Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
2 March 2016
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 10 March 2016 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 31 March 2016.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P
High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith,
Mrs V Uprichard
Substitutes:, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 11
February 2016.
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
CROMER - PF/15/1365 - Refurbishment of various elements of the Cromer West
Promenade, including the Art Deco Cafe, the Anglian Water pumping station and
the adjacent Edwardian Chalets.; Sites on West Promenade, Cromer, NR27 9HE
for North Norfolk District Council
Page 5
(2)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1010 - Hybrid Proposal- Full planning permission for
erection of 100 dwellings and outline planning permission for 0.89 ha of
commercial space; Land to the East of Norwich Road, North Walsham for Peter
Foster Tofts, Annette Patricia Tofts & James Nicholls, Persimmon
Page 9
(3)
PASTON - PF/15/1198 - Demolition of accommodation Block B, swimming pool
and laundry. Use of land to station 21 holiday lodges, reception building,
wardens accommodation together with realignment of internal roads and
associated landscaping.; Mundesley Holiday Centre, Paston Road, Mundesley
for Mundesley Holiday Village Ltd
Page 18
(4)
RUNTON - PF/15/1373 - Extensions to annexe; 2 Garden Cottages, Felbrigg
Road, East Runton for Mr and Mrs Huish
Page 30
(5)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1767 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and first
floor extension to rear of dwelling; 14 Hadley Road for Mr & Mrs Fish
Page 34
(6)
STALHAM - PF/15/1857 - Erection of 2 bungalows and associated works
(Revised Scheme 15/1370 refers).; Land adjacent to Holly Grove, Yarmouth
Road for East Anglian Property Limited
Page 38
(7)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1761 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Seal Cottage, 55 High Street for Mr J Rhodes
Page 43
(8)
PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS
Page 47
(Appendix 1 – page 59; Appendix 2 – page 61; Appendix 3 – page 62; Appendix 4 –
page 63; Appendix 5 – page 64; Appendix 6 – page 65; Appendix 7 – page 67;
Appendix 8 – page 68; Appendix 9 – page 69; Appendix 10 – page 70; Appendix 11
– page 71)
(9)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 48
(10)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 57
(11)
NEW APPEALS
Page 57
(12)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 57
(13)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 57
(14)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 58
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10 MARCH 2016
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning 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
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1) CROMER - PF/15/1365 - Refurbishment of various elements of the Cromer West
Promenade, including the Art Deco Cafe, the Anglian Water pumping station and
the adjacent Edwardian Chalets.; Sites on West Promenade, Cromer, NR27 9HE
for North Norfolk District Council
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 February 2016
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS




East end of the site (Melbourne Slope) is within the designated town centre area of
Cromer.
Site is within the Cromer Conservation Area.
Edwardian chalet building is listed (grade II). The nearby pier, its forecourt and
lower promenade running off it are also listed.
Beach and the cliff to the west of the site is a County Wildlife site.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None directly relevant.
THE APPLICATION
The application relates to a phased series of enhancement and improvement works to
the West Promenade on a number of sites along it between the Melbourne Slope that
runs off the end of New Street and the two storey Art Deco chalet/cafe/toilet building and
the zig-zag path to the top of the slope to the west. There are elements of the scheme
that do not require planning permission or would fall within the permitted development
rights granted for local authorities. Of the elements that require permission these
include:

The Melbourne Slope - three small single storey buildings each about 3m deep and
6m wide to provide four retail units/kiosks and an exhibition unit. Each building
would be clad in coloured panels. The buildings would be constructed off site and
delivered ready for connection to services. The buildings would sit on a new
platform incorporating the existing concrete pads/terraces at the bottom of the slope
where possible. The proposals also include new external stairs and railings up to
Development Committee
5
10 March 2016
the terrace from the west with level access provided from the higher part of the
Melbourne Slope. This area is currently occupied by a number of small buildings
including the former Beach Inspector's cabin that sit on a concrete terraces at the
bottom of the cliff and above the level of the roadway;

The Edwardian Chalet building - this would be refurbished. It is proposed to
improve access to it with a ramp to the front as currently there is a step about
200mm high up from the prom. Details of the ramp are currently only shown
indicatively.

