OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 10 JUNE 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
PROPOSED CONSERVATION AREA AT FORMER RAF COLTISHALL
The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the draft RAF Coltishall
Conservation Area Designation Report to be agreed for public consultation.
1.0 Introduction
In August 2004 the Government announced that military use of the RAF Coltishall
Site would end during 2006 and instructed Defence Estates to plan for the future
disposal of the asset.
In November 2006 it was announced that the Home Office (and successor Ministry of
Justice) was to acquire the operational area of the base for a detention centre/prison
facility. In December 2007 it was confirmed that a new 500 place Category C prison
would be established; this would involve the conversion of the former single airmen’s
accommodation blocks and a limited amount of new build floorspace. The residential
area was to be disposed of via the private sector.
Since Spring 2008 the Ministry of Justice’s primary objective has been the
development of the prison facility. However planning consultants have been advising
the Ministry on potential future uses for the site and discussions have been held with
local planning authorities and representatives of local communities immediately
adjoining the former base regarding future uses/development options. A Masterplan
for the site has been produced and a public exhibition displaying the proposals has
recently been held.
It is important to note that this Masterplan must be seen in the context of the District
Council’s approved Core Strategy in the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework (LDF). The key policy affecting the site of the former operational areas is
Policy EC4 – Redundant Defence Establishments. The wider development issues
associated with housing and environment are covered by other planning polices of
North Norfolk and Broadland District Council’s respective LDFs. In essence the site
lies in an area of countryside status where development of new residential dwellings
is restricted and the re-use of existing buildings for economic development purposes
is encouraged. Some re-development on a ‘like for like’ basis may also be
acceptable. In principle of existing buildings being converted due to economic use is
acceptable subject to the necessary planning approvals being obtained.
2.0 Conservation Area
Independent of the above, the District Council was approached by representatives of
the local community and others who had a connection with the base and was asked
to consider designation of the base and its associated infrastructure as a
Development Control Committee
1
10 June 2010
Conservation Area. This public interest was formally recognised by the District
Council at its meeting of 19 February 2009 when the Council resolved to support a
Motion proposing “that the former RAF Coltishall site be considered for Conservation
Area Status” (Council Minute No.174a refers).
In the period since February 2009 the Council’s Conservation Design and Landscape
Team have undertaken research and assessment of the site and prepared a draft
appraisal report. Approval of this is now sought as the basis of a formal public
consultation process during July and August this year. Any designation would require
the co-operation of Broadland District Council as part of the site being considered for
designation is located within that local planning authority’s administrative area.
The appraisal of the site recognises the special and distinctive character of the base
as well as its historical importance in charting the development of the Royal Air Force
from World War II through until the end of the twentieth century, as expressed in the
design and layout of buildings, airfield structures and landscaping. It is clear from the
appraisal that the former RAF base has a heritage value and is of historic
importance, of national as well as local significance, which merits formal designation.
3.0 Purpose
A copy of the RAF Coltishall Conservation Area Designation report is available in the
Members’ Room.
The purpose of this document is to:•
•
•
Define the special interest of the former RAF Coltishall site and associated
housing.
Identify the issues which threaten this special quality
Provide a framework for future management and enhancement of the
Conservation Area.
Designation of a Conservation Area helps to manage change effectively by
understanding the significance of historic buildings, streets and spaces. Assessment
and recognition of historic areas is an important part of the planning process. Building
works and alterations in Conservation Areas are subject to additional planning
controls which ensure that development proposals conserve the distinctive character
of areas designated for their special buildings and historic interest. It certainly does
not mean that no development will take place or that no change will be considered.
On the contrary in the case of the former RAF Coltishall site it is considered vital that
alternative uses are found and encouraged in order to ensure that this special place
has a secure future. The policies contained in the respective LDFs will form the
overriding guiding principles for development.
4.0 Statutory Background
The Council has made a commitment to identifying areas of architectural or historic
interest which are worthy of special protection. In its current Corporate Plan:
Changing Gear - The Road to Excellence, a programme of Conservation Area
Appraisals and Management Plans is currently being implemented. The statutory
provisions below provide the framework in which such assets are identified and
protected.
Development Control Committee
2
10 June 2010
Conservation Areas are designated under the provision of Section 69 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A Conservation Area is defined
as ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of
which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’.
Section 71 of the same Act requires local planning authorities to formulate and
publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of these conservation
areas. Section 72 also specifies that, in making a decision on an application for
development within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
The appraisal document now being considered conforms to English Heritage
guidance as set out in Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals (February 2006)
and Guidance on the Management of Conservation Areas (February 2006).
Additional government guidance regarding the management of historic buildings and
Conservation Areas is set out within Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for
Historic Environment (PPS 5).
5.0 Assessment
The appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with the District Council's
resolution to investigate Conservation Area Designation passed in February 2009. It
has also been prepared in the context of wider community interest and the need to
recognise the history and legacy the RAF has left at the former base.
The appraisal includes historical development, location, topography, geology, site
layout, spatial analysis, key views, building condition and management proposals.
The document therefore considers the potential designation of the site as a
Conservation Area as well as what this designation would entail.
5.1 Key characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The only major Battle of Britain airfield to have remained in continuous
military use, representing the complete development of the RAF.
Buildings and structures of architectural and historic interest.
Scheduled Ancient Monument Blast Walls and 'Spitfire Pens'.
Large scale buildings of clearly defined groups and development ages.
High quality landscape design and balanced mix of hard and soft grain.
Imposing and striking views throughout and across the base
Unique military graffiti in Hangars.
The relationship between buildings and RAF hierarchy and social structure.
The historical importance of RAF Coltishall's impact on events and conflicts
throughout its operational use.
5.2 Key issues
•
•
•
•
•
Deciding on an appropriate boundary.
Retention and management of green spaces.
Need for the siting and design of new or replacement development to reflect
the historic context and prevailing character of the site and for careful
consideration to be given to the demolition of any buildings.
The possible removal of airfield buildings and hard surfaces for material
reclamation.
Condition of vacant buildings and related risks of vandalism and theft.
Development Control Committee
3
10 June 2010
•
•
•
•
•
•
Subdivision of site ownership and need to ensure cohesive site management.
Inappropriate alterations to existing buildings and structures.
Alterations to hard and soft landscaping.
Need to adopt a list of Buildings of Local Interest.
Need to carefully consider the role of woodland and trees in the landscape
and the setting of the site.
Need to protect the setting of the key features such as the water tower and
the control tower.
One of the key issues to be considered will be the boundary layout of any
Conservation Area. The former RAF Coltishall can be divided into several character
areas (see Map 4 of the report). There are some inconsistent areas of housing and
some excellent quality housing.
6.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, on the balance of the evidence available, it is considered that
Conservation Area designation would be appropriate.
Of the hundreds of military aviation sites that were in use in the period up to 1945,
comparatively few survive in a recognisable form. For this reason RAF Coltishall is a
rare example. Throughout the country many sites have now passed into commercial
use and those that remain in military use have been adapted to new purposes. In the
case of RAF Coltishall, the adaption of existing buildings and the construction of new
buildings may be necessary to ensure the future viability of the site. Finding the right
balance between change and conservation requires clear definition of the site's
special interest, as well as a good partnership between the owners and the various
statutory agencies or private interests concerned.
Designation as a Conservation Area does not mean that the area will be preserved
as it stands at the time of its designation. However, where new development is
proposed, the local planning authorities will pay special attention to the design of new
buildings and extensions to existing buildings. A high standard of design will always
be expected, with a particular regard to scale, proportions, roofs, materials, colours,
doors, windows and location to ensure that any new development maintains the
existing character of the site and its surrounds.
7.0 Timetable for public consultation and formal adoption
Subject to Committee approval of the draft appraisal report, it is proposed to stage a
public exhibition and consultation exercise jointly with Broadland District Council in
July. The purpose would be to invite comments on the proposed Conservation Area
designation. A further report seeking confirmation or not of the proposed
Conservation Area designation would be bought back to Committee in August at the
latest. The consultation will include an exhibition, public meeting as well as provision
for online consultation on the Council’s website.
8.0 Budgetary Implications
There are no immediate budgetary implications at this stage. Adoption of some of
the Management Proposals may have financial implications and these will be
assessed as part of the adoption report to be prepared for the Committee following
the public consultation period.
Development Control Committee
4
10 June 2010
9.0 Recommendations
•
That the Committee approves the Draft RAF Coltishall Designation document,
incorporating the proposed boundary, for public consultation purposes.
•
That following consultation, a future report on designation be bought back to
this Committee for final consideration and adoption.
(Source: Philip Godwin, Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (ext. 6131) and
Paul Rhymes, Conservation and Design Officer (ext. 6367))
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
Target Date: 22 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071223 PF - Change of use of agricultural land to site for one static caravan
and one touring caravan and the provision of one transit pitch
Refused, 22 Feb 2008
Appeal dismissed, 14 Nov 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the continued use of land for siting mobile home and erection of a shed/wood
store.
The mobile home measures approximately 3.6m x 9.14m. The shed/woodstore would
measure approximately 13.5m x 2.5m and 3.7m in height.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the complex
policy issues involved and the planning history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. The site should have been cleared by November 2009 but a further planning
application has been received for ‘continued use’ when ‘use’ was refused by an
Inspector in 2008.
2. The alterations to the access/egress will not meet Highways demands for visibility
and will generate more traffic on a very narrow country lane.
Development Control Committee
5
10 June 2010
3. Application states sanitation by septic tank. No permission has been sought or
approved for a septic tank. The source of the River Glaven is close by and may
have a detrimental effect environmentally.
4. Under ‘supporting information’ Mr Drake states ‘there will be no business use of
the site’. The Parish Council believes this to be untrue as a business is being run
from this site.
5. There is in existence a restrictive covenant on this land.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising the following
points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Unlawful occupation of site.
No proof of ownership.
Applicant did not clear site when required to do so.
North Norfolk District Council have allowed this situation to arise.
The District Council have let the parishioners of Bodham down by not enforcing
decisions made in 2008.
6. If permission granted will set a precedent.
7. Highways appear happy for applicant to go to extraordinary lengths to meet
access requirements – cutting down ancient trees and hedging.
8. Shows total disregard for the landscape, to the rural nature of the lane and to the
local residents.
9. The two temporary gypsy sites are empty.
10. Adding value to piece of land from agricultural to residential.
11. Restrictive covenant on whole of field.
12. The Council is urged to clear the matter up once and for all rather than leave civil
action as the next step.
13. The site must be cleared and returned to its former agricultural use which was
decided in 2007.
A copy of the Design and Access Statement is contained in Appendix 1 explaining
the background and details of the application.
A copy of the planning appeal decision on 20071223 is contained in Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) – The site has been the subject of previous
application 20071223 to which the Highway Authority recommended refusal and also
a planning appeal (reference APP/Y2620/C/08/2070745) in which the appeal
Inspector comments in paragraph 16 that a visibility distance of 56m ‘would just about
be acceptable’.
As this proposal indicates improvements to the visibility splay can be made to provide
56m of visibility to the north I am unable to raise an objection on highway grounds.
Therefore, should your Authority be minded to grant consent conditions regarding
access gates, visibility splays, and parking and turning are required.
Gypsy Liaison Officer – I have reviewed the response supplied by the Environmental
Health Manager, to the previous application in 2007 (ref 20071223) (see Appendix 1)
and also considered the definition of Gypsies and Travellers’ as defined in the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular, Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan sites
(Circular 01/2006).
Development Control Committee
6
10 June 2010
The circular defines gypsies and travellers as:
Persons of a nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such
persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational
or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but
excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people
travelling together as such.
It follows therefore that the test which should be applied is not whether or not the
applicant has ceased to travel but why they have ceased to travel.
Although I have not met the applicant I understand from enquiries that he meets the
definition of a gypsy as defined above.
In his 2007 response the Environmental Health Manager stated:
Although the Caravan Count data for North Norfolk does not show high levels of
traveller movements and residence over the last five years it is recognised that
nationally there is under provision of permanent sites which leads to increased
incidences of unauthorised encampments.
Any caravan site would need to comply with the conditions imposed by the Local
Authority site licence. Should permission be granted please refer to Environmental
Health so that appropriate paperwork can be supplied.
Planning Policy Manager – Thank you for an opportunity to comment on this
proposal.
The application should be considered against the provisions the adopted
development plan (Core Strategy and Single Issue Review of the East of England
Plan in relation to Gypsy and Traveller provision) and other material considerations
including the previous planning appeal and history of the site.
During 2007 and 2008, the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) undertook a
Single Issue Review of the East of England Plan which considered the
Accommodation Needs of Gypsies and Travellers across the region. At the Issues
and Options Stage of the consultation process EERA outlined two potential scenarios
for meeting the need for additional sites and pitches (some 1200 pitches in all) across
the region – one being to meet need where it arose, the second proposing a wider
distribution of pitch provision across the region. The District Council indicated a
strong preference for Option 1 - meeting provision in areas where demand arose, as
this would clearly meet the plan making requirement that proposals should be based
upon a robust local evidence base. However, the Council’s position has not been
supported through the regional policy which states that each local authority area in
the region should provide an identified number permanent Gypsy and Traveller
pitches by 2011. The revised policy (H03) of the Single Issue Review requires that
North Norfolk District should provide for 15 new pitches (not sites) in total by 2011
with new pitch provision being made through either the grant of planning permissions
or by sites being identified in Development Plan documents.
A need has been identified at regional level for an increase in permanent pitch
provision and a policy has been adopted that would result in this need being met via a
broad distribution of sites across the region. Those authorities that have not
experienced any specific demand for pitches are nevertheless required to make a
minimum provision available, ie fifteen pitches in North Norfolk. Currently this Council
has not identified any permanent pitches. This application and the current proposal at
Briston would contribute towards fulfilling the Regional Plan requirements and
addressing locally identified needs.
Development Control Committee
7
10 June 2010
The adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy aims to meet the housing needs of all
groups in society and policies therefore provide an enabling context to ensure that
this can occur when need is identified and demand arises.
In relation to Gypsy and Traveller provision Policy SS3 (Housing Strategy) states;
‘Accommodation will be provided to meet the needs of specific groups of people
including the elderly, the disabled, and the identified needs of Gypsies and
Travellers’.
and,
Policy HO4 (Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, and for Travelling Showpeople) states:
‘Development to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and of Travelling
Showpeople will be permitted provided it is of an appropriate scale and nature and
the following criteria are met:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the intended occupants meet the definition of Gypsies and Travellers or the
description of travelling showpeople ; and
development minimises impact on the surrounding landscape; and
safe vehicular access to the public highway can be provided; and
the movement of vehicles to and from the site will not cause significant
disturbance; and
there is adequate space for parking, turning and servicing on site; and
the site is on the outskirts of, or within a reasonable distance of, a settlement
which offers local services and community facilities; and
suitable landscaping and boundary enclosures are provided to give privacy,
minimise impact on the surrounding area and provide a safe and acceptable
living environment.’
Therefore whilst the authority has not identified any specific sites as required by the
East of England Plan it does have adopted policies which state that it will grant
planning permissions to meet any needs that arise. Proposed sites must meet a
range of detailed policy requirements including being appropriate in scale, being
located within or close to settlements with facilities and services (note that this is not
just the ‘selected’ settlements in the Core Strategy but includes other places with
facilities), and addressing site specific issues such as access, landscaping and
amenity concerns.
In the appeal decision the Inspector appears to conclude in fairly definitive terms that
access issues could not be resolved and that public safety arguments would outweigh
human rights considerations, but in relation to all other issues such as location and
landscape impact the proposal would be acceptable. Given what the Inspector says
in relation to human rights and general conformity with land use policies, if the
Authority is satisfied that the access issue can be addressed without detriment to the
local landscape, the proposal would comply with adopted policies.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – The hedge along Hart
lane is a landscape feature of the area and adds to the amenity of users of the lane.
The complete loss of the hedge without replacement would have a severe impact on
the landscape character and amenity.
