal of „footfall‟ to the town centre, enlivening St Nicholas Court precinct. Whilst the
current proposed use would be welcome in providing an occupant for this vacant
building, it would neither bring employment nor a use that would improve the viability
or vitality of the town centre; and it is unlikely to bring investment in improving the
appearance or fabric of the building.
Development Committee
34
10 January 2013
My concern with this proposal is that it would potentially frustrate the occupation of
the building for uses which would help concentrate retail investment (or other
beneficial development) at the heart of the town. Within St Nicholas Court Precinct
there are very few remaining retailers and this proposal is likely to result in a
significant floor area and frontage being used for non-A1 uses; without any apparent
„compensatory‟ uses which should improve or enhance the vitality and viability of the
town centre. I understand that the property has only been marketed on the basis of a
relatively short-term rental for the remainder of Norfolk County Council‟s lease on the
property (to 2018).
Environmental Health – require hours of use to be conditioned. No details of any
changes or installations in respect of ventilation, extraction facilities or lighting have
been submitted. A condition requiring submission of the these prior to their
installation is therefore required.
County Highway Authority Given the town centre location I have no objection to this proposed change of use.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the proposed use.
2. Impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre
3. Parking and Highway impact
4. Impact on the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the St Nicholas Court precinct where in recent years the
occupancy of the units by retailers has declined and there is a relatively high number
of unoccupied buildings or non-retail uses. The building in question (no.1a) lies in
the south-west corner of St Nicholas Court and sits to the rear of units fronting
Market Place/Market Street. It is currently unoccupied.
The site is located within an area designated as Town Centre, and Primary Shopping
Area as well as the Conservation Area.
Development Committee
35
10 January 2013
Policy SS5 supports a broad range of uses such as shopping, commercial and
cultural as well as others to support the role of the Town Centre. The site lies in the
designated Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area, where the proposed church
use is considered to be acceptable.
Specific areas of the Town Centre are designated as Primary Retail Frontages which
are defined in order to concentrate retail development in central areas of the towns
and do not permit more than 30% of the defined frontage being used for non-A1
(retail). St Nicholas Court is not a designated Primary Retail Frontage and this
criterion does not therefore apply to this area. The proposed Church use is
considered acceptable in the designated Primary Shopping Area.
Concern has been raised with regard to the loss of this available unit which could
attract a retailer into the town and improve the vitality and viability of North Walsham
Town Centre. However, the application for consideration is policy compliant and
would result in a use of the currently vacant building which would attract more footfall
by users of the church and associated groups and meetings than an empty building.
Whilst a retail use may be more desirable and help vitalise this part of North
Walsham, there is no indication that any such retail use is likely to come forward in
the near future.
The NPPF indicates that Local Planning Authorities should promote competitive town
centres and should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and
pursue policies to support their viability and vitality. This is therefore a material
consideration in the determination of this application.
With regard to car parking there is no space on the site to provide car parking. The
last office use of the building also had no car parking provision. It is not therefore
considered that this proposal would significantly alter the current parking situation
and the Highway Authority has raised no objection in relation to this matter. The site
is located within the town centre and close to numerous public car parks. It is not
considered that the lack of on site parking would be detrimental to highway safety.
The site lies within the designated Conservation Area where proposals should
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. No
changes to the exterior of the building are proposed and the proposal would have a
neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Development Plan policies
and approval is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including those required by
the Environmental Health Officer.