The Anglian Water building - play area to its west side to include a large boat play
structure with the area delineated by seating formed from reclaimed groynes. A
smaller piece of play equipment would be located on the semi-circular projecting
section of the prom to the north

The area between the AW building and Art Deco cafe - a single storey building about
13m wide and 3.5m deep to provide a toilet block with WCs (including a disabled
WC), showers and a baby changing room. This would be clad in horizontal
boarding with upstanding translucent roof lights.
The building would be
pre-fabricated off site. To the east of it a smaller building of the same style is
proposed to provide a kiosk with servery windows and a public locker room that, as
amended, would be accessed through the kiosk rather than externally. The
buildings would sit at the bottom of the cliff. Beach chalets are sited along this
section of the prom. Some were swept away during the last tidal surge and it is not
currently proposed to replace them

The two storey Art Deco chalet/cafe/toilet building and the zig-zag path to the top of
the cliff - the building would be refurbished with chalets retained on the first floor and
part of the ground floor as existing. The area of the ground floor cafe would be
increased to include a new kitchen and storage area. The toilets would be
relocated on the ground floor and the number would be reduced. This would all be
within the existing footprint of the building. The existing steps would be removed
and a terrace formed to the front of the building to provide a new outdoor seating
area. New steps would be formed to the front of the terrace with a new ramp up to
the terrace from the east side. New hand and guard rails would be provided, and
seating areas would be constructed on part of the steps. There would be an area
for the relocation of 12 beach huts to the west of the building. Blocked up openings
in the shelters on the zig-zag path along the cliff would be reinstated and new
seating installed.
The proposals also include the relocation of some parking bays; enhancement of
planting along the bottom section of the cliff; surface lighting to the zig-zag path; a small
picnic area adjacent to the top of the cliff between the end of the zig-zag path and the
long-stay car park, with picnic tables and seating and pieces of play equipment
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Because the application is for development by North Norfolk District Council and, in
accordance with the scheme of delegation, such proposals must be determined by the
Development Committee.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Cromer Town Council: support, but had concerns regarding the materials for the Art
Deco cafe which should be kept to that style.
Development Committee
6
10 March 2016
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of comment and one objection received.
Comments - no detail of what is proposed for the Edwardian chalets; the scheme looks
very acceptable but there does not appear to be any hide-away provision for rubbish
from the Art Deco cafe.
Objection - the Art Deco building only requires a good refit as do the shelters on the
zig-zag slope. To move the toilets from where they are now will put them at risk of
flooding and the cliffs above the proposed location are showing signs of cracking at the
top; disabled access to the cafe and toilets only requires a ramp; the beach huts that
were washed away should be replaced with private wooden huts which could be
removed in winter at no cost to tax payers.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): no
objection, final details of materials can be subject of conditions.
Environmental Health: no comments received.
Norfolk Constabulary (Crime Prevention Design Advisor): is happy with the majority of
the proposed works but objects on the ground that the public locker room within the
kiosk building has unrestricted access to any member of the public which would be an
opportunity for crime.
Norfolk County Council (Historic Environment Service): consider that a Heritage
Statement is needed because the Design & Access Statement does not give a complete
assessment of the possible impact of the development on the historic environment
including buried heritage assets.
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. The issue raised by
Norfolk Constabulary has been addressed as the locker room would be accessed via
the kiosk not through a separate, unsupervised external door.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 7: Cromer (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 EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Development Committee
7
10 March 2016
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential approach
for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
Cromer Conservation Area Character Appraisal (adopted November 2012)
The site is within an area identified as to be enhanced. It is seen as a major asset
within the town and is a heavily visited area whose appearance is paramount to the
overall image of Cromer. The seafront is noted as having a more 'recreational
character' from the pier westwards.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 The principle of the development;
 The effect of the proposed development on the significance of heritage assets and
the character and appearance of the area.
APPRAISAL
Principle
The proposed developments are part of a wider scheme of improvement for the West
Promenade. Areas of it and the buildings, are looking tired in appearance. Policy SS
7 refers to the fact that the quality and appearance of the public realm, which includes
the Promenade, are crucial to the town's attractiveness to residents and visitors. The
proposals are in accordance with the policy and Conservation Area Character Appraisal
in this respect. It is reasonable to consider the Promenade and facilities within it as
tourist attractions and as Cromer is a Principal Settlement, where such facilities should
be located, the proposals comply with policy EC 7.
With regard to the retail units/kiosk, those proposed on the Melbourne Slope are within
the designated town centre area and as such there is no conflict with policy EC 5. The
other kiosk and slight increase in the size of the cafe, would result in an extremely small
increase in retail/commercial floors space which would have no impact on the town
centre. They would also improve the facilities available for tourists and users of the
beach.
Design and conservation area
The proposed buildings are acceptable in terms of their scale and design for this
location. The bright colours proposed to be used for the external cladding of the retail
units are appropriate in a seaside location in the context of the brightly coloured beach
huts and doors to the chalet buildings. The installation of play equipment would
complement the recreational character of the sea front. Improvements to the
appearance of the existing buildings would enhance the character and appearance of
the conservation area. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable in
terms of policies EN 4 and EN 8.
With regard to the comments from the County Council's Historic Environment Service,
the proposals are unlikely to involve significant breaking of ground and as such it is
considered that any risk to buried heritage assets can be deal with though a condition
requiring a programme of archaeological work.
Other considerations
The improvements to the Art Deco cafe and Edwardian chalets would improve access
to the facilities for disabled/less mobile people and for people with young children.
Development Committee
8
10 March 2016
The proposal raises no issues in terms of highway safety, parking or the amenities of
the occupiers of the nearest buildings which are some distance away.
Conclusion
The proposals would enhance the appearance of the promenade and deliver improved
families for both visitors to and residents of, the town.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions relating to:






Approved plans and details
External materials and colours
Railing/balustrade design
Details of proposed play equipment and any above ground art installations
Details of the proposed ramp to the Edwardian chalet building
Archaeology
Final details of the conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning
(2)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1010 - Hybrid Proposal- Full planning permission for
erection of 100 dwellings and outline planning permission for 0.89 ha of
commercial space; Land to the East of Norwich Road, North Walsham for Peter
Foster Tofts, Annette Patricia Tofts & James Nicholls, Persimmon
Major Development
- Target Date: 20 October 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
B Road
Mixed Use Allocation
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/1367 PF
Erection of 132 dwellings, creation of new accesses, provision of open spaces and
landscaping
Withdrawn by Applicant 18/02/2015
PF/13/0866
Erection of 176 dwellings with access, open space and associated works and formation
of station car park and outline application for employment development
Approved 20/08/2014
THE APPLICATION
This is a 'hybrid' planning application, partly including full details and partly seeking
outline consent only. The full details comprise proposals for road access serving the
whole of the site, 100 dwellings and areas of open space. The outline element seeks
approval in principle for employment related development.
The application (which has been the subject of amended plans) comprises the following
Development Committee
9
10 March 2016
principal details:




A single main spine road serving the site which would run from a mid-point along the
frontage with Norwich Road (B1150) to the site's eastern boundary. Two secondary
estate roads to the site's eastern and southern boundaries would serve the majority
of the residential area, together with a series of private drives. Two private drives
linking to 11 dwellings would be served directly off Norwich Road.
100 dwellings, mostly two storey (but with a few single and two and half storey),
comprising a mix of short terraces, semi-detached and detached properties.
Four areas of public open space. One to the south-western corner of the site
adjacent to Norwich Road, two within the development and one in the north-eastern
corner.
The proposed employment land covers a northern portion of the site and would
border both Norwich Road and the proposed spine road.
Accompanying the planning application is an application under the Council's Housing
Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing to 20% (20 units)
together with a relaxation of renewable energy requirements.
The application is accompanied by Heads of Terms for a S.106 Planning Obligation
which provides for the following:
 Education contribution
 Library contribution
 Highway works
 Travel bond
 Fire hydrants
 Healthcare contribution
 Affordable housing
 Visitor pressure / green infrastructure
 Public open space
 Play provision contribution
Submitted with the application are the following documents:
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Transport Assessment
Affordable Housing Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Ecology Survey
Landscape Character Assessment
Minerals Safeguarding Assessment
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Initial response raised concerns regarding S.106 contributions towards education and
local healthcare, highway safety, information regarding affordable housing, surface
water drainage and the proposed commercial area.
In response to the amended plans, re-iterates concerns about traffic speeds along
Norwich Road particularly with three proposed access points from the site with no
visible traffic management solutions with no provision for flared exits, zebra crossing
Development Committee
10
10 March 2016
and other safety measures. In the light of NCC possible intention of turning street lights
off along this stretch of Norwich Road exacerbates these concerns.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of representation initially received. Two objecting on grounds of loss of
green field land together with concerns over the lack of detail regarding the type of
employment uses proposed (potential for noise / traffic) and highway safety (suggest a
roundabout would be more suitable). The other raising similar concerns about highway
safety and the lack of measures to slow traffic speeds at this entrance point into North
Walsham.
Four further letters of objection received in response to the amended plans in relation to
highway safety, traffic speeds and specifically the position of the main access onto
Norwich Road. Suggestions made for a mini-roundabout and that the access is
relocated further south. Concern also expressed regarding the proposed position of a
bus stop, the nature of uses on the proposed employment land and the impact upon
local services and their capacity to cope with this increased housing development.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is currently sufficient capacity at North Walsham