At first glance the hedge appears healthy; however the hedge is in a poor condition
due to inappropriate past management leaving weak joints and sparse understorey.
Development Control Committee
8
10 June 2010
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the hedge has
limited value in its current state and therefore would consider the hedge being
replanted in the position shown on the submitted plan if a new planting scheme was
submitted to match the hedge mix along Hart Lane.
The revised landscaping plan should contain the following hedge specification and be
agreed with the Landscape Officer in writing:
The hedge should be planted on a raised back to match the character of the lane and
contain the following:
40% Hawthorn
30% Blackthorn
10% Field Maple
5% Hazel
5% Dog wood
5% Dog Rose
5% Ash
Five plants per metre planted in double staggered row interplanted with honeysuckle
(Lonicera periclymenum) 30 plants and bramble (Rubus fruticosus) 30 plants.
In addition to the hedge two heavy standard (12-14cm girth) oak trees (Quercus
rober) and two heavy standard (12-14cm girth) ash trees (Fraxinus excelsior) should
be planted.
To maintain the amenity and character of the lane the hedge should be allowed to
grow to and be maintained at no less than 3 metres high from ground level. This
should be a condition of any planning permission.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 4: Sites for Gypsies and Travellers and travelling showpeople (specifies
the criteria to be met for the provision of sites).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Control Committee
9
10 June 2010
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 Gypsy and Traveller site in countryside location.
2. Compliance with gypsy and traveller site policy (HO4), including landscape impact
and highway safety.
3. Design and layout.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the planning and enforcement history of this site
following recent enforcement action and authorisation of the Combined Committee to
the Head of Planning and Building Control to commence criminal proceedings and to
apply for an injunction for non- compliance with an enforcement notice. This required
the removal from the land of all caravans, motor vehicles, scrap metal, metal security
fencing, timber, and the hard standing and other domestic paraphernalia and the land
returned to its former agricultural use.
This course of action followed refusal by the West Area Committee of planning
application 20071223 for the change of use of agricultural land to site one static
caravan and one touring caravan and the provision of one transit pitch, and
subsequent appeal by the applicant against the refusal of planning permission and
the enforcement notice. Both appeals were dismissed, but the appeal decision is a
material consideration in the determination of the current planning application. Copies
of the decision notice on planning application 20071223 and the appeal decision are
contained in Appendix 1.
The current application has attempted to address the objection of the Inspector
regarding visibility to the north of the existing access into the site. The Inspector
concluded in paragraph 31 of the statement contained in Appendix 1 that 'the
development meets the criteria in Policy HO4 except in relation to the site access'.
The Inspector's conclusions in relation to the appeal were that:
1. Based on the information submitted with the appeal the applicant falls within the
definition of a gypsy/traveller and that planning policies for gypsy and traveller
sites apply.
2. The change of use causes very little harm to the countryside and the
development minimises the impact on the surrounding landscape in accordance
with Policy HO4.
3. The visibility splay indicated by the Highway Authority of 56m would be just about
acceptable, but she had concerns over the potential loss of the roadside
hedgerow.
4. The use of the site could be conditioned solely for residential purposes, and on
that basis the movement of vehicles to and from the site would not cause
significant disturbance to the occupiers of properties along Hart Lane and there is
adequate space for parking and turning.
5. The plot is within reasonable distance of the village of Bodham, where there are
local services and facilities.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority is raising no objection to this
application subject to conditions.
Development Control Committee
10
10 June 2010
However, the hedgerow along the roadside for the length of the site (approximately
29m) would need to be removed in order to create an acceptable visibility splay.
Whilst the Inspector considered that a 'just about acceptable' visibility splay could be
provided she went on to say that in the absence of any detailed proposals to show
otherwise, the loss of the mature landscape feature would be harmful to the character
and appearance of the site and the lane. For this reason she considered that the
inadequate visibility could not be overcome in an acceptable way.
As part of this application landscaping details have been submitted for consideration
for a new hedgerow of hawthorn, blackthorn and hazel to be planted on top of a
mound to replace that removed, at a minimum of 0.5m back from the visibility splay.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
(Landscape) has not raised an objection. Whilst the complete loss of the hedge
without replacement would have a severe impact on the landscape character and
amenity it is considered that given the poor condition of the existing hedge due to
inappropriate past management it has limited value in its current state. In view of this
and subject to the hedge being replanted in the position shown, in accordance with a
new planting scheme to match the hedge mix along Hart Lane as specified by the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape), this arrangement is
considered to be acceptable; such a landscaping scheme and condition that the
hedge should be allowed to grow and be maintained at no less than 3m high from
ground level would maintain the amenity and character of the lane. Subject to these
landscaping measures being imposed as conditions of any permission it is not
considered that the replacement of the hedgerow in this location would have a
significant detrimental impact on the character of the area.
The Committee will note from the comments of the Planning Policy Manager that if
the Authority is satisfied that the access issue can be addressed without detriment to
the local landscape, the proposal would comply with adopted policies.
It is proposed that the position of the static caravan be altered to create an area of
private space to the north for the applicant. A new shed and wood store is also
proposed. It is considered that their design and layout are acceptable and subject to
appropriate replanting of the roadside hedge would be adequately screened once
established.
It is therefore considered that the applicant has addressed the visibility objection
raised by the Inspector and that the development would now be acceptable and in
accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
BRISTON - PF/10/0143 - Change of use of land to private travellers site for 6 no
pitches including amenity blocks hardstanding and parking; 53 Reepham Road
for Mr and Mrs Kidd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 21 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
Development Control Committee
11
10 June 2010
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20081587 PF - Continued siting of residential caravan
Refused 22 Dec 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of land to private travellers site for six pitches including
amenity blocks, hardstanding and parking.
The static caravans would measure approximately 11m x 3.5m and 3.9m in height.
The amenity blocks would include a bathroom and kitchen area, and measure
approximately 8.5m x 3.6m and 3.9m in height. There would be two car parking
spaces for each pitch as well as a parking area for a touring caravan measuring
approximately 5m x 7.5m.
An amended plan has been received showing the layout at a recognised scale and
the location and type of the proposed sewage treatment plant.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wyatt having regard to the following planning issue:
Visual Impact
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection have been received as well as a petition objecting with 10
signatures raising the following points:
1. Concerns this would set a precedent for further sites in the area.
2. Impact on local amenity and current residents.
3. Out of keeping.
4. Would detract from area.
5. Site will become unkempt and an eyesore.
6. Concerns over who the site may attract.
7. Increase in undesirable/anti – social or criminal activity in area.
8. Outside development boundary.
9. Increase traffic through village.
10. The family are settled members of the community and have lived in their own
permanent accommodation for many years, question the need.
11. Impact on landscape.
12. Will reduce property prices.
13. With a multi-thousand pound travellers site at Fakenham is this site necessary?
14. Object to being used for those other than the Kidd family.
15. It is understood likely to become accommodation for casual workers.
A letter has also been received from a local resident querying compliance with policy
in terms of dwellings in the countryside, and that the new travelling sites provided by
the Council at considerable public expense should be used. The application should
be regarded as being for ‘holiday’ or second homes.
Development Control Committee
12
10 June 2010
A petition in support of the application has been received with 15 signatures, some of
whom have already written in support.
Forty one letters of support have been received, four of which are from other
members of the applicants' family. Five further letters of no objection have been
received.
A letter of support has been received from the Manager of the Services to Home
Educators at Norfolk County Council Children’s Services Professional Development
Centre who can verify that the applicants' son has been home educated, and that
much of the focus of the son's work concerned his family’s lifestyle.
A letter has also been received from a Planning Advisor at East of England Planning
Aid, who feels that it is important to draw attention to targets set under the terms of
Policy H3 of the East of England Plan (RSS) which requires the Council to provide an
additional 15 pitches as a minimum by 2011. In addition the application must be
considered in terms of Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan
Sites. One of the aims of this circular is to help gypsies and travellers provide for
themselves in appropriate locations.
Two further letters of support have been received from both the Holt Police Parish
Liaison Officer for Briston (Safer Neighbourhood Team) and the Norfolk Constabulary
Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer. The Police have received no reports regarding
issues in the area in relation to the applicants and their family or their business. From
researching Police records and through their experience they have no reason to
believe that such a development would have any negative impact with regard to crime
or anti-social behaviour in the area. Full copies of these letters are contained in
Appendix 2.
A copy of the Design and Access Statement is contained in Appendix 2 which
explains the reasons for the proposal and the design and layout arrangements that
have been submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – It is likely that a site licence as a permanent residential mobile
homes site will be required. As such, this application needs to have regard to the
conditions that would be attached to this licence.
The details submitted by the applicant state that the site is intended to be used for 6
pitches. The detail of these pitches consists of a permanent static caravan and
available parking for a touring caravan per pitch. I have concerns regarding potential
overcrowding of the site and the problems this could cause in relation to the provision
of adequate facilitates. As such, I would like to see a condition limiting the number of
touring caravans to one per permanent static caravan pitch. I would also like to see a
condition that links the ownership/occupancy of the static caravan with the touring
caravan, so that any occupation of the touring caravan can only be ancillary to the
occupancy of the static caravan.
Conditions are also required regarding a site investigation into contaminants, details
of refuse storage and collection and external lighting.
There are no objections to the details submitted in relation to the sewage treatment
plant.
Planning Policy Manager – Has summarised policy background and commented that
there would be no planning grounds to restrict use of the site to the applicants' family
(full comments attached at Appendix 2).
Development Control Committee
13
10 June 2010
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection.
However, a landscaping scheme should be made a condition of any planning
permission given. It is not considered that the development will have an adverse
affect on the landscape if a comprehensive hedge planting scheme, including the
reinforcement of existing boundary hedges, is implemented as part of the
development. The hedging will help to integrate the development into the countrified
landscape and improve the current appearance of this site.
County Council Highways – This site has been the subject of informal advice to which
the Highway Authority responded with regard to Circular 01/2006 commenting that we
would not raise an objection in this instance relating to sustainability, but may require
conditions to be appended to any consent notice issued.
As this proposal indicates a reduction in the number of plots to 6 from the 8 discussed
informally I can confirm that I do not have an objection on highway grounds. Therefore
should your Authority be minded to the grant of consent I would be grateful if
conditions could be imposed in relation to the construction of the access to industrial
specification, any access gate, bollard, chain or other means of obstruction to be hung
and open inwards and set back, the access to be splayed at 45 degrees and the
access, on site car and caravan parking/turning and waiting areas to be set out in
accordance with approved plan and retained and made available thereafter for that
use.
District Council Gypsy Liaison Officer – Circular 01/2006 defines gypsies and
travellers as:
Persons of a nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such
persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational
or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but
excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people
travelling together as such.
It follows therefore that the test which should be applied is not whether or not the
applicant has ceased to travel but why they have ceased to travel.
The Kidds are a well known travelling family who have resided in Briston for many
years and have established a business within the village. There are a number of
generations within the family and I think that they would satisfy the criteria laid out in
the circular.
Given the history of the family at this location and their cultural heritage I see no
reason for refusal of the application on the grounds that they not a travelling family.
Environment Agency (Original comments) - Has assessed this application as having a
low environmental risk. An acceptable method of the foul sewage treatment would be
the provision of a private sewage treatment plant. Formal consent will be required
under Schedule 10 of the Water Resources Act 1991 for any discharge of effluent
from the plant, and such consent is not implied by these comments. Recommends
the use of a separate sewage treatment plant for each property. A Consent under
Schedule 10 of the Water Resources Act 1991 will be required for each individual
sewage treatment plant. The granting of planning approval must not be taken to imply
that consent has been given in respect of the above.
Development Control Committee
14
10 June 2010
Comments on amended plans regarding sewage treatment plant details: We have
considered the information and are unable to provide further comment until the
following questions have been addressed:
1. Is there a foul sewer main in the immediate area? We believe Anglian Water have a
foul sewer that ends outside number 27 Reepham Road, but are unsure if it continues
towards number 53 Reepham Road as a private sewer.
2. If the foul sewer outside 27 Reepham Road is not an Anglian Water system, how
far from the proposed development is the nearest foul sewer?
3. How does 53 Reepham Road dispose of their sewerage - to foul or by other
means?
Further comments awaited.
Building Control Manager (Original comments) – With regard to the access for fire
appliances, a turning head is needed of adequate size between plots 3 & 5 is
required. Clarification is also required as to where the sewage treatment plant is
discharging.
Comments on amended plans: No objection to fire appliance turning head.
Comments on sewage treatment plant awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee
15
10 June 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Gypsy and Traveller site in countryside location.
2. Compliance with terms of gypsy and traveller site policy (HO4), including
landscape impact and highway safety.
3. Design and layout.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as designated by Policy SS2 in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy where the principle of sites for Gypsies,
Travellers and Travelling showpeople is acceptable subject to compliance with a
number of criteria. Policy SS3: Housing states that accommodation will be provided to
meet the needs of specific groups of people including the identified needs of Gypsies
and Travellers.
Such a proposal is required to comply with Policy HO4: Sites for Gypsies and
Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople. Sites will be permitted under this policy
providing that they are of an appropriate scale and nature and that it meets the seven
criteria set out in the policy as follows:
1. The intended occupants meet the definition of Gypsies and Travellers or the
description of travelling showpeople; and
2. development minimises impact on the surrounding landscape; and
3. safe vehicular access to the public highway can be provided; and
4. the movement of vehicles to and from the site will not cause significant
disturbance; and
5. there is adequate space for parking, turning and servicing on site; and
6. the site is on the outskirts of, or within a reasonable distance of, a settlement
which offers local services and community facilities; and
7. suitable landscaping and boundary enclosures are provided to give privacy,
minimise impact on the surrounding area and provide a safe and acceptable living
environment.
Taking each of these criteria in turn, Circular 01/2006: Planning for Gypsy and
Traveller Caravan Sites defines Gypsies and Travellers as ‘Persons of nomadic habit
of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of
their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have
ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised
group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such’.
The Circular also states that traditional patterns of work for gypsies and travellers are
changing ‘and the community has generally become more settled’ and ‘has led to
more travellers working in trades which require less mobility’, and that ‘there is a need
to provide sites in locations that meet the current working patterns of gypsies and
travellers’. The Circular also states that despite a more settled existence ‘the ability to
travel remains an important part of gypsy and traveller culture… this is a key feature
of their traditional way of life that has an impact on planning for their accommodation
needs’.
The Committee will note the comments of the Gypsy Liaison Officer who considers
that the applicants comply with point 1 of the criteria.
The site is well screened from the west and south as it is located behind the
applicants' own property and those along Thurning Road. There is woodland to the
north east and open fields to the north and north west. The Conservation, Design and
Development Control Committee
16
10 June 2010
Landscape Manager has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a landscaping
condition. It is considered that the applicants' proposal would comply with point 2 of
the criteria.
With regard to the next three criteria (3, 4 and 5) these relate to highway safety,
disturbance, parking and turning. The Committee will note that the Highway Authority
has raised no objection to the application. Whilst there is a residential property to the
west of the access road the property is not hard up to the boundary and is
approximately 20m away. There are trees and planting along this boundary, and
business premises to the east. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would
cause significant disturbance to the occupiers of nearby properties. The proposal is
therefore considered to comply with points 3, 4 and 5 of the criteria.
The site is located on the outskirts of Briston in an area where the developed part of
the village continues outside of the development boundary. The site is located
approximately 180m from the development boundary of the village and some 330m
from it by road frontage. In addition to this there is access to local services and
community facilities. It is considered that the site is within reasonable distance of the
settlement, and therefore complies with point 6 of the criteria.
It is considered that the design and layout of the scheme provides more than ample
space for each of the pitches proposed. The Committee will note that the
Environmental Protection Officer has advised that the site would need to comply with
the ‘Site Licence Conditions for Permanent Residential Mobile Homes Site’. The
agent has confirmed in the Design and Access Statement in Appendix 2 that the
layout is dictated to some degree by the licensing requirements and space
requirements needed to be achieved. It is therefore considered that subject to
appropriate conditions regarding landscaping and boundary treatments that the
proposal could comply with point 7 of the criteria.