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1007 - Erection of first floor rear extension and
detached garage; Beeston Spinney, Church Close, West Runton for Mr & Mrs A
Fletcher
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/11/1358 - Non-material amendment request for increase in
length of garage, removal of chimney stack and raising level of parapet; The
Birches, 2 Coronation Lane for Mr & Mrs Alexander
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
36
10 January 2013
BLAKENEY - NMA1/11/1218 - Non-material amendment request for revised
window and ridge coping; Old Garden Cottage, 8 The Quay for Andrew Morton
Associates
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BLAKENEY - LA/12/1244 - Installation of replacement windows; Quay Barn, 6
The Quay for Mrs C Comber
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/12/1250 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
former coastguard building; Ladyholme, Hilltop for Fleur Developments Limited
(Conservation Area Demolition)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1054 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey side
extension; Green Farm House, Holt Road for Mr S Lambert
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1055 - Internal alterations, installation of
replacement windows and construction of side extension; Green Farm House,
Holt Road for Mr S Lambert
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1182 - Replacement of dormer window with two
additional dormer windows and raising of roof and parapets; Rocket House,
High Street for Mr B Goodson
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1183 - Replacement dormer of window with two
dormer windows, roof lights, raising of roof and parapets and internal
alterations and refurbishment; Rocket House, High Street for Mr B Goodson
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/12/1139 - Erection of replacement side extension; 14 Compit Hills
for Mr G Kimberley
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/1144 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and first floor
side extension; 3 Charles Clos for Mr & Mrs D Bailey
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/1153 - Removal of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 10/0671 to omit solar panels; Land at Jubilee Lane for Priory Homes
(Norfolk) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/11/0245 - Non-material amendment request for removal of rear
parapet wall; 47 Hillside for Mr C Durrant
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/1204 - Erection of side extension to home office; Poplar
Farm House, Chequers Street for Mr J Stares
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/12/1152 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 19 Jubilee
Close for Mr & Mrs A Knight
(Householder application)
Development Committee
37
10 January 2013
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1211 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
12/0526 to permit the reduction of depth of one and a storey extension; 100
Wells Road for Mr P Gravelling
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1188 - Retention of 1.2 metre high fence; 57 North Park for
Mr J Thompson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/1194 - Retention of hut for storage of canoes; Wensum
Osprey Canoe Club, Hempton Road for Wensum Osprey Canoe Club
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PA/12/1195 - Prior notification of intention to install one 0.6 metre
dish antenna mounted on pole extension; Telephone Exchange, Queens Road
for Arqiva Limited
(Prior Approval (Telecommunications))
FELMINGHAM - PF/12/0672 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear
extension; Corner Cottage, Church Road for Mr C Turner
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - PF/12/0826 - Demolition of existing rear extension and
outbuildings and erection of rear extension and double garage; The Bungalow,
Thorpland for Thorpland Hall Farm Partnership
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/12/1177 - Erection of first floor side extension; 2 Pit Cottages,
Hindringham Road, Bale for Albanwise Ltd
(Householder application)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/1159 - Erection of replacement single-storey front
extension; Snowdrops, The Street for Mr & Mrs G Last
(Householder application)
HICKLING - NMA1/11/1436 - Non material amendment request for insertion of
dormer window in side extension; Broad Dykes, Staithe Road for Mr & Mrs
Deane
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/1003 - Erection of detached garage and variation of
Condition 5 of planning permission reference 20041687 PF to vary the position
of the access and parking area; Land at Wincliff Drive for Mr D Cockaday
(Householder application)
HOLT - AI/12/1191 - Display of illuminated advertisement; 1-5 High Street for
Lloyds Banking Group
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOLT - LA/12/1214 - Installation of advertisements; 1-5 High Street for Lloyds
Banking Group
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
38
10 January 2013
HOVETON - PF/12/1169 - Erection of two-storey office building; Financial House,
Tilia Business Park, Tunstead Road for Vantage Property Capital
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/12/1128 - Erection of single-storey dwelling (extension of period
for commencement of planning permission reference 09/0742); Land adjacent
32 Stalham Road for Mr J Bygrave
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/12/1243 - Installation of two flues and boundary fences;
Whitehouse Barn, Fakenham Road, Pensthorpe for Mrs K Hattrell
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - NMA1/12/0107 - Non-material amendment request for revised
window design and materials; High House, Mundesley Road for Mr M Cushing
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/12/0983 - Erection of workshop; Dale Head Barn,
Itteringham Road for Mr P Spelman
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/1133 - Use of land for siting replacement modular
classroom; Little Snoring Pre-school, Stevens Road for Little Snoring Parish
Council