waste water treatment works and the local sewerage network to accommodate the
proposed development.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires the following
financial contributions to be secured via a section 106 agreement:
Education - improvements to North Walsham Infant and Junior Schools and Millfield
Primary School (total £279,456)
Fire hydrants x4 (£812 each)
Library provision (£6000).
Green Infrastructure - improvements to for the Weavers Way Trail and North Walsham
Circular Walks (£26,620)
County Council (Highways) - Confirms that the latest amended plans have
satisfactorily dealt with the issues previously raised. Subject to the imposition of suitable
conditions / planning obligations confirms that no highway related objection is raised to
the application.
County Council (Minerals and Waste) - No objection subject to a condition requiring
that prior to the commencement of development site investigations are undertaken as
referred to in the submitted Minerals Safeguarding Assessment in order to establish the
extent to which on-site minerals (sand and gravel) could be extracted for use as part of
the development.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions in relation to land
contamination and drainage.
Conservation and Design Officer - Comments reported to the February meeting in
relation to an initial set of amended plans were as follows:
Considered that in terms of layout the (amended) plan "potentially offers a clear
template around which to assemble the building blocks three-dimensionally".
Concluded however that this is where the scheme "continues to struggle. Despite the
attempts made to enliven the development and tailor it to the locality, the overall
impression is still of a relatively homogenous development which features standard
Development Committee
11
10 March 2016
house types that have been deployed universally across the whole site. This is in part
due to the regimented siting which still underpins much of the layout. However, it is
mainly attributable to the comparatively consistent approach to density, built form/height
and elevational treatment. Together these make it very difficult for the scheme to offer
the kind of layering and depth which promotes genuine visual interest."
"Within this, it is acknowledged that the areas of open space should provide important
reference points and relief within the scheme. It is also accepted that the limited size of
the site does to some extent restrict the opportunities for creating distinct character
areas. Despite this mitigation, however, the approach adopted remains unduly
one-dimensional and is heavily dependent upon the quality of the architecture to
prevent it being viewed as just another suburban estate."
"In this regard, it is noted that the applicants say they have taken inspiration from local
buildings and have adapted their elevations accordingly. In practice, however, the
revisions made are relatively minor and simply involve re-dressing their standard house
types. Therefore, whilst we would certainly not wish to be critical about the principle of
emphasizing the focal plots and introducing additional detailing, the majority of the
changes are in reality modest variations on a theme which could be applied to almost
any context."
"In terms of the elevations themselves, the vast majority are laid out and arranged in a
fairly predictable and inoffensive way. At the same time, however, they offer precious
little by way of originality or innovation to suggest that the scheme might actually raise
architectural standards within the area."
Concluded that whilst some of the changes introduced in the amended plans "have
undoubtedly been to the overall benefit of the scheme, they have only really nibbled at
the edges of what would largely be a disappointing development three-dimensionally.
Given the site’s prominent gateway location at one of the main entrances into the town,
it is respectfully suggested that rather more should be sought. At the same time,
however, it is recognized that the scheme would make a significant contribution to
housing provision within the District. This is also clearly an important consideration
which must be weighed against the parallel quest for design quality."
Comments on any further amended plans will be reported at the committee meeting.
Landscape Officer Confirms that the amended landscaping masterplan
addresses for the most part previous issues raised. The finer details can be addressed
by planning conditions.
Environmental Health - No comments received.
Strategic Housing - Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in North
Walsham with 118 households on the Housing Register, 131 households on the
Transfer Register and 625 households on the Housing Options Register who have
stated that they require housing in the town. Confirms that the proposed development
(as amended) comprises an acceptable mix of dwellings which would meet both the
required 45% provision as required by Core Strategy Policy HO2 or a reduced 20%
provision under the Council's Housing Incentive Scheme. In addition the proposed
tenure mix of rented (80%) and intermediate (20%) complies with Policy HO2.