North Norfolk District Council is required under Policy H3 of the East of England Plan
(see Appendix 2) to provide 15 new pitches in total by 2011. This can either be
through the granting of planning permission or by sites being identified in
Development Plan documents. The Council has not identified any sites and the
Planning Policy Manager has explained the reasons for this in detail. This proposal
would therefore count towards the Council's requirement to provide 15 pitches.
The Committee will note the comments of the Planning Policy Manager in relation to
the fact that, notwithstanding the applicants' proposal for the site to be a private
travellers site for the sole use of their family, it is not considered that there are any
planning grounds to restrict the use for this purpose. Policy HO4 is a generic policy to
meet the identified need for gypsy accommodation in the District. It would therefore
be reasonable to limit the occupation of this site to those who meet the definition of
gypsies and travellers and not solely to the applicants' family.
The Committee will note that the Building Control Manager is satisfied with the fire
appliance turning head shown on the amended plans. However, at the time of writing
this report comments regarding the discharge of the sewage treatment plant were
awaited.
The Environment Agency has also been re-consulted on the amended plans
regarding the suitability of the sewage treatment plant and that it is proposed for one
plant to serve the whole site rather than individual plants. It is understood that the
adopted Anglian Water sewer ends outside no.27 Reepham Road. The remainder of
the dwellings to the south of 27 Reepham Road, including no. 53, appear to be served
Development Control Committee
17
10 June 2010
by septic tanks. At the time of writing this report the Environment Agency's response
to the latest clarification from the applicants' agents was awaited. The Committee will
be updated regarding this matter at the meeting.
Given the location of the site, its relationship to neighbouring dwellings and the
proposed layout it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant
detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring
properties.
Subject to no objections from the Environment Agency or the Building Control
Manager on the proposed method for the disposal of foul sewage on the site it is
considered that the proposal would be acceptable and in full accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection from
the Environment Agency or the Building Control Manager on the proposed
method for the disposal of foul sewage on the site and imposition of
appropriate conditions, including that the site should only be used by
occupants that meet the definition of Gypsies and Travellers or the description
of travelling show people as contained in Circular 01/2006, and that the number
of touring caravans be limited to one per permanent static caravan pitch, and
that each is not occupied independently of the static caravan to which it relates.
4.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0410 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land at
Fairstead/Post Office Lane for Mr and Mrs Tart
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 June 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030117
PF - Erection of replacement building for use as a paper
conservator's studio
Withdrawn 18 Mar 2003
PLA/20030803 PF - Erection of paper conservator's studio
Refused 5 Aug 2003
Appeal allowed 3 Feb 2004
PLA/20031949
PF
- Erection of detached two-storey dwelling with loft
accommodation
Withdrawn 18 Dec 2003
PLA/20040496 PF - Erection of two-storey cottage with bedroom in roofspace
Refused 8 July 2004
Appeal Dismissed 15 June 2005
PLA/20041721 PF - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Refused 16 Nov 2004
Development Control Committee
18
10 June 2010
PLA/20051354
PF - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling with room in
roofspace
Refused 13 Oct 2005
Appeal Dismissed 4 Oct 2006
PLA/20060254 PF - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling with room in roof
space
Refused 5 Apr 2006
PLA/20061674 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused 18 Dec 2006
Appeal Dismissed 19 Feb 2008
PLA/20070134 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused 16 May 2007
Appeal Dismissed 19 Feb 2008
PLA/20070910 PF - Change of use to single-storey dwelling
Refused 7 Nov 2007
Appeal Dismissed 15 Apr 2008
PLA/20080709 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 12 Mar 2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two storey dwelling on land on the corner of The Fairstead and
Post Office Lane.
The site has a frontage width of 6m, with a depth of 14m.
The building would be approximately 5.3m wide and 9m in length.
The dwelling would have a height to eaves of 4.4m and a height to ridge of 6.6m. The
submitted plans indicate that the ridge height would be approximately 500mm higher
than Holly Cottage to the south.
The dwelling would be located at the front of the site with the garden to the rear.
The property would be constructed with coursed flint, red brick and red clay pantiles.
All windows and doors would be of a slim profile aluminium.
The front eastern elevation would have a first floor balcony and the rear elevation
would be fully glazed on the ground floor with a bedroom window on the first floor.
Windows on the south elevation would be restricted to rooflights only. The northern
elevation would have first and ground floor windows and rooflights.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control in light of the complex
and controversial planning history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection subject to no balcony.
REPRESENTATIONS
9 letters of objection from 6 separate dwellings on The Fairstead and Post Office Lane
on the following grounds:
1. There is no car parking provided and this will worsen existing parking problems.
2. The proposal does not conserve or enhance the character of the Conservation
Area.
3. The proposal makes inefficient use of the land.
4. Contemporary design is inappropriate.
Development Control Committee
19
10 June 2010
5. A scheme encompassing land adjacent to the north would result in a more
appropriate dwelling.
6. Concern with windows on northern elevation and the affect this will have on
development of the garages to the north.
7. Overlooking from first floor windows on northern elevation of development.
8. Overdevelopment.
9. Ridge height is significantly higher than that of Holly Cottage to the south.
10. Overlooking from rooflights on southern roof slope to Holly Cottage.
11. Lack of space for storage of plant and materials during construction.
12. The dwelling is too small.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager – Following pre-application discussions,
this latest dwelling is now considered to be acceptable in terms of its scale, form and
design. Not only would it now take its place comfortably within the street scene, but it
would also successfully mix contemporary touches and local distinctiveness. With
satisfactory compliance with the suggested conditions below, the dwelling should not
harm the significance of this part of Cley’s Conservation Area.
Prior to their use on site, samples of the bricks and tiles to be used on the approved
dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The dwelling shall
then be constructed using only the approved materials.
The flints to be used on the dwelling hereby approved shall have a diameter of less
than 125mm when measured in any direction.
Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the mortar mix to be used
on the new build shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA. The work
shall then be carried out only in strict accordance with the approved details.
Prior to their installation, full details of the rooflights to be used shall be submitted to
and agreed in writing by the LPA. The rooflights shall then be installed only in strict
accordance with the approved details
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, all rainwater goods shall be finished in
black
Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the site frontage onto The
Fairstead shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA. These details shall
include the partial retention of the existing boundary wall. The work shall then be
carried out only in strict accordance with the approved details.
Sustainability Co-ordinator – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition
requiring the development to Code Level 2 of the Code for sustainable homes.
County Highways – The property lies on the unclassified U14285 The Fairstead,
where the local speed limit is 30mph. The proposal does not include any dedicated
parking. I can confirm that the Highway Authority does not object to the proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
20
10 June 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
EN 1 - Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
EN 4 - Design
EN 6 - Sustainable construction and energy efficiency
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
CT 6 - Parking provision
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on the Conservation Area.
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
5. Parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in Cley which is designated as Countryside in the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy. However, the principle of a dwelling on the site has already
been established via the granting of permission for a single storey dwelling on the rear
of this site in 2009 (PF08/0709).
In terms of impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the
scale, form and design of the proposed dwelling are considered appropriate for its
context. The dwelling would sit comfortably within the street scene where this is a
wide variety of buildings with different architectural styles and a tight knit pattern of
development. The use of traditional materials coupled with some contemporary
features in the form of the fully glazed ground floor rear elevation and the balcony to
the front elevation are considered appropriate, resulting in preservation of the
character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
With regard to the AONB, given that the proposed dwelling would be located within
this tightly knit residential street and would be of an appropriate scale and design, no
significant adverse impact on the AONB is considered as a result of the proposal.
In terms of the height and scale of the proposal, the proposed dwelling would be
approximately 500mm higher to the ridge than Holly Cottage and approximately the
same eaves height. This is within the guide height established by the Planning
Inspector where he had advised on a previous scheme that a dwelling of
approximately 500mm higher than Holly Cottage would not appear seriously out of
scale with this neighbouring cottage or the other properties in the vicinity. Therefore
the proposed height of the dwelling is considered acceptable in terms of impact on the
street scene.
With regard to the amenity area proposed, whilst this would fall short of the Design
Guide standards which recommend the area of a plot given over to private amenity
space should be no less than the footprint of the dwelling, it is considered in this case
that variation from the Design Guide standards is acceptable given that development
in this area is tightly knit within the Conservation Area. The garden size is therefore
considered appropriate for its context subject to a condition removing permitted
development rights for extensions and outbuildings.
Development Control Committee
21
10 June 2010
In terms of neighbouring amenity, views from the side windows on the northern
elevation would be oblique. As such it is considered that the proposed windows at first
floor level on the northern elevation would not result in any significant adverse
overlooking to the dwelling or front garden to the north-west.
In addition the first floor window serving a bedroom on the rear western elevation
would face a blank elevation of the dwelling to the west and only oblique views would
be possible to the north and south. As such no adverse overlooking is considered to
result.
The southern elevation would be blank, with only rooflights proposed in this roofslope.
The rooflights proposed would be approximately 2.3m above internal floor level and
as such no overlooking would result.
In terms of the Design Guide amenity criteria, the proposed dwelling would comply to
the south but not to the north or west. The dwelling to the west however has a blank
gable facing the application site and would be 4m away at its closest point. It is
considered that this would help maintain the privacy for both properties and that the
proposed dwelling would not have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or
amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property.
With regard to the relationship with the existing garages to the north, a ground floor
secondary kitchen window is proposed on the northern elevation of the dwelling.
There would be a 1.8m boundary fence between the two sites (approximately 0.5m
from the proposed window) which would maintain privacy for both sites. Whilst the
proposed dwelling would not comply with the amenity criteria to this direction, this
elevation would face a blank side elevation of a garage and as such no impact on the
amenities of either site are considered to result. The owner of these garages has now
submitted a scheme to demolish the two existing garages and to replace them with a
larger double garage with storage space in the roof (PF/10/0529). This scheme is still
under consideration, but given the intended use of the building as a garage with first
floor storage, no significantly adverse impacts are considered upon this proposal as a
result of the height or scale of the proposed dwelling.
In terms of parking provision, the application does not propose any on-site parking.
The provision of a dwelling on the site without on-site parking has however already
been established as acceptable by the Planning Inspector who considered that the
lack of on-site parking resulting in on-street parking would not result in any significant
harm to the safety or convenience of road users or neighbours’ living conditions, nor
would it be detrimental to the character of the area. Furthermore the Highway
Authority has confirmed no objection to the scheme. Therefore the scheme is
considered to be acceptable without the provision of on-site parking, notwithstanding
the requirements of Policy CT6, and in all other respects the proposal is considered to
comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including those
required by the Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager and the
Sustainability Co-ordinator, the removal of permitted development rights for
extensions and alterations to the dwelling and the erection of outbuildings, and
a reduced implementation time limit to accord with the permission for a single
storey dwelling on the site, and any other appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
22
10 June 2010
5.
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0344 - Erection of Medical Centre and pharmacy with
ancillary parking and new road access; Morrisons, Clipbush Lane for Fakenham
Medical Practice
Major Development
- Target Date: 29 June 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
See also application PF/10/0343 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a Medical Centre which would serve the population of
Fakenham and replace the existing facilities at Greenways Lane, Fakenham.
The building, which would be on a site of just over 7,000 square metres would be Yshaped in layout, with a mix of two and three storey elements with a maximum height
of 11m. It would have a total floor area of approx 2,300 square metres and would
accommodate 25 consulting/treatment rooms, dispensary, complementary clinic,
community healthcare and pharmacy, together with a health education room, medical
training area, waiting areas, admin offices and staff rooms. In addition there would be
separate areas for the co-location of PCT facilities and Adult Social Services along
with facilities to provide fully independent out-of-hours services and carry out day
surgery within a specialist treatment area.
The building would be contemporary in its appearance having a flat roof with
clearstory glazing to much of the upper floor with square towers of brickwork,
accommodating the stairwell framing the main entrance. Elsewhere there would be
further vertical panels of brickwork with the rest of the building being of a rendered
finish on a blue engineering brick plinth.
Access to the site for the foreseeable future would be via the roundabout at Clipbush
Lane which also serves Morrison’s Supermarket and the employment land to the north
east. Within the site there would be 119 parking spaces for visitor and staff together
with designated ambulance and delivery spaces and also cycle racks for staff and
visitors. In addition there would be a 2m wide footpath link to Thorpeland Road and
Rudham Stile Lane.
Amended plans have been received modifying the original design of the building,
including elevational changes. In addition the application site area has been modified
to include the access and pedestrian link. A Flood Risk Assessment and Travel Plan
have been received, together with evidence that other sites within the development
boundary have been investigated and dismissed either as they were too small, did not
pass an economic test or were not available.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting in order to allow Members to visit the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
(Original comments) – No objection.
Further comments awaited.
Development Control Committee
23
10 June 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection which raises the following concerns (summarised)
Thorpeland Road is unsuitable for further traffic due to poor visibility onto Greenway
Lane.
Two letters which make the following comments (summarised)
1. There is a Free Range chicken farm only 125 metres from the site and once every
five weeks, this emits smells when the dirty litter is being changed. Also at this
time there are more HGV movements, often at anti social hours.
2. The question of a bus service to the surgery needs to be addressed.
3. Exterior lighting needs to be controlled in order to protect our dark skies.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - (Original comments) Objection on the basis that no
Transport Assessment/travel plan has been submitted as part of the application and
that there are inaccuracies in the site area, which does not join the public highway and
also that there is a lack of a footpath link back to the town.
Environment Agency - As the site is less than 1 hectare no objection with regard to
surface water management. Suggest that the FRA does not include sufficient
information in the assessment of the surface water runoff generated from the
development or show how this will be managed to ensure that there is no increase in
the flood risk both on the site and in the surrounding area. In addition suggest that the
FRA should include details of who will adopt the surface water system and details of
its future maintained. With regard to the capacity of the sewer network the
Environment Agency have indicated that they are not aware of any pollution incidents
relating to the foul sewerage system in this location that have been attributed to
excessive sewage flows. However in the light of the Anglian Water comments have
concerns that there may be a significantly higher risk of pollution should the sewerage
system not to be upgraded to accommodate the proposed development. As such the
Local Planning Authority should give due consideration to these concerns.
Anglian Water - Under the Water Industry Act 1991 are obliged to provide water and
wastewater infrastructure, but point to the fact that the foul sewerage system cannot
accommodate flows from the proposed development and are not aware when capacity
will become available, but is unlikely to be within the standard timescale of a planning
application. As a result if a development proceeds before the capacity is provided it is
possible that this could result in environmental and amenity problems downstream.
They also suggest that the Environment Agency be consulted for its view on flooding
and sewage pollution issues that may arise where capacity is exceeded.
Building Control – No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) (Comments in respect of amended plans) No overriding objection to the development
and considers that the amended scheme would help to reduce the building's impact in
this edge of town location. The elevational changes would re-emphasise the
verticality of the building, resulting in a less amorphous mass through greater
articulation and priority in visual terms being given to the main access to the centre.
However further consideration should be given to the landscape design and allocation
of parking areas around the building.
Development Control Committee
24
10 June 2010
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Comments in respect
of amended plans) No objection in principle but considers that at the present time the
landscape details are scant and the proposal merits more substantial landscaping with
meaningful blocks of structure planting of sufficient depth at the boundaries of the site.
In addition the landscaping should incorporate native species which would enhance
and connect to natural habitats. In terms of the Flood Risk Assessment the
Sustainable Urban Drain Scheme (SUDS) principles should be expanded through
measures such as permeable paving and the introduction of swales and basins.
These concerns should be addressed through conditions of any approval.
Environmental Health - Highlights the fact that there are historical problems within the
downstream catchment for the development with regard to sewage and surface water
disposal. Also requires conditions imposing on any approval in respect of mechanical
ventilation equipment and lighting.