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - NP/12/1361 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension
to agricultural building; Alethorpe Hall, Holt Road, Alethorpe for Mr P Hancock
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0963 - Erection of detached garage; Land between 16A and
18 Beach Road for Mrs S Warnes
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1273 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0946 to permit installation of roller door to garage; Blue Bell
Cottage, 28 Paston Road for Mr Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - AI/12/1119 - Display of illuminated of gantry sign; Rays Stores,
25 Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1123 - Installation of air conditioning and condenser units;
Rays Stores, 25 Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1215 - Erection of side extension; The Sidings, 21
Hawthorn Rise for Mr & Mrs D Hart
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1117 - Erection of front garden room; 7 St Benets
Avenue for Mrs S Woodhouse
(Householder application)
Development Committee
39
10 January 2013
RUNTON - AN/12/0140 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Ceres, 16
High Street, East Runton for Mrs McKnespiey
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
RUNTON - NMA1/11/0770 - Non-material amendment request for revised access
ramp and entrance gateway; Land at Beach Road Car Park, East Runton for Mr
M Darbyshire
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1227 - Erection of part two-storey and first floor side
extension and extension to garage; 3 Churchill Crescent for Mr Jennings
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1118 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2
Common Lane for Mr A Wormington
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1189 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0709 to permit revisions to store room and omission of garden
room, removal of Condition 4 and variation of Condition 5; Myrtle House, 27-29
Nelson Road for Mrs D Evans
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1126 - Erection of rear first floor extension and
conservatory; 2, Old Bakery Mews, Co-operative Street for Mrs J Gardiner
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1167 - Construction of pitched roof to front extension; 18
Laburnum Grove for Mr A Garty
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/12/1280 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Little Orchard,
Yarmouth Road, The Green for Mr S Bale
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/12/1218 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 78 Wells Road
for Mr J Hiscocks
(Householder application)
STODY - NMA1/11/0834 - Non-material amendment request for revised door and
window height; Granary Cottage, Kings Street, Hunworth for Mr D Slegg
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/12/1145 - Conversion of garage to habitable
accommodation and erection of link extension and single-storey rear
extensions; Carpenter Cottage, 3 The Oaks for Mr C Stapley
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/12/1173 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
equestrian and erection of stables; Land at Old Hall Farm for Mr J Walton
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/12/1176 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 27 Halifax
Crescent, Sculthorpe for Mr L Southerland
(Householder application)
Development Committee
40
10 January 2013
TATTERSETT - PF/12/1251 - Erection of front extension to workshop.; Rudd
Joinery, Sculthorpe Boulevard, Tattersett Busn And Leisure Pk for Rudd
Joinery
(Full Planning Permission)
WARHAM - PF/12/1286 - Erection of replacement gates and side wall; White
House Manor, Chapel Street for Mr J Hadley
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1032 - Conversion of outbuildings to one unit of holiday
accommodation and micro-brewery with ancillary retail; The White Lady, Front
Street for Mr D Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
SOUTHREPPS - NMA1/11/0738 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration; Pond Farm, Thorpe Road for Mr A Chatten
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1179 - Installation of five replacement front
windows; 5-7 High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
(Listed Building Alterations)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
WITTON - PF/12/0434 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference
05/0820 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Barn, Happisburgh
Road, Ridlington for Mr R Ward
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 29 January 2013
STALHAM - BA/PF/11/0298 - Variation of condition 5 of PP 2005/1961 for the
development hereby permitted shall be used for any residential use within class
C3 of the TCPA (Use Class Order) 1987; Curlew, Mallard, Cottage Loke, Wayford
Road, Wayford Bridge for Mr N Williams
PUBLIC INQUIRY 09 October 2012
STALHAM - BA/PF/11/0297 - Variation of condition 5 of PP 2005/1961 for the
development hereby permitted shall be used for any residential use within class
C3 of the TCPA (Use Class Order) 1987; Avocet, Bittern, Coot, Cottage Loke,
Wayford Road, Wayford Bridge for Mr N Williams
PUBLIC INQUIRY 09 October 2012
Development Committee
41
10 January 2013
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off The Quay,
Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs B Pope
BRISTON - PF/12/0449 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage/store; The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs M Daniels
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0164 - Replacement dwelling with erection of new
boathouse and creation of a new lagoon with quay heading and boardwalk;
Broadmead, Ferry View Estate for Horning Pleasurecraft Ltd
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0902 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 21
Mill Road for Alameda Ltd
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0544 - Installation of replacement capping to mill with
glazed windows; The Mill House, Foulsham Road for Mr M Crookes
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Committee
42
10 January 2013