Planning Policy Manager - (Comments in respect of amended plans) The site is
currently within an area designated as Countryside in the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy where policy (SS2) restricts developments to those uses which require a
countryside location and fall into specific categories of use which are listed within the
policy. The intention is to protect the Countryside for its own sake and ensure that
when development proposals are made the location of the development is properly
justified, including consideration of alternative sites within adopted development
boundaries. The policy does however allow for the provision of community services
and facilities where there is a locally identified need.
It is understood the proposal has been designed to specifically meet identified needs
both within Fakenham and a relatively wide rural catchment. This being the case the
need test in Policy SS2 will have been addressed. It is less clear that the proposal
requires a rural location and the applicant was advised in pre application discussions
that it would be necessary to demonstrate that alternative sites had been considered.
However the Core Strategy identifies major housing growth to the north of the town.
The intended development area is likely to see the provision of around 800-900
dwellings, open space, additional employment land and a range of community facilities
and services in a mixed use development including this site and the land immediately
to the south over the next ten or fifteen years. The current proposal would therefore be
very well placed to address the health needs of this major new development, residents
of Fakenham, and the surrounding area and in this respect is to be positively
welcomed. However at this stage the Authority should exercise a degree of caution in
relation to the possible allocation of land for large scale growth as this has not yet
progressed through Independent Examination and adoption.
Therefore on balance this proposal represents a substantial investment in health care
facilities in Fakenham. If the Authority is satisfied that adequate consideration has
been given to possible alternative sites, in land use policy terms the proposal can be
supported.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject o the imposition of conditions
requiring compliance with Core Strategy Policy EN6.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology – No objection subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
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 Control Committee
25
10 June 2010
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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. Design.
3. Sewage disposal/flooding.
4. Landscape impact.
5. Access and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
Members will recall that this application was the subject of a recent Committee site
visit.
The site is located within an area designated as Countryside in the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy where Policy SS2 restricts development to that which requires a
rural location and falls into specific categories of use which are listed within the policy,
which includes the provision of community services and facilities where there is a
locally identified need. However the policy also requires justification to be provided
that there are no suitable alternative sites within development boundaries and that the
proposal requires a rural location.
The Design and Access Statement supporting the application points to the fact that
the existing medical centre built in 1985 has been extended twice and is now unfit for
purpose, does not comply with Disability Discrimination Act requirements and does not
provide the level of accommodation or car parking required to meet the specifically
identified needs both within Fakenham and a relatively wide rural catchment area.
Development Control Committee
26
10 June 2010
Furthermore, the cramped nature of the existing facilities means that the practice
cannot accommodate all members of the primary care team and many preventative
healthcare activities cannot be offered. As such the integrated service model of the
new building would combine Primary Care, Community Services and Social Services
and would significantly improve the health and well-being of the local population.
In respect of the availability of alternative sites within the development boundary, the
applicant’s agent has confirmed that initially redevelopment of the existing site at
Greenway Lane was considered. However this was too small to accommodate a
surgery with double the accommodation currently provided and so attempts were
made to purchase adjoining property. Even then this was still too small to
accommodate car parking requirements and also the purchase price was too high to
pass an economic test. In addition it was considered that such an approach would
have been unduly expensive, requiring temporary relocation of the Practice and would
also prejudice the quality of service delivery to patients. Further sites were considered
along Greenway Lane, including a trade retail unit but again the sites were too small
and there were no other suitable sites on the market, of sufficient size, to meet the
criteria and time scale for the delivery of the development.
It is therefore considered that, as required by Policy SS2, the needs test and
justification have been addressed.
Policy SS8 of the Core Strategy promotes major housing growth in Fakenham which
includes the provision of around 800-900 dwellings, and a mixed use urban expansion
on a greenfield allocation to the north of the town incorporating a range of community
facilities and services, including this site and the land immediately to the south, over
the next ten or fifteen years. As such the current proposal would be well placed to
address the health needs of this major new development, residents of Fakenham and
of the surrounding area. At this stage this allocation has not yet progressed through
examination and adoption but the proposed development conforms with the
expressed intention of the Council to see this land developed as part of an urban
extension to the north of Fakenham, as reflected in the provisions of the adopted Core
Strategy.
In terms of the design of the Medical Centre, due to concerns regarding the scale and
massing of the building, the overall height of the building has been reduced by some 3
metres as a result of the pitched roof being substituted in favour of a semi-flat edged
roof. It is considered that this would significantly reduce the impact of the building on
the surrounding area particularly when viewed from the northern bypass.
Elevational changes have also been introduced which improve the rhythm of the
building through minor modifications to the fenestration and also the introduction of
vertical brick panels, which would not only help to break up the massing of the building
but, would also re-introduce some much needed vertical emphasis. Furthermore the
main front entrance would be enhanced with the stair towers framing the entrance.
It is therefore considered that the amended design is a significant improvement and
would accord with Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy, which states that innovative and
energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged. However the success of the
development will depend to a large extent on the quality and mixed of materials used
in the building's construction.
As far as sewage disposal/flood risk are concerned, in view of the comments from
Anglian Water and the Environment Agency in order for the development to comply
with the requirement of Policy EN10 of the Core Strategy the applicant’s agent has
been asked to liaise with Anglian Water to establish if this situation can be resolved at
this stage and also to modify the FRA to address the issues raised.
Development Control Committee
27
10 June 2010
Turning to the issue of landscaping, although the upper floors of the building would be
seen from some distance across fields from the by-pass and closer to from the
roundabout at Clipbush Lane the principal views of the building and associated car
parking would be much closer when approaching the entrance to the site. As such it is
considered that the building, subject to the use of appropriate materials and colour
finishes to the render, would conserve the landscape character of the area. However
concerns have been expressed by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
regarding the inadequacy of landscaping details submitted as part of the application
and also the hard surface treatments, which could affect water runoff from the site. It is
considered that more substantial landscaping is required particularity to the
boundaries of the site and the planting should also be used to protect and enhance
biodiversity interested as required by Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy. It is suggested
however that these concerned could be addressed by way of suitable conditions,
which would include a hard and soft landscaping scheme which fully incorporates
SUDS principles.
As far as access and car parking are concerned, following the comments of the
Highway Authority, the applicant’s agent has submitted an amended layout plan which
modifies the site boundary to include access to the public highway and also a
pedestrian route from the site to Thorpland Road and Rudham Stile Lane. In addition
a Travel Plan has been prepared. The Highway Authority has been re-consulted on
this additional information and further comments are awaited. However, as the site is
essentially at the end of a cul-de-sac, the position and configuration of the access
point would need to be revisited in the event of further development taking place on
land to the west. The layout plan demonstrates that this is feasible and therefore it
can be concluded that this development would not prejudice the long term
development potential of adjacent land. In respect of parking within the site the
provision of 119 spaces together with designated parking for an ambulance and
delivery vehicles and the cycle racks complies with the parking standards contained in
the Core Strategy.
In conclusion it is considered that the existing health care facilities in Fakenham are
less than satisfactory and this proposal represents a substantial investment in health
care and that providing a purpose-built building which brings all the services together
in one location would be both desirable and cost effective. However in order to comply
with Development Plan policy the sewage, flood risk and highways issues need to be
fully resolved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to satisfactory resolution of outstanding
sewage, flood risk and highways issues and the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
6.
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0343 - Erection of Community healthcare facilities
including 48 bed care home, Gym/Healthclub, children's day nursery and office
accommodation (Use Class B1) with pedestrian plaza, associated landscaping
and ancillary parking; Land adjacent Morrisons, Clipbush Lane for Medcentres
Major Development
Target Date: 29 June 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Outline Planning Permission
See also application PF/10/0344 above.
Development Control Committee
28
10 June 2010
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking the erection of community healthcare facilities including a 60 bed care
home, gym/health club, children’s day nursery and office accommodation with
pedestrian plaza, associated landscaping and ancillary parking.
All matters apart from access and layout are reserved for further consideration.
Amended plans have been received concerning the layout, including a reduction in
the number of office buildings from three to two, a slight reduction in the footprint of
the nursery/gym building which has enabled this building and the smaller of the two
office buildings to be moved further to the north by approximately 4m. This creates a
greater distance of approximately 17m between the buildings and the southern
boundary rather than the original 13m, and part of the care home building to the west
has been removed and additional floor area added to the north east of the proposed
building. This now allows for approximately 12m between the western boundary of the
site and the care home building rather than 1m as originally proposed.
The floor areas of the buildings as amended are 2250sqm for the care home over 3
storey’s, 700sqm for the 48 space child nursery and gym (nursery at ground floor and
gym above), and the office use is shown to be in two buildings, one of which would be
750sqm over 2/3 storeys and the second to be 1750sqm over 3 storeys.
A footpath has also been shown on the amended plans running from the proposed
Medical Centre (10/0344) across both sites onto Thorpland Road.
A Flood Risk Assessment and Travel Plan have also been received.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting in order to allow Members to visit the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections to the overall plan, but certain elements are too close to existing
residences, the development should be well screened to stop light pollution and noise
to the nearby residences, and there appears to be a legal issue in respect of the
southern boundary.
Awaiting comments on amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters of objection have been received, four of which are from the same
objector, and two of which are from the Fakenham Children’s Day Care Centre and
Little Snoring Pre-School, raising the following points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Buildings too close to Rudham Stile Lane
Light and noise disturbance from gym and out of hours use
Poor road design in relation to Thorpland Road
Southern boundary shown incorrect. Occupants of Rudham Stile Lane have
ownership of adjacent land in line with lane.
5. Concerns that Rudham Stile Lane will be used as a short cut to the site by
pedestrians and cyclists
6. Tree planting and secure fencing required along southern boundary to separate
the site from the properties along Rudham Stile Lane.
7. Light pollution
Development Control Committee
29
10 June 2010
8. Buildings too high and will be too imposing
9. Overlooking
10. Overdevelopment of green open space
11. Inadequate consultation
12. Traffic, poor visibility onto Greenway Lane
13. Where is principal entrance?
14. Adjacent poultry farm concerned about possible complaints
15. Lack of car parking
16. Another day nursery would have a huge impact on current providers, impacting on
their business
17. Most day nurseries in area not up to full capacity
18. Would want to see details of a proven need in the area for the necessity of a
further childcare service.
19. Nursery would have a detrimental impact upon the Pre-School providers in and
around Fakenham
20. The Pre-School Committee questions the statement in the supporting information
that the nursery is in response to an identified local shortfall.
21. Pre-School providers have spaces available
22. Nursery would effect viability of other nurseries
23. Loss of Little Snoring pre-school would affect viability of the Primary School.
One letter of support has been received.
The applicant has stated the following:The various elements of the scheme are functionally related to each other and to the
adjacent proposed medical centre. Separating the elements and providing these on
different sites would diminish the over concept, namely to produce a ‘cluster’ of
health related uses on a single site. In short, both this application and that on the
adjacent site should be regarded as a single scheme, and,
The applicant is contractually required to purchase more land from the land owner
than would be required for the medical centre alone and the cost of land purchase
can only be justified if the applicant is confident of delivering comprehensive
development of the whole site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways – (Original comments) Objection on the basis that no
Transport Assessment/travel plan has been submitted as part of the application and
that there are inaccuracies in the site area, which does not join the public highway
and also that there is a lack of a footpath link back to the town.
Further comments awaited in relation to recently submitted Travel Plan.
Environment Agency – In the absence of an acceptable FRA we object to the grant of
planning permission and recommend refusal on this basis. The FRA submitted with
this application does not comply with the requirements set out in Annex E, paragraph
E3 of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25). The submitted FRA does not therefore,
provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the
proposed development.
Anglian Water – Advise that currently the foul water system (pipes) cannot
accommodate the flows likely to be associated with the proposal and it is not clear
when additional capacity will become available but is unlikely within the timescales of
this application. Approval may result in environmental and amenity issues
downstream.
Development Control Committee
30
10 June 2010
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – Awaiting
comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health – Recommend consultation with Anglian Water and the
Environment Agency in relation to drainage and potential flooding issues and, in the
event of permission being granted, recommend that conditions are imposed in relation
to noise controls associated with any mechanical extraction equipment.
Planning Policy Manager – The site is in the Countryside where new build proposals
would be contrary to policy SS2 unless the proposal is deemed to be a community
use and it has been demonstrated that alternative sites within the development
boundary of Fakenham are not suitable or available.
However the site also falls within a proposed large mixed use urban extension of
Fakenham and this should be taken into account in assessing the application.
Sustainability Co-ordinator – Recommends the imposition of conditions to ensure that
any reserved matters application addresses policy requirements in relation to
sustainable construction.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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).
Development Control Committee
31
10 June 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Sewage disposal/flooding.
4. Access and highway safety.
5. Amenity issues.
APPRAISAL
Members will recall that this application was recently the subject of a Committee site
visit.
The site is located on the edge of Fakenham, outside the approved development
boundary in an area which is currently designated as Countryside in the Core
Strategy. As such adopted policies restrict the types of development which are
deemed acceptable to those where it has been demonstrated that a countryside
location is necessary. Proposals such as community uses can be acceptable provided
consideration has been given to other sites lying within established developed areas.
In essence the ‘countryside’ designation is made to protect the countryside for its own
sake and only allow development of particular types.
The proposed medical centre on the adjacent site (see report 10/0344 above) clearly
falls within the category of a ‘community use’ and the evidence suggests that a
suitable and economically viable site is not currently available elsewhere within
Fakenham. The case in relation to this application is less clear cut in that the uses
proposed do not all fall readily into the category of community use and on the face of
it each of the individual elements of the proposal could be accommodated elsewhere
on sites within the adopted development boundary. For example, land is allocated
within the Development Plan which is suitable for offices and it is possible that
alternative sites could be identified for other elements of the proposal.
Consequently, if this proposal is to be judged acceptable in principle, when assessed
against adopted policies, it is necessary to justify the specific location.
In the light of the applicant's representations (see above) it is argued that for both
functional and financial reasons the medical centre and this application should be
considered as a single proposal and one element, the medical centre, will not happen
without the other.
The draft Site Specific Proposals Development Plan (SSP) identifies the application
site as a small part of a large mixed use urban extension of Fakenham. Whilst the
SPP has yet to be examined and adopted the general location of this expansion is
identified in the adopted Core Strategy but the distribution and mix of uses on
individual development sites within the larger development area is yet to be agreed.
However the inclusion of medical services within this proposed development area as
part of the mixture of uses is to be positively welcomed.
Officers are satisfied in this instance that the functional and business case arguments
put forward by the applicant, and the status of emerging Development Plan policies,
are sufficiently material for the scheme to receive ‘in principle’ support.
In terms of design/layout, this is an outline application so matters relating to the final
external appearance of the proposed buildings would be determined as part of a
reserved matters application. However the proposed location of buildings within the
development is a matter for determination at this stage. The scheme proposes a
Development Control Committee
32
10 June 2010
courtyard layout of buildings arranged around a central space with the position of
buildings on the site taking account of the proposed location of the medical centre and
allowing for a combined single point of vehicular access and sharing of car parking
and landscaped areas in a single campus-style development. Adjacent buildings
comprise the Morrisons supermarket and a small number of residential properties.
There are no established street patterns or specific styles of buildings which it is
necessary to reflect in the proposals. The proposed layout, subject to careful
consideration of relationships with adjacent residential properties, is therefore
regarded as appropriate.
Further consideration of car parking, in terms of number of spaces and their
distribution within the site, would be desirable in order to accommodate the more
substantial areas of landscaping.
In relation to sewage disposal and flooding, collectively this proposal and that on the
adjacent site represent a substantial amount of new buildings and related surfacing.
Comprehensive details of surface water drainage and sewage disposal will be
required before any permission can be granted. Further details in relation to both are
awaited and an update will be given at the meeting.
Vehicular access to the site would be via a combined access with the proposed
medical centre from the existing roundabout serving the Morrisons supermarket.
Given the edge of town location of the site and the scale of development envisaged
the Highway Authority has requested a detailed Travel Plan to ensure that issues
such as access to public transport and pedestrian accessibility are properly
addressed. It is understood that this has been submitted to the Highway Authority and
is close to agreement. Whilst the access arrangements shown on the plan are
considered acceptable in relation to the existing highway network (the site is
essentially at the end of a cul-de-sac), the position and configuration of the access
point would need to be revisited in the event of further development of land to the
west. An indicative plan included with the proposals has demonstrated that this is
feasible and it is therefore concluded that this development would not prejudice the
long term development potential of adjacent land.
In terms of neighbouring residents' amenities, a small number of residential properties
border the application site along its southern boundary. These properties front the
application site and are separated from it by Rudham Stile Lane. The amended
proposals have resulted in slightly improved separation distances between these
dwellings and the proposed development and provided care is taken at the reserved
matters stage in relation to the detailed design of buildings it is considered that
residential amenities would remain within acceptable limits.
Whilst ordinarily this proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the adopted
Development Plan, the clear connection between this and the proposal on the
adjacent site, together with the provisions of the emerging Site Specific Proposals
Development Plan, are considered sufficiently material to justify the grant of
permission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to satisfactory resolution of outstanding
issues in relation to sewage, flood risk and highway issues, no objection from
outstanding consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
33
10 June 2010
7.
FIELD DALLING - PF/09/1155 - Erection of Eight Dwellings; Land off Holt Road
for Victory Housing Trust
Minor Development - Target Date: 11 January 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of eight affordable dwellings, consisting of two bungalows, five no.
two storey dwellings, and a one-and-a-half-storey dwelling. In total they would provide
6 no. 2 bedroom dwellings and 2 no. 3 bedroom dwellings.
The approximate ridge heights of the proposed dwellings would be 5m for the singlestorey dwellings, 8m for the two-storey dwellings to the east, 8.5m for the two storey
dwellings to the west, and 6.5m for the one-and-a-half-storey dwelling.
The proposed materials would be red facing bricks, Eternit cladding panels, cedar
timber cladding with stain preservation finish and render for the external walls. The
roofing material proposed is concrete pantiles.
Twenty car parking spaces are proposed, two of these spaces being for the existing
dwelling at No.32. The remaining 18 would be for the proposed new development.
A number of amended plans have been received in relation to the design of units 6 8, surface treatments, open space/gardens and landscaping. One amendment
included the introduction of allotments, but a further amendment subsequently
removed them.
An Access Statement was submitted by the agents and an amended version
subsequently submitted, to include a traffic count in order to attempt to address
objections raised by the Highway Authority. This is contained in Appendix 3 and
refers to matters in relation to the access into the site off Holt Road, the junction of
Holt Road with Langham Road, traffic generated by the proposed development, road
safety aspects, sustainability and a traffic count.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Visual impact.
2. Drainage.
3. Highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object, until such time as the drainage issues are satisfactorily resolved by
professionally qualified experts.
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirty six letters of objection have been received, and three further letters expressing
concerns. A petition has also been received with 129 signatures objecting to the
proposal. The objections made are on the following grounds:
Development Control Committee
34
10 June 2010
1. It has not been demonstrated that there is a need for eight dwellings in Field
Dalling.
2. The ‘cascade system’ of the Housing Association will not work for the benefit of
Field Dalling residents and their families.
3. The design falls far short of buildings that should be erected in an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. Inadequate car parking.
5. Highway safety.
6. Light pollution.
7. The housing need in Field Dalling is still being met by the social housing already
in existence at Highfield.
8. Poor drainage, leading to flooding.
9. Sewage problems, no mains drainage, and when water level high problems occur
with the septic tank system because of the back up of rainwater.
10. The Parish Council has drawn up a Social Housing Policy and this states that no
more than four additional houses would be required.
11. Increase in traffic.
12. Narrow lanes.
13. Unsustainable location.
14. No amenities in village apart from church and village hall.
15. No school in village; nearest local school is Langham and is over-subscribed, any
extra children will have to go to Holt or Fakenham.
16. Design and materials out of keeping with character of the village.
17. Application not be scrutinised as carefully as a private individuals would be.
18. Parish Council and community views overlooked.
19. Overdevelopment.
20. Inadequate information submitted regarding drainage.
21. Percolation tests have not been carried out.
22. No evidence that proposal rigorously justified.
23. Would not preserve or enhance the special character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
24. Not supported by the village.
An email has been received from the agent in response to residents' concerns over
the loss of car parking. It is noted that the existing parking on the area is 3 spaces.
To replace these we have provided 2 spaces on the new site for the existing
bungalow of No.32. There will also be space to park outside No.32 on the new
section of road i.e. 2 or more spaces, so there will be improved parking for existing
residents when the new scheme is completed.
The agent has confirmed that any existing properties in the estate immediately to the
north of the site that are served by the existing septic tank on the site would be
connected into the proposed new sewage treatment facility. Should any of the
existing privately owned properties immediately to the north of the site be served by
their own private septic tank then it would not be considered necessary to connect
these into the proposed treatment facility.
The agent has also confirmed with regard to soakaways that following any planning
permission further detailed site investigation is proposed to establish design
parameters for onsite soakaways/drainage fields serving roofs, hardstandings and
treated water from the package treatment plant. This would enable detailed
engineering designs and drawings to be prepared for discharge of planning
conditions and for Building Regulation compliance.
In response to the Building Control Manager's request for further information the
agents have confirmed details of water depth and borehole information.
Development Control Committee
35
10 June 2010
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority (original comments) – Object on the following grounds:
1. The proposal does not adequately provide for pedestrians/cyclists/people with
disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or others with mobility difficulties.
2. Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of Holt Road with the
adjoining public highway.
3. The proposal is remote from local service centre provision conflicting with the aims
of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the
reliance on the private car as represented in national and local policy.
A full copy of the Highway Authority responses can be found in Appendix 3.
Comments on applicant's Access Statement: The Highway Authority is aware of the
current situation along Holt Road, where only wide verges or the carriageway are
available for use to pedestrians/cyclists etc and considers that an increase in
numbers of pedestrians/cyclists etc would be unsatisfactory. The amended statement
does not change this view.
With regard to the Langham Road junction, the visibility available of 18m is not
considered to be appropriate for a 30mph speed limit, (Manual for Streets 2007
requires 43m for vehicles travelling at 30mph). Even using the 26m measurement
from the access statement the visibility is only 60% of the required distance.
The lack of recorded accidents at a junction with substandard visibility does not mean
that the junction is considered to be safe and I would not accept that the road's
‘sinuous nature’ would reduce vehicle speeds to a level commensurate with the
available visibility; therefore the junction remains substandard.
Further to this, I do not accept that the level of vehicular movements will be
imperceptible from this development and therefore uphold the view that the
development is likely to engender and increase movements via the Langham Road
junction.
With regard to sustainability, it is accepted that a bus service is provided through the
village. However, the issue of the minimum pre-requisite requirement for any
affordable housing development to have a safe walking route to the local primary
school cannot be addressed.
I would comment that the additional information supplied does not alter my original
comments in response to this application.
Comments regarding amended Access Statement including the traffic count:
A detailed response has been received from the Highways Officer in relation to
sections 3.0 to 7.0 of the amended Access Statement. A copy of this response is
contained in Appendix 3. However, the Highway Authority objection remains. Having
had due regard to the highlighted transport sustainability and highway safety
concerns the Highway Authority cannot support the submitted scheme and will
maintain its objection to the proposal.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Any
incompatibility arguments which might otherwise have been forthcoming regarding
the location of the development are undermined by the precedent within the village
for such development in the form of Highfield.
Development Control Committee
36
10 June 2010
The design intention of the scheme is to provide a relatively compact form of
development around a central circulation space. Rather than follow the regimented
approach at Highfield, the aim is to create a more informal layout which pays proper
regard to its rural location. Key to this is the way the dwellings knit together in an
additive way with variations in orientation, footprint and ridge heights. Also important
will be the treatment of the curtilage and the appropriateness of surfacing and hard
landscaping.
It is considered that in terms of general form units 1 – 5 link together well and display
proportions which are congruent with the local area.
With regard to units 6-8 the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has had
concerns in relation to the siting, design, form and bulk. Following the submission of
three sets of amended plans attempting to address these issues the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager has now confirmed that there are no further
sustainable objections to the amended scheme. Although the solar panels on the rear
elevation of units 6 - 8 are still less than ideal in visual terms, they are not considered
to be the difference between the proposal preserving the character and appearance
of this part of Field Dalling or not.
In the event of the application being approved conditions regarding the submission of
samples of brick, roof tiles and colour finishes and details of windows, eave and
verge treatments are required.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Original comments) –
No objection, subject to the implementation of a landscaping scheme that adequately
integrates the development into the surrounding landscape.
Although the development is situated in a fairly prominent location, the characteristics
of the landscape (arable with pockets of woodland and hedgerows) will help the
successful integration of the development. Draft landscaping proposals have been
submitted with the application that suggest planting a mix of native trees and hedging
around the boundary of the site particularly on the west and south boundaries. Once
established these features will help to soften the building outlines, integrating the
development with the rural setting. Bird and bat boxes have also been suggested on
the landscaping scheme, which will improve the site for biodiversity. A condition
requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme will be required to be imposed on
any approval.
Comments on final version of amended plans (omitting the allotments): I am
disappointed to see that the removal of the allotments from the south west corner has
not resulted in the relocation of them to the north west corner (now allocated as
‘green open space’). However, it appears that the landscaping depicted on the plan is
only indicative.
Conservation, Design and Landscape do not object to the proposed layout of the
development but would reiterate the need for landscaping to be conditioned as part of
any approval given. A well thought out landscaping scheme is required to help
integrate the development into the countryside particularly from the south west.
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments
Environment Agency – The Environment Agency has assessed this application as
having a low environmental risk. A summary of the comments made is as follows:With regard to sustainable construction it is considered that water efficiency
measures should be incorporated into this scheme, conserving water and allowing
Development Control Committee
37
10 June 2010
cost savings for future occupants. A condition is required that no development shall
commence until a scheme for water efficiency has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
With regard to Foul Water Drainage an acceptable method of foul sewage treatment
would be the provision of a private sewage treatment plant. The plant should be
installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions
as updated from time to time. Our formal Consent will be required under Schedule 10
of the Water Resources Act 1991 for any discharge of effluent from the plant, and
such consent is not implied by these observations. We would require the developer to
nominate a ‘Consentee’ who would be legally responsible for the correct future
maintenance and discharge quality of any private treatment works. The Environment
Agency recommends the use of a separate sewage treatment plant for each property.
A Consent under Schedule 10 of the Water Resources Act 1991 will be required for
each individual sewage treatment plant.
The granting of planning approval must not be taken to imply that consent has been
given in respect of the above.
Sustainability Co-ordinator – The application complies with Policy EN6 based on the
information supplied in the Design and Access Statement. A Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 4 rating is proposed. In order to comply with Policy EN 6 planning
permission should only be granted with a condition that the required Code Level 2
rating or above is achieved in accordance with the Code for Sustainable Homes:
Technical Guide.
Environmental Health – No objection. Satisfied with the proposals for the disposal of
surface water and sewage provided that the Environment Agency approve a
discharge consent for any effluent into the subsoil. Conditions required regarding
details to be submitted and approved regarding the disposal of sewage from the site,
and prior to installation of any external lighting details to be submitted and approved.
Strategic Housing Enabling Officer – A detailed response has been received
demonstrating the local housing need including figures from the Housing Register
which currently identifies 56 households from Field Dalling and the adjoining civil
parishes (namely Gunthorpe, Brinton, Thornage, Letheringsett, Wiveton, Blakeney,
Langham, Binham, Hindringham) which have a housing need and a local connection
with Field Dalling as required by the Rural Exceptions Scheme policy. It also covers
ensuring dwellings are affordable in perpetuity and other issues such as surface and
foul water drainage. It is concluded that there is a significant local need for affordable
housing which this proposal for 8 dwellings will go some way to meet. The proposed
scheme meets with all the requirements of Policy H03 and contributes to meeting the
core aims and objectives outlined in the Core Strategy and Corporate Plan. Strategic
Housing therefore strongly supports this application to develop 8 much needed
affordable homes in Field Dalling. A full copy of the Enabling Officer's comments is
contained in Appendix 3.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology – The proposed development site lies in an area
where pottery and other archaeological artefacts dating from the prehistoric to the
post medieval periods have previously been recorded by fieldwalking. Consequently
there is potential that archaeological remains may be present at the proposed
development site.
If planning permission is granted, we therefore ask that this be subject to a condition
for a programme of archaeological works in accordance with Planning Policy
Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning.
Development Control Committee
38
10 June 2010
Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer - (Original comments) – The
development is likely to have to obtain ‘Secured by Design’ certification that involves
police inspection prior to such an award being given and ensures a much higher level
of security than most private developments. It appears to be designed to meet this
although I have concerns regarding the area behind the parking area marked NPQ. I
think it likely that residents may complain about anti-social behaviour occurring in this
area and the area that is immediately behind units 6, 7, and 8.
The area behind 6, 7 and 8 in particular is well screened which makes it attractive to
becoming a meeting place and which in turn may see complaints of noise and
antisocial behaviour. There is no mention of the particular purpose for this area and it
is possible that without more planning then the area could create problems for the
residents of the development.
Comments on final amended plans awaited.
Building Control Manager – Original comments: Justification is required regarding the
soakaway capability of the sandy chalk and there is no mention in the submitted
report regarding the level of the ground water in each borehole.
Additional comments following receipt of further information from agent: Having
reviewed the Site Investigation Report if the application were to be approved this
should be subject to a condition. The Site Investigation Report confirms that more
extensive soakaway investigation is advised. It is considered essential so that the
treatment of foul and surface water can be properly designed. It is considered that a
condition could be phrased so that the more detailed soil analysis must be submitted
and approved before any work ‘let’ to contractors.
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.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Control Committee
39
10 June 2010
EN8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
EN13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution and
provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
CT5: The Transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking standards
other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of affordable housing development in countryside.
2. Design.
3. Impact on the Conservation Area.
4. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
5. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
6. Drainage/foul sewage.
7. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site having carried out a site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where affordable housing is
permitted providing it is in accordance with Policy HO 3: Affordable Housing in the
Countryside and accords with other relevant policies in the Core Strategy.
Policy HO 3 permits affordable housing in the countryside only where:
1. The proposal would help to meet a proven local housing need for affordable
housing as demonstrated in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and
waiting list information; and
2. for schemes of 10 dwellings or fewer the site adjoins an existing group of ten or
more dwellings; and is not situated within a 1 kilometre radius of any other
scheme which has been permitted under this policy; and
3. the affordable housing provided is made available to people in local housing need
at an affordable cost for the life of the property.
In relation to point 1 the Committee will note the detailed comments of the Enabling
Officer in Appendix 3, that confirm that a proven local housing need has clearly been
established. In relation to point 2 the location of the site complies with this part of the
policy and in relation to point 3, the Council in compliance with Policy HO3, will
ensure that any planning permission granted is subject to appropriate conditions to
secure its affordability in perpetuity. It is therefore considered that the proposal
complies with the requirements of Policy HO 3.
In terms of the design of the proposal and impact on the Conservation Area the
Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Conservation and Design), who now has no objection to the scheme as
amended. It is therefore considered that the proposal would preserve the appearance
and character of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
40
10 June 2010
No objections have been received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape) regarding the amended plans, subject to the imposition of
conditions. It is considered that a well thought out landscaping scheme would help to
soften the building outlines, integrating the development within the rural setting. It is
not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact
on the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or its setting.
The relationship between the proposed and existing dwellings is considered to be
acceptable and in accordance with the basic amenity criteria. As a result of the
design, orientation and distance between dwellings it is not therefore considered that
the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities
of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.
With regard to foul and surface water drainage there is no adopted mains sewer
system. The use of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) is proposed in the form of
soakaways as a means of disposal for surface water. The applicants have submitted
a Site Investigation Report, which has identified that, given the ground conditions,
soakaways are likely to be a feasible option on the site, so long as any soakaway
feature penetrates through the clay into the sands and chalk strata. The open space
area to the north west corner of the site is the area proposed for the location of the
soakaways.
The use of a sewage treatment plant and associated soakaway system for the foul
sewage from the site is also proposed. The Committee will note from the
representations section of this report that a new sewage treatment facility is
proposed, which would also incorporate the disposal of sewage from the septic tank
serving the existing dwellings. The treatment plant would also be located to the north
west of the site below the area of open space. A new field drain or soakaway would
be required to discharge the treated effluent.
With regard to soakaways/drainage, significant concern has been raised by local
residents regarding the ground conditions since they already experience problems
with poor drainage and flooding. It is considered that based on the information
submitted with the planning application further investigation into this matter is
required. Therefore, if the Committee were minded to approve the application the
advice of the Building Control Manager is that it would be essential for more
extensive soakaway investigation to be carried out and resolved prior to the
determination of the application, by way of a percolation test. This would need to
demonstrate if the ground conditions are suitable and that a system can be properly
designed to accommodate the development.
The Committee will note the objections from the Highway Authority, contained in full
in Appendix 3, on the grounds that the site is in an unsustainable location, that the
proposed development does not adequately provide for pedestrians, cyclists or
people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or others with mobility
difficulties) as there is no footpath provided along Holt Road, and finally that
inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the Holt Road with the
Langham Road, which would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway.
The agents have responded to this with an Access Statement, an amended version of
which is contained in Appendix 3 and which includes a traffic count in order to
attempt to address the objections raised. The statement concludes that it has been
found that:
Development Control Committee
41
10 June 2010
• The visibility at the site access onto Holt Road is in excess of that required by
Manual for Streets.
• The existing junction between Holt Road and Langham Road is deficient in
•
•
•
visibility in one direction but that does not lead to a propensity for accidents;
the building within the vision splay has been there for many years and yet
shows no signs of damage ever occurring.
No accidents have been recorded at this junction. Accident records obtained
from Norfolk County Council for the five years up to October 2009 show that
in the five year period covered only one accident occurred in the village; this
was along the Holt Road but away from the junction in the dark in fine
weather where a car collided with the rear of a parked vehicle. The severity of
the accident was serious.
Traffic generated by the proposed development is very small.
Although, the village is relatively small it is served by two bus routes making it
accessible for people travelling without cars.
The Committee will note the comments of the Highway Authority in response to the
applicant's Access Statement. The Highway Authority does not consider that the
information submitted overcomes the original objections raised. The Highway
Authority’s opinion has not therefore altered, and an objection to the application is
maintained.
In relation to the Highway Authority’s objection on sustainability grounds it is agreed
that there are no amenities in Field Dalling other than a church and village hall.
However, as the Committee will note there is no requirement in Policy HO3 that such
a development should be in a more sustainable location. This is inevitable when
considering an exception site in the Countryside for affordable housing.
Based on the information that has been submitted with the application the proposal
complies with the requirements of Policy HO3, and it has been demonstrated that
there is a clear proven local housing need in this location. The Highway Authority
objection on sustainability grounds is not therefore supported.
The latest amended plans are currently being re-advertised and the Parish Council is
being re-consulted. The design issues have now been resolved. There would also be
a requirement for further drainage exploration works to be carried out and to
demonstrate that the proposed soakaways would work satisfactory. Whilst it appears
that these issues can be resolved, despite the applicant's attempts to overcome the
objections of the Highway Authority the latter's position remains unchanged.
Officers are exploring with the applicants and the Highway Authority options for safety
improvements at the junction of Holt Road and Langham Road. The Committee will
be updated orally concerning this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee will be updated orally concerning progress regarding highway
safety matters.
Development Control Committee
42
10 June 2010
8.
GIMINGHAM - PF/10/0203 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and
garage; Land adjacent Treeside, School Lane for Mr S Colbourne
Minor Development - Target Date: 05 May 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson/Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070089 - (Outline Planning Application) - Erection of single-storey dwelling and
garage
Approved 12 April 2007
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a one-and-a- half-storey dwelling (incorporating two bedrooms and
bathroom facilities within the roof space) and a detached two bay open fronted
garage and attached workshop.
Amended plans submitted omit originally proposed timber cladding in favour of flint
elevations all round, and reduce the height of both the eaves (now 2.85m) and the
ridge of the roof (now 6.1m)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strongly object – visual impact, roofline too high, materials out of character, one and
a half storey differs from original application. In the event of permission being
granted requests that permitted development rights be withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIONS
Immediate neighbours have objected on the grounds of visual impact and loss of
privacy (full comments at Appendix 4).
In addition there are letters from twelve other nearby residents concerned about the
visual impact of the proposal and possible contamination of the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Coordinator – No objections subject to conditions ensuring compliance
with the Code for Sustainable Homes.
County Council (Highways) – Notes that the outline planning permission was granted
contrary to highways advice. Makes no further comments other than requesting full
construction details of passing bay (and retaining wall) prior to work starting on site.
Environmental Health – Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
43
10 June 2010
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 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)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Scale and design of building.
3. Impact on neighbour.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit by the Committee.
The site has the benefit of outline planning permission for a single-storey dwelling
and garage granted in 2007. Gimingham is no longer identified as a settlement for
further residential development, but the principle of development stemming from the
outline permission on this site remains valid for the duration of that permission. The
current proposal is submitted as a full planning application as it is not for a single
storey dwelling.
In terms of scale the ground floor area of the proposed building would cover 204sq.m
(including the covered verandah) compared with approximately 185sq.m shown at
the outline stage. The proposal therefore represents a slight increase in ground area.
The eaves height of the proposed dwelling (now reduced to 2.85m) would be only
slightly higher than would be expected of a conventional bungalow. Therefore the
scale of the building would be only marginally greater than that envisaged by the
outline permission. The design is intended to mimic the style of a Norfolk barn with
flint walls and gables and pantile roof. This, it is considered, would produce an
attractive building appropriate to its rural setting which, despite its size, would not be
damaging to the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The ground level of the application site is 1m below the neighbouring property and
the proposed dwelling would be sited so that it would not obscure the neighbouring
property's view as much as the previous (outline planning permission) scheme would
have done. In addition the height of the proposed building has now been reduced
such that the ridge height would be 0.5m below that of the adjacent bungalow. The
northern elevation of the proposed dwelling which would face towards the
neighbour's main windows would only include two doors and a pantry window at a
distance of approx 15m away. This degree of separation would ensure no
overlooking and would comply with the requirements of the Design Guide basic
amenity criteria.
Development Control Committee
44
10 June 2010
Withdrawing permitted development rights for windows and extensions would ensure
that no uncontrolled alterations in the future would adversely impact on the amenities
of the neighbours.
Granting permission for this application would accord with the relevant policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the following conditions:
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of two years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.
2 This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 2010/2 3 Rev E) received by the Local Planning Authority on 29th April 2010,
unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other alteration
to the dwelling hereby permitted (including the insertion or any further windows or
rooflights) shall take place unless planning permission has been first granted by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a close
knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4 No development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be
used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the buildings have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Control Committee
45
10 June 2010
5 Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the passing bay
indicated on the submitted plan shall be constructed in accordance with construction
details to be first submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority in
consultation with the highway authority. The passing bay shall be retained as such
thereafter.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6 Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted a visibility splay
measuring 55.6m in a southerly direction from a 2m set back shall be provided where
the site access joins the county highway. The splay shall be maintained free of any
obstruction more than 0.6m high above the level of the adjacent carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure safe egress from the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9.
HEMPTON - PF/10/0329 - The erection of 5 two-storey dwellings and 2 flats; Site
adjacent to, 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
Minor Development
- Target Date: 21 May 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
County Wildlife Site
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
Countryside
Wensum Valley Project Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20081621 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of seven dwellings
Withdrawn, 15 January 2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of affordable dwellings of five houses and two flats with a mix of
two and three bedrooms.
The form of the development consists of a row of four terraced houses to the north of
the access into the site and the fifth house and two flats to the south. Car parking is
proposed to the rear of the site providing 14 spaces.
The dwellings would measure approximately 8m in height to the ridge, and would be
constructed in brick with a pantile roof. Each dwelling would have its own private rear
garden with associated sheds and bin stores. The two flats would have a private and
enclosed shared outdoor space and drying area.
A new footpath would be provided running along the site frontage and continuing up
to Dereham Road. A dropped kerb is proposed outside the adjoining dwellings to the
north of the site to still allow access for the parking of vehicles off road.
Development Control Committee
46
10 June 2010
An amended plan has been received showing improvements to the junction alignment
and final carriageway width of 5.5m on Dereham Road.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wakefield having regard to the following planning issues:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Design
Highway safety
Loss of existing car parking
Ground conditions
PARISH COUNCIL
Object, on the following grounds:
1. Design contradicts Policy EN4 as it does not have regard to local context and
does not preserve or enhance the area.
2. Design is not sympathetic or appropriate for this prominent site at the heart of the
old village and bordering common land.
3. Highways issues – poor visibility in the Fakenham direction at the turning out
point and proximity to already dangerous junction with road to Dereham which
has a high accident record. Not a suitable place to significantly increase traffic.
4. Dropped kerb by the existing dancing school encourages road crossing at a
dangerous place.
5. Gravel paths not suitable for people with prams, pushchairs, wheelchairs.
6. Removal/reduction of parking for existing residents and their visitors. This will
result in insufficient parking space in the immediate area.
7. Waterlogged nature of the site (due to nearby springs) gives rise to serious risk of
subsidence damage to existing adjacent houses, due to disturbance of water
table.
8. The garden areas of proposed houses will be waterlogged at certain times of
year.
9. We have been informed that existing houses were not permitted to have windows
facing the Ancient Monument site, and would be interested to know why this does
not apply to the current proposal.
Comments on behalf of all councillors of the Parish Council also representing views
expressed by villagers at public meeting held on this matter.
The Parish Council supports affordable housing provision but objects to this site and
design.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twelve letters of objection have been received, two of which are from the same
person, raising the following points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Out of keeping with the existing terrace of cottages.
Will be highly visible when entering Hempton.
Site borders a conservation area.
Spot digs have unearthed significant historical finds.
Ground conditions extremely wet.
Contaminated land.
Connecting to existing drainage is likely to affect existing houses.
Will cause drainage problems.
Development Control Committee
47
10 June 2010
9. During erection of 21 Dereham Road the existing terrace houses suffered varying
levels of cracks, heavy vehicles associated with this development
will
undoubtedly cause more damage.
10. Dangerous access/junction.
11. Increase in traffic movements and parking.
12. Footpath will encroach into the off road parking used by existing residents.
13. No provision for visitors to park.
14. Footpath will prevent parking for existing dwellings.
15. Site of historical interest.
16. Risk of accidents will increase by 100%.
17. Design characteristics have been taken from the existing old houses, this will
make the village look dull and uninteresting. Any development within the village
should have design and flair to complement the village and not just copy what is
already there.
18. There are uninhabited properties which could be purchased and refurbished why
not fully utilise the housing stocks?
19. Closeness of properties to existing dwelling of 21 Dereham Road.
One letter of support has been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Pudding Norton Parish Council – have the following comments to make:
1. In general the Council are in favour of affordable homes so there are no NIMBY
aspects to their comments.
2. The exterior designs of the properties seem to be modern copies of the houses
next to them, rather than take a wider view of the other properties in the
immediate vicinity. This limited vision of fitting the street scene means that there
is just a row of terraced houses marching to the end of the village. Opposite the
proposed development are many styles of building, blending with which would
offer a much more enlightened version of the village's style.
3. The site is very wet and has several springs nearby. Although the effect of this
can doubtless be engineered around as far as the new buildings are concerned.
The Council is concerned about its overall effect on the water table. What effect
will this have on the adjacent road and path surfaces, which are used by its
parishioners on a regular basis. They also feel that structural damage to the
existing adjacent buildings is possible and in extreme circumstances may be
dangerous to passing pedestrians. The Parish Council seeks assurances on
these aspects.
4. The Council is concerned on several aspects as far as traffic and parking are
concerned. Firstly, the increased level of traffic exiting from the development on to
the main road into Fakenham town centre will certainly increase the potential for
road traffic accidents. However, of more proper interest to the Pudding Norton PC
is the increased danger to its parishioners walking the route into Fakenham.
There will be more traffic to negotiate exiting the development itself and there will
doubtless be more vehicles parked in the terminated section of the Old Dereham
Road, as the amount of parking provided on the development is far from
adequate. Again, the Council is keen to receive the planning committees
comments on these aspects.
5. The Parish Council is concerned that this development is the thin end of the
wedge as far as infilling all the way along the Dereham Road to Pudding Norton
and seek assurance that this is not the case.
The Raynhams Parish Council – Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee
48
10 June 2010
Environmental Health – No objection. A condition regarding a site investigation into
contaminants is required.
County Council (Highways) – No objection. The proposal incorporates the Highway
Authority's request relating to the provision of a footpath link to the site along
Dereham Road together with improvements to the junction alignment. The footpath
improvements are taken over land within the highway boundary and sufficient
distance is retained between the footpath and carriageway for the parking of
residents cars. If approved conditions regarding the access, parking, turning and offsite highways works will be required.
Environment Agency – A detailed response has been received in relation to
contaminated land and risk to controlled waters. Although the contamination is
generally not at significant levels with regard to potential ground water contamination,
the sensitivity of the area (within the Broads Environmentally Sensitive Area) and the
lack of sampling and testing at greater depths than submitted means that the degrees
of any threat to groundwater quality cannot be fully quantified. For this reason it would
be useful to have further information concerning the extent of the contamination. A
condition has been requested in relation to a site investigation into possible
contaminants being carried out prior to the commencement of the development. In
addition to this the Agency refers to supporting information submitted with the
application that mentions the possibility of the use of soakaways and piling. The
Agency would object to deep or shallow soakaways and piling on this site unless a
thorough risk assessment could show that there is an acceptable risk to ground
water. Further details regarding the use of soakaways and piling on the site have
been requested. The Agency is satisfied that there are generic remedial options
available to deal with the risks to controlled waters posed by contamination at this
site. However, further details will be required in order to ensure that risks are
appropriately addressed prior to development commencing. The response also
provides requested conditions in relation to sustainable construction, water efficiency
and energy resource efficiency.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No objection in relation to impacts on the adjacent County
Wildlife Site. However, we would advise that conditions are included with any
permission to ensure that outside lighting is designed so that light pollution in the
direction of the County Wildlife Site is minimised. We support the inclusion of
biodiversity enhancement measures within the application site itself.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – The site
in question lies on the south eastern fringe of the village. Although currently
appearing to mark the transition into open countryside, the site historically backed on
to a reasonably extensive Abbey Farm and Priory complex. It is situated within the
Hempton Conservation Area.
In terms of form and character, the proposed scheme merely looks to replicate the
existing ribbon form of development found immediately to the north. By mimicking the
adjacent predominantly terraced properties, it represents a compatible way of
extending the built form (which already has a number of linear constituent parts).
Following previous discussions, the units themselves now echo the eaves and ridge
heights and gable widths of the neighbouring properties. As a result, they are now in
scale with the rest of the row. Much of the elevational detailing has also been carried
across. Whilst this has produced rather safe designs which lack real originality or
individualism, it does help reinforce their compatibility with the surroundings.
Development Control Committee
49
10 June 2010
The general thrust of Policy EN4 is now to look for rather more than just plain
pastiche approaches. However, there will always be occasions where such a solution
can be justified in design terms. It can be argued that this site, with its established
architectural precedent, is one such location. It is therefore considered that there are
insufficient grounds to insist on a more innovative approach in this instance.
If we also consider that the earlier problems with the proportions and busyness of the
main elevations have been resolved, the end result will be mild mannered and in
keeping with the appearance and character of this part of Hempton's Conservation
Area.
With regard to curtilage treatment Conservation and Design have no particular issues
with the rear parking court or main landscaping scheme. There is, however, still real
concern that the footpath serving the site will alter the character of what is currently a
low key rural lane. Despite using conservation kerbs and a rolled gravel surface, the
path would surely formalize this existing arrangement.
Elsewhere, it is not absolutely clear how the site frontage will look. Although a knee
high fence is specified, it appears to be straddled on both sides by lawn. Whether this
will create a strip of dead space is open to question. Also unclear are all the sheds,
stores, walls and fences in the rear gardens. Whilst less important in street scene
terms, we should surely be aware of their overall appearance and be able to assess
whether they are fit for purpose. Notwithstanding these issues if approved conditions
are requested in relation to materials being agreed, as well as porch and window
details.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection. The
proposed site lies slightly within and adjacent to a County Wildlife Site (CWS). The
CWS covers a large area (approximately 20ha) and is predominantly noted for its
plant communities in the central marshy section of the site. It is unlikely that this
proposal will affect the integrity of the CWS and the proposed native hedge and tree
planting would enhance the ecological value of the area.
It is highlighted within the BREEAM Ecological Report that the site contains suitable
terrestrial habitat for great crested newts, which may pass through the site to the
surrounding water bodies. The suggested mitigation of great crested newt fencing will
be required to prevent potential disturbance to the species and should be conditioned
as part of any planning approval.
The addition of knee-high rail fencing to the frontage of the properties is welcomed as
this will delineate the buildings and prevent unwanted parking on the verge.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order to comply with Policy EN6 planning permission
should only be granted with a condition that the required Code Level 2 rating or
above is achieved in accordance with the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical
guide.
Strategic Housing Enabling Officer – A detailed response has been received
explaining that there are currently 26 social housing properties in Hempton, with the
number of properties falling by 10 units through Right to Buy sales between 1992 and
2007. The proposed scheme therefore arguably seeks to replace those houses in the
village lost for social rented occupation through Right to Buy sales. The response
demonstrates the local housing need including figures from the Housing Register
which currently identifies 38 households from Hempton and the adjoining civil
parishes (namely Sculthorpe, Dunton and Pudding Norton) which have a housing
Development Control Committee
50
10 June 2010
need and a local connection with Hempton as required by the Rural Exceptions
Scheme policy. It also covers ensuring dwellings are affordable in perpetuity. In
conclusion it is concluded that there is a significant local need for affordable housing
which this proposal for 7 dwellings will go some way to meet. The proposed scheme
meets with all the requirements of Policy H03 and contributes to meeting the core
aims and objectives outlined in the Core Strategy and Corporate Plan. Strategic
Housing therefore strongly supports this application to develop 7 much needed
affordable homes in Hempton. A full copy of the Enabling Officer's comments is
contained in Appendix 5.
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Awaiting comments.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee
51
10 June 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of affordable housing development in countryside.
2. Design.
3. Impact on the Conservation Area.
4. Landscape impact.
5. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
6. Contamination.
7. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site having carried out a site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where affordable housing is
permitted providing it is in accordance with Policy HO3: Affordable Housing in the
Countryside and accords with other relevant policies in the Core Strategy.
Policy HO3 permits affordable housing in the countryside only where:
1. The proposal would help to meet a proven local housing need for affordable
housing as demonstrated in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and
waiting list information; and
2. for schemes of 10 dwellings or fewer the site adjoins an existing group of ten or
more dwellings; and is not situated within a 1 kilometre radius of any other
scheme which has been permitted under this policy; and
3. the affordable housing provided is made available to people in local housing need
at an affordable cost for the life of the property.
In relation to point 1 the Committee will note the detailed comments of the Enabling
Officer in Appendix 5, that confirm that a proven local housing need has clearly been
established. In relation to point 2 the location of the site complies with this part of the
policy and in relation to point 3, the Council in compliance with Policy HO3, will
ensure that any planning permission granted is subject to appropriate conditions to
secure its affordability in perpetuity. It is therefore considered that the proposal
complies with the requirements of Policy HO3.
In terms of the design of the proposal and impact on the Conservation Area the
Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Conservation and Design). It is considered that the proposal follows the
form of the adjacent terrace properties and represents a compatible way of extending
them. The area is already characterised by linear forms of development. It is
considered that in this case there are insufficient grounds to insist on a more
innovative approach. Details have been requested in relation to the appearance of
the sheds/outbuildings, walls and fencing proposed on the site. Clarification is also
being sought regarding the surface treatment to the footpath. At the time of writing
this report those details were still awaited. Subject to this information being
acceptable it is considered that the proposal would be in keeping with and preserve
the appearance and character of this part of the Conservation Area.
No objections have been received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape), subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the character of the landscape or the integrity of the County Wildlife Site (CWS).
The relationship between proposed and existing dwellings is considered to be
acceptable and in accordance with the Design Guide's Amenity Criteria. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on
the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.
Development Control Committee
52
10 June 2010
Within the site itself the distances between the dwellings to the north and south of the
access road do not comply with the Amenity Criteria. There are secondary windows
facing each other in the north and south elevations at a distance of approximately
6.5m. In accordance with the guidance in the Design Guide it is suggested that
secondary to secondary elevations should be at a distance of 15m. However, the
access into the site separates the dwellings and given that there is only one first floor
bedroom window that is the sole window to the room, and that the other windows are
secondary not main windows, it is considered that this relationship is acceptable and
would not have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the
occupiers.
The Committee will note from the representations received and the comments of
Hempton and Pudding Norton Parish Councils that concerns have been raised
regarding the 'waterlogged' ground conditions of the site. The site is not located in a
high risk flood zone as designated by the Environment Agency and given that the site
is less than 1 hectare in area a Flood Risk Assessment is not a requirement of the
planning application. The Environment Agency is aware of the nearby springs and
drains and that groundwater was found on the site at a depth of 1.5 - 2m. The
'waterlogged' nature of the site is a matter to be addressed at the construction stage
when appropriate measures for the ground conditions would be required to be put in
place in order to satisfy Building Control. However, the Building Control Manager has
been consulted on this matter and at the time of writing this report comments were
awaited.
The Committee will note from the Environment Agency comments that further details
are required in relation to the use of soakaways and piling on the site. Following a
discussion between officers and the Environment Agency the reason for this is that
based on the information submitted it would appear that there are 'pockets' of
contamination across the site and details are required to be submitted and agreed for
soakaways and piling to ensure that they are not located in the areas of
contamination. This information has been requested from the agent and at the time of
writing this report a response was awaited. The Committee will be updated at the
meeting regarding this matter.
The car parking arrangements proposed comply with the Council's standards. Local
residents and the Parish Council have raised concerns of the lack of visitor parking
within the site and for adjacent dwellings. This matter has been discussed with the
Highways Officer who has advised that visitor parking is not a requirement for this
type of development, and cannot be insisted upon in this location. It is considered that
the width of the road that the site faces is sufficient to allow vehicles to park and pass
each other, if additional parking is required. A dropped kerb is shown on the
submitted plans in front of the existing dwellings adjacent to the site to allow those
who currently park in front of their properties to continue to do so. The footpath and
dropped kerb shown on the submitted plans are on land that is in the control of the
Highway Authority. The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no
objection to the proposal, subject to imposition of conditions.
Subject to the receipt of satisfactory details from the agent in relation to plans
indicating outbuildings, fences and walls, details of soakaways and piling and
clarification on surface treatment to the footpath and no objections being received
from outstanding consultees it is considered that the proposed development would be
acceptable in this location and comply with the Development Plan policies.
Development Control Committee
53
10 June 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the receipt of satisfactory details
from the agent in relation to plans indicating outbuildings, fences and walls,
details of soakaways and piling and clarification on surface treatment to the
footpath, no objections being received from outstanding consultees and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/0025 - Erection of single-storey
extension and conversion to form one unit of holiday accommodation; The Old
Potting Sheds, Bayfield Hall for Bayfield Farms Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 08 March 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to extend the existing single-storey building and to change the use
of the former potting shed into a one-bed holiday unit.
The proposed holiday unit would use the existing Bayfield Hall access off the
Blakeney Road and internal roads across farmland. The site is set approximately
300m east of the main hall among mature woodland.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was considered at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection or comment.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection to the
original application providing the imposition of conditions requiring a detailed
landscape proposal and details of the proposed access track.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Proposal complies with Policy EN 6. Recommends
standard condition.
County Council (Highways) - Objection on the grounds of highway safety, comments
as below:
Following the committee resolution on 8 April 2010, County Council (Highways) were
consulted on the proposal to introduce a mirror opposite the existing Bayfield Hall
access and had the following comments to make:
The use of traffic mirrors as a means of alleviating shortcomings in access visibility is
not acceptable to the County Council, as Highway Authority.
The Highway Authority will not permit them to be erected in the public highway. If
installed, mirrors dazzle drivers, make it difficult to judge speed and distance and as
a result lead to a higher risk of accidents. They are often the target of vandalism.
Development Control Committee
54
10 June 2010
It is evident that the access has substandard visibility and it was for this reason that
the intensification of use attributable to this proposal was deemed to be unacceptable
by the Highway Authority. If any proposal to improve the visibility at this site access
were available for discussion, I would be happy to comment further.
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 CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Saved North Norfolk Local Plan
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
Members may recall considering this application on 8 April 2010, when it was
resolved to approve the application subject to the introduction of a mirror opposite the
existing Bayfield Hall access on the Blakeney Road. A full copy of the report to that
meeting is included in Appendix 6.
The Committee is asked to give further consideration to this application in light of the
objection received from the Highway Authority to suggested introduction of the mirror.
In the light of that objection, refusal has to be recommended on highway safety
grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development.
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
Highway. This would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the access and the
adjoining public highway. The proposed development would therefore be detrimental
to highway safety and contrary to Policy CT 5 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
55
10 June 2010
11.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0114 - Change of use from residential to guesthouse; 29
Holt Road for Ms E Roe
Target Date: 30 March 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the continued use of the dwelling and a converted garage as a guesthouse.
The converted garage contains two B&B rooms and two of the four bedrooms in the
main dwelling are used for B&B.
Parking for the guesthouse use is served by the shingle parking area to the front of
the dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Nelson having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on amenity of neighbour
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection received from the occupier of the dwelling to the north on the
following grounds:
1. External lights are frequently left on all night
2. The B&B offers a restaurant to residents and their website also indicates this is
open to non-residents
3. Noise and disturbance from the B&B guests due to close proximity of the footpath
to the B&B rooms to the boundary, car doors opening and some overlooking over the
fence.
4. There is a boundary dispute between the two properties.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways – The applicant has provided plans of limited details and
poor scale, however having carried out a site visit and assessing the site against the
letting room information provided I am relatively certain that the current parking
provision is workable. I would wish to comment that any increase in the parking
requirement attributable to B&B rooms would require revision of parking areas to
accommodate the increase. As such I would seek a condition to ensure the parking is
laid out in accordance with the plan and permanently retained for that use.
Environmental Health - No adverse comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
56
10 June 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS 3 - Housing
EN 4 - Design
CT 6 - Parking provision
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
The dwelling is located within Sheringham where the principle of a guesthouse use is
acceptable within the residential area subject to compliance with other policies.
The site is located on the eastern side of Holt Road and has residential dwellings on
either side. The ground level of the dwelling to the north is at approximately 1.5m
lower than the application site.
In terms of neighbouring amenity the two B&B accommodation rooms occupying the
former garage are in close proximity to the boundary with the adjacent residential
dwelling. There are existing external lights on this part of the building, but given that
the proposed guest house use has resulted in the intensification of the use of the
external lighting and the proximity and relationship with the adjacent dwelling, this
could have the potential for disturbance to the adjacent dwelling. It is therefore
considered that a condition requiring these external lights be on a sensor and timed is
appropriate to mitigate any potential impact on the amenities of the occupier of the
neighbouring property.
With regard to other noise and disturbance, notwithstanding the objections received
from the adjacent dwelling, the general noise and disturbance from the two B&B
rooms in the converted garage are not considered to be significantly detrimental to the
amenities of the adjacent dwelling.
With regard to parking, the North Norfolk Core Strategy Parking Standards require
one vehicular parking space per bedroom (guest or staff). The property has 6
bedrooms in total, 4 of which are B&B accommodation rooms. As such a minimum of
6 parking spaces in addition to on-site turning are required. The parking layout
submitted indicates that 6 parking spaces in addition to on-site turning can be
achieved within the existing parking area, in compliance with the Parking Standards.
The Highway Authority has advised that parking and turning provision is acceptable,
but any further increase in letting rooms would require revision of the parking areas to
accommodate the increase in parking. As such it is considered necessary to
condition the guest house use to a maximum of 4 letting rooms so as to ensure that
the parking provision is sufficient.
Overall therefore, subject to conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including limiting the number
of letting rooms to 4 and ensuring external lighting is on a sensor.
Development Control Committee
57
10 June 2010
12.
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/0205 - Retention of one temporary storage building and
erection of two temporary storage buildings; Land at Church Farm, Church
Street for Mr R Codling
Minor Development
- Target Date: 30 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20021039 PF - Erection of two storage buildings
Temporary Approval 4 Oct 2002
PLA/20060621 PF - Erection of storage buildings
Temporary Approval 3 Jul 2006
THE APPLICATION
The retention of one temporary storage building and the erection of two further
buildings for a period of 10 years. The buildings would be constructed of galvanised
steel sheeting in an olive green colour. Whilst the originally submitted site plan refers
to 'proposed agricultural buildings' it is clear from supporting information with the
application that the buildings are intended to be used in connection with the
applicant's building business. A small office is indicated within part of one of the
buildings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold on the following planning grounds:The planning issues raised by the Parish Council.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Object strongly on the grounds of:
• owner is not involved in agriculture
• the existing building is being used for light industrial and storage of building
materials
• concerned that applicant is breach of conditions imposed on previous permission
• concern regarding long term objectives of applicant
• access
• impact on visual amenity
• inappropriate development in the Conservation Area
• office facility shown on the plan but not in description
REPRESENTATIONS
One neighbour letter asking if certain points could be addressed:
• removal of the buildings when consent expires
• buildings used for storage only
• ensure any conditions are complied with
• exclude light industrial and commercial use
• clarification of why permission needed when the adjacent development is nearly
complete
• applicant is a builder/developer and not involved in agriculture
Development Control Committee
58
10 June 2010
An accompanying letter from the agent in support of the application is attached at
Appendix 7.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - informative note recommended
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, temporary 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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads (prevents
developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their setting).
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. Use of the buildings
2. Impacts on Conservation Area and AONB.
APPRAISAL
The site is located on the north-eastern edge of the village on land designated as
countryside in the Core Strategy. It is also within the Southrepps Conservation Area
and forms part of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Two previous temporary permissions have been granted for the erection of storage
buildings on the site. The first in 2002 lapsed without implementation. A 3 year
permission was granted for two storage buildings (only one of which was erected) in
2006. The current proposal is to retain one storage building and erect two further
buildings (one of which was included in the previous permission).
Policy SS2 allows for "new-build employment generating proposals where there is
particular environmental or operational justification". There is a case to say that the
proposal meets this criterion on a temporary basis in this area.
The applicant is a builder and registered smallholder in Southrepps who over several
years carried out residential development at the adjacent Church Farm site and
another site in the village.
Development Control Committee
59
10 June 2010
It is apparent that the open area of land, part of which is subject to the current
planning application, has for several years been used for the storage of building
materials associated with the applicant's business. As a consequence the site has an
untidy appearance and one which does not enhance this part of the Conservation
Area.
The application is to permit the three buildings for a temporary period of 10 years, to
reflect the estimated timescale of the applicant's continued building development in
the village.
Whilst the use of the site for this type of use is certainly not ideal given its location
within the Conservation Area and AONB, it is one that has been established for some
time and is in connection with a local business. Furthermore the proposal would
allow for the storage of building materials, currently spread over a larger part of the
applicant's ownership, to be contained within and around the immediacy of the
buildings. In this respect it is suggested that a condition of planning permission
should be that the remaining land is cleared of all building materials and equipment
and grass seeded. This would, in the short term, secure an improvement to the
appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and AONB, which would be
enhanced in the longer term with the removal of these temporary buildings.
On this basis the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval for a temporary period of 10 years, subject to a condition which
requires the adjoining land to the application site to be cleared of all building
materials and equipment within 12 months, and conditions relating to materials
and landscaping.
13.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/10/0198 - Erection of side extension and erection of one
and a half storey rear extension; The Croft, The Green for Mr J Thomson
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/10/0257 - Erection of Replacement Side Extension; Sunnicote, Mill
Lane for Mrs Conrad and Mr James
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0320 - Erection of porch; Ashwell, The Street for Mr M
Mills
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/0300 - Retention of field shelter and erection of
additional shelter and continued use of land for the keeping of horses;
Bumblebarn, Sheringwood Mrs P Popham
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - NMA1/01/1632 - Request for a non-material amendment for
installation of rooflights and satellite dishes/aerials; Westgate Barns, Warham
Road for Mr A Perren
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Control Committee
60
10 June 2010
BLAKENEY - LA/10/0233 - Internal alterations to provide first floor flat; 3 The
Granary, High Street for Mr & Mrs J Hartley
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0234 - Change of use of first floor from A1 (retail) to
residential flat; 3 The Granary, High Street for Mr & Mrs Hartley
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0312 - Demolition of Single-Storey Extension and Erection of
Two-Storey Extension; 34 High Street for Mr and Mrs Cripps
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - AN/10/0317 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Land at
New Road for Blakeney Hotel
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BODHAM - LA/10/0322 - Installation of Replacement Windows; Manor Farm,
Manor House Road for Mr Cubitt
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRININGHAM - PF/10/0358 - Erection of double garage; Meadowsweet, The
Street for Mrs Broughton
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/10/0352 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and garage
(revised design); Foxholm, West End for Mr T Holmes
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/10/0372 - Erection of Two-Storey Replacement Dwelling;
Wayside, Craymere Beck Road for Simon Darlington
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - NP/10/0440 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building (revised scheme); Land at Roper Farm, Saxthorpe Road for E
Rudd & Sons
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0249 - Erection of garden room; The Nest, Coast
Road for Mr D Broch
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0259 - Erection of Two-Storey and Single-Storey
Side and Rear Extensions; Carlton House, High Street for Mr Bowling
(Householder application)
COLBY - PM/10/0376 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Holmlea, Colby Road,
Banningham for Mr M Howarth
(Reserved Matters)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/0324 - Erection of Single-Storey
Side/Rear Extension; Foundry Cottage, Aylsham Road, Saxthorpe for Mr Bailiss
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
61
10 June 2010
CROMER - PF/10/0150 - Erection of hospital buildings with associated
landscaping, car parking and access road; Cromer Hospital, Mill Road for
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospitals
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0170 - Raising of roof and construction of dormer window to
provide accommodation in roofspace; 5 Court Drive for Mr & Mrs L Cardani
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0321 - Conversion of Shop to Residential Flat; 8 Bond Street,
for Mr Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/0323 - Erection of Two-Storey Rear Extension and Detached
Cart Shed/Garage and Construction of Pitched Roof to Single-Storey Side
Extension; The Flintstones, Plumstead Road for Mr Glasspoole
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0293 - Change of Use from A1 (Retail) to Restaurant/Cafe
with Associated Public Toilets; Erpingham Filling Station, Cromer Road for
Martin Service Station Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0074 - Proposed Demolition of Existing Market Building and
the Construction of Replacement Steel Building; Land at Cattle Market Street for
G&R Becks Auction
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LE/10/0137 - Demolition of market building; Land at Cattle Market
Street for G & R Becks Auction
(Conservation Area Demolition)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0251 - Change of use from amenity land to garden; Land
adjacent 5 John Chapman Close for Mr S Price
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0297 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 15 Caslon
Close for Mr S Sampson
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0346 - Change of Use of Ancillary Garden Building to One
Unit of Holiday Accommodation; Willow Down, 211 Holt Road for Mr and Mrs
Nightingale
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/0285 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
construction of pitched roofs to flat roofed extension; Duck End Cottage,
Thursford Road for Mr and Mrs M Green
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/10/0377 - Conversion of cartshed to residential annexe;
Falgate Farm, The Common for Mr and Mrs M Barclay
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
62
10 June 2010
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0254 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extensions;
Bridge Cottage, Bridge Road for Ms E Drew
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0326 - Retention of Portable Building Used for Changing
and Shower Rooms; Hindringham Sports and Social Club, Wells Road for Mr
Heslin
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0330 - Erection of Replacement Club House; The
Clubhouse, Wells Road for Hindringham Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0187 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial and
professional services); 1A New Street for Mr A Cook
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0268 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Garage; Land to the
rear of 19 Peacock Lane for Mr and Mrs Newberry
(Full Planning Permission)
HONING - PF/10/0394 - Retention of 1.8m timber fence; South Cottage,
Crostwight Hall, Heath Road, Crostwight for Ms Hawkins
(Householder application)
HOVETON - AI/10/0307 - Display of Internally Illuminated Advertisements;
Barclays Bank, Station Road for Barclays Bank PLC
(Advertisement Illuminated)
INGHAM - PF/10/0286 - Erection of One and a Half Storey Side Extension;
Thelken Cottage, Town Road for Mr and Mrs Street
(Householder application)
INGWORTH - PF/10/0309 - Erection of Single-Storey and Two-Storey Rear
Extension and Single-Storey Side Extension and Detached Garage; 2 Cromer
Road for Mr and Mrs Northey
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/10/0450 - Erection of side porch; The Inn House, The Street for Mr
and Mrs Livingston
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - NMA1/09/0752 - Non-Material Amendment Request - Installation of
bi-folding doors and roof lights; The Spinney, Mundesley Road for Mrs B Farrow
and Mr A Merrill
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LITTLE SNORING - LA/10/0336 - Internal alterations including re-positioning of
walls, installation of central staircase and dormer window and re-instatement of
windows; Church Farm, Great Snoring Road for Mr C Kingzett
(Listed Building Alterations)
LUDHAM - PF/10/0349 - Proposed erection of two-storey side extension and
widening of existing access; 5 Malthouse Lane for Lambert
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
63
10 June 2010
MORSTON - PF/10/0331 - Two storey extension; 2 Hall Farm Cottage, The Street
for Harrison
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0310 - Erection of Rear Conservatory; 6 Rectory Close
Paston Road for Mr Henderson
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0313 - Erection of Replacement Outbuilding; Mundesley
House, 1 High Street for Smith
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0319 - Erection of rear conservatory; 55 High Street for Mr
A Dunger
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - EF/10/0266 - Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use of
Dwelling without Complying with Condition 2 of Planning Reference: 84/1760
(agricultural occupancy); The Paddock, Common Road for Mr Baugh
(Certificate of Lawfulness - Proposed Use)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0260 - Erection of Two, Two-Storey Dwellings and
Garages; Former Garage, White Horse Common, Happisburgh Road for Wright
Properties E.A. Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0261 - Erection of steel building; Plasticum Norwich
Ltd, Stanford Tuck Road for Plasticum Norwich Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0289 - Partial Demolition of Industrial Unit and
Erection of Single-Storey Extensions to Facilitate Conversion into Two Units;
Vacant Unit, Folgate Road for Mr Beck
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0315 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 5
Skeyton View for Mr and Mrs Luckwell
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0333 - Change of use from D2 (playbarn) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail) and B1(workshop/storage); 14 Hall Lane for North Walsham
Building Solutions
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/10/0338 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension; 77 Brick Kiln Road for Mr K Mason
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0370 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Glaven Lodge, 26A Bacton Road for Mr and Mrs West
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
64
10 June 2010
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0382 - Erection of single-storey link extension and
installation of first floor side window; Staithe House, Mundesley Road for Mr S
Fairweather
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/0196 - Continued Use of Land for Siting Portable
Building; Northrepps Aerodrome North Walsham Road for Mr Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - HZ/10/0142 - Storage of 983 tonnes of natural gas and 260 tonnes of
unstabilised condensate; Perenco UK Ltd, Paston Road, Bacton for Bacton
Storage Company Ltd
(Hazardous Substance)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/10/0325 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension;
Broadmeres, Mill Road for Mr and Mrs Vout
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - NMA1/02/1551 - Request for Non-Material Amendment to
Replace Doors with Window; Orchard House, Green Lane for Mrs D Jones
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RAYNHAM - NMA1/08/0583 - Request for non-material amendment for
alterations to parking layout and fencing; Land adjacent 1, The Drove, West
Raynham for Flagship Housing Group
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RUNTON - PF/10/0290 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Innisfree,
Boulevard Road, West Runton for Mr and Mrs Dickinson
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/10/0303 - Use of land for siting play equipment; Land at
Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Great Ryburgh Playing Field Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/10/0287 - Erection of Two-Storey Side Extension, Detached
Garage and front porch; 3 Park Avenue for Mr and Mrs Fallon
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/10/0298 - Alterations to porch to provide habitable
accommodation; Willow Barn, Stalham Road for Mr J Clark
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/10/0327 - Proposed extensions; The Pightle, Waxham Road
for Brooks
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0272 - Construction of summerhouse and beach store;
Albury Cliff, 13 The Driftway for Wilson
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0283 - Construction of pitched roof to garage; 13 Vincent
Road for Mr and Mrs J Williams
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
65
10 June 2010
SHERINGHAM - PO/10/0288 - Demolition of existing building and erection of
place of worship; Abbeyfield House, 62 Cromer Road for Sheringham Baptist
Church
(Outline Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - PF/10/0269 - Proposed erection of single-storey rear extension;
Old Tavern, Union Road for Mr and Mrs A Furber
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - LE/10/0282 - Demolition of section of wall and outbuilding to
provide widened access; 15 Church Street for Mr S Richards
(Conservation Area Demolition)
STALHAM - AN/10/0316 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Barclays
Bank, High Street for Barclays Bank PLC
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
STALHAM - PF/10/0354 - Erection of first floor extension to provide residential
flat; Post Office, 41 High Street for Mr K Nicholls
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/0365 - Conversion of redundant barn to studio; Stalham Hall,
Yarmouth Road for Mr M Falcon
(Householder application)
STALHAM - LA/10/0366 - Alterations to redundant barn to provide studio;
Stalham Hall, Yarmouth Road for Mr M Falcon
(Listed Building Alterations)
STALHAM - PF/10/0400 - Alterations to Units 11 and 12 Archway Shopping
Centre following change of use application approved 20081284; 11 and 12
Archway Shopping Centre, Upper Staithe Road for Mr R Woolsey
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/0409 - Erection of front bay window extension; Holme House,
Yarmouth Road, The Green for Mr and Mrs Smith
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - LA/09/0943 - Alterations to Barn to Facilitate Conversion to
Dwelling; Harbour House 1, Greenway for Mr K R Bindley
(Listed Building Alterations)
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0340 - Erection of replacement garage/outbuilding; 68 Wells
Road for Mr P Dell
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/10/0008 - Erection of double garage and surfacing of parking area;
Gravelings, Kings Street, Hunworth for Mrs A Morgan
(Householder application)
SUFFIELD - PF/10/0347 - Erection of Landscape Feature; Land Adjacent Brick
Kiln Lane for Ifnotnow.When Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
66
10 June 2010
SUTTON - PF/10/0278 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Holly Farm,
Moor Road for Mr and Mrs Norris
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/10/0395 - Erection of open fronted double garage; Earl's Barn, Mill
Road for Dr Perry
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/10/0174 - Erection of garage, carport and storage
sheds; Margetson House, Aylsham Road for Mr Pratt
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/10/0356 - Change of use of part of barn to cafe (Use Class A3);
Breck Farm Barn, Fakenham Road for Delaval Hastings
(Full Planning Permission)
THORNAGE - LA/10/0357 - Internal alteration to provide serving hatch; Breck
Farm Barn, Fakenham Road for Delaval Hastings
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0308 - Re-Cladding and Re-Roofing of Garage/Store;
Nursery Farm, Cromer Road for Mr Barr
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - NP/10/0474 - Prior notification of intention to erect
agricultural building; Land at Park House, Gunton Park, Hanworth for The Hon
Charles Harbord Hamond
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
TRIMINGHAM - PA/10/0304 - Erection of telephone pole; Rowan House, Middle
Street for Openreach
(Prior Approval (Telecommunications))
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/0328 - Erection of garden room; New Barn Farm, Church
Lane for Mr and Mrs Edridge
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - NP/10/0434 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
agricultural building; The Chimneys, Ostend Road for T W Love & Partners
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/0364 - Erection of detached garage/store; The Croft, 24
Hindringham Road for Dr H Caswell
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - LA/10/0430 - Internal alterations, erection of replacement side
extension, refurbishment of outbuilding and erection of screen wall; 20
Bridewell Street for Mr Dennis
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0166 - Siting of a diesel oil mobile bowser on the
site of the shellfish handling facility; Fishermens Quay, The Quay for Wells
Harbour Commissioners
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
67
10 June 2010
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0284 - Construction of canopy/covered walkway;
Heritage House, Mill Road for Heritage House Caring Group
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0305 - Installation of eighteen solar panels; The
Ciderworks, Stearmans Yard for Whin Hill Cider Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/10/0264 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension; The
Malthouse, Long Lane for Mr Randall
(Householder application)
WEST BECKHAM - LA/10/0265 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension; The
Malthouse, Long Lane for Mr Randall
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/10/0362 - Erection of single-storey side extension; The
Croft, Lower Farm Lane for Mr C Smith
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0140 - Reconstruction of Shop and Installation of
Replacement Shop Front; Weybourne Stores, 2 Sheringham Road for Mr Joll
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0262 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey
extensions; The Muckleburgh Collection, Sheringham Road for The
Muckleburgh Collection
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0378 - Conversion of Cart Shed to Office (Use Class B1);
Cart Shed, Abbey Farm, The Street for Priory Holdings Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - LA/10/0379 - Alterations to Cart Shed to Provide Office
Accommodation; Cart Shed, Abbey Farm, The Street for Priory Holdings Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/07/0707 - Non-Material Amendment Request - Erection of
two-storey side extension (raised height); Wildwood Lodge, Sandy Hill Lane for
Mr C Tansley
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WITTON - PF/10/0314 - Erection of single-storey side extension to holiday unit;
Mill Farm, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mr Tomkins
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - NMA1/06/0702 - Non-material amendment request for
replacement of dormer window with rooflight, installation of additional rooflight
and French doors; Bluebell Barn, Lyng Hall Lane for Mr J Henderson
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Control Committee
68
10 June 2010
14.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - PF/10/0253 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Sunnydale, The
Croft for Mr & Mrs A Shipp
(Householder application)
HOLT - NMA1/07/1303 - Request for a non-material amendment for re-alignment
of eastern boundary fence line and re-positioning of dwellings on plots 15-18;
Land off Edinburgh Road for Flagship Housing Group
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STIFFKEY - PF/09/0894 - Conversion of Barn to Dwelling; Harbour House 1,
Greenway for Mr K R Bindley
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
15.
NEW APPEALS
BODHAM - PF/09/1202 - Erection of agricultural building and formation of
access roadway; Land at Hart Lane for Mr Knowles
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0197 - Proposed general purpose agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr Clark
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road for Mr Jeffrey
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
16.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 , Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 September 2010
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to Two
Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling;
Former Red Lion Public House, The Street for John Ashton's Children's
Settlement Trust
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 April 2010
17.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's shop to rear 22 Station Road for
Museum Cottages
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0714 - Erection of single storey dwelling; 43, Nelson Road
for Mr A Holbrook
Development Control Committee
69
10 June 2010
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
SUTTON - LA/09/0806 - Reconstruction of Fire Damaged Dwelling Including New
Roof and Erection of Extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs
Jolly
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear
Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road for Mr Gilligan
18.
APPEAL DECISIONS
FAKENHAM - PF/09/0214 - Erection of One and a Half Storey Side Extension; 73,
Norwich Road for Mrs Rose
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
RYBURGH - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission:
20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling Unit; 29,
Station Road, Great Ryburgh for Mrs Buxton
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee
70
10 June 2010