Supports the application, subject to the completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation to
secure the provision and phasing of the affordable housing
Development Committee
12
10 March 2016
Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments that whilst the application generates a
need for play provision, given that the location of open space anticipates these areas
will one day be extended, it may not be appropriate to provide children’s play equipment
at this stage, because it may be better located at a future time. Suggests therefore that
a contribution of £60,000 be sought in lieu of future play provision.
Norfolk Police (Architectural Liaison) - Generally content with the proposed layout
and the crime prevention measures to enhance the security of the site (i.e gated rear
access alleyways, curtilage parking and natural surveillance over areas of open space),
apart from one plot (plot 55) where a change to the parking arrangements is
recommended.
NHS England - Advises that the proposed development is likely to have an impact
on the services of 2 local GP practices which do not have capacity for the additional
growth resulting from this development. Requests a financial contribution of £30,170
which would form a proportion of the required funding for the provision of increased
capacity within the existing healthcare premises servicing the residents of this
development.
Natural England - Satisfied that the proposed development will not have an adverse
impact upon the nearby Westwick Lakes and Bryants Heath sites of Special Scientific
Interest.
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 Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy NW01 Land at Norwich Road / Nursery Drive:
Land amounting to approximately 24.5 hectares is allocated for a mixed use
development of approximately 400 dwellings, 5 hectares of serviced employment
premises, 4 hectares of Public Open Space and provision of car parking for the railway
station. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies
including on-site provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently
45%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services, and other community needs as
required and:
a. The prior approval of a development brief to address access, movement, mix of uses,
layout, built form, density of development, landscaping, phasing and conceptual
appearance;
b. phased provision of buildings for employment uses (Class B1, B2 and B8 ), the size,
nature, amount and location of the units to be specified in the brief;
c. provision of two points of vehicle access to Norwich Road;
d. provision of improved pedestrian links to the railway station, town centre and local
schools;
Development Committee
13
10 March 2016
e. investigation and remediation of any land contamination;
f. development layout that complies with PADHI methodology;
g. measures to prevent the input of hazardous substances to groundwater;
h. archaeological investigation if required;
i. demonstration that there is adequate capacity in electricity provision, sewage
treatment works and the foul sewerage network, and that proposals have regard to
water quality standards; and,
j. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the Broads
SAC / Broadland SAC / Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, and
on-going monitoring of such measures.
Retail development, other than that serving the needs of the proposed development, will
not be permitted.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies
DPD (adopted September 2011):
Policy CS16: Safeguarding mineral and waste sites and mineral resources.
NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). The following policy
headings are relevant to the application:
 Achieving sustainable development
 Building strong, competitive economy
Development Committee
14
10 March 2016






Promoting sustainable transport
Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
Requiring good quality design
Promoting healthy communities
Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Facilitating the sustainable use of materials
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Site layout
2. Public open space / Landscaping
3. Design
4. Housing mix and type
5.. Highway issues
6. S.106 Planning Obligations
APPRAISAL
Background
This application was deferred at the meeting on 11th February for further negotiations
with regard to design and to await a formal response from the Highway Authority.
The application site, currently arable farmland, is located on the southerly edge of North
Walsham. The site (4.42 ha) forms part of the larger mixed use allocation (Policy NW01
- referred to above). In view of this allocation the principle of developing the site for
residential and employment related purposes is acceptable.
The total allocation measures 24.5 hectares. In addition to residential development
Policy NW01 requires the provision of 5.0 hectares of employment land and 4.0
hectares of public open space.
Planning permission was granted in 2014 on the northern part of this allocation (8.5
hectares) for another 'hybrid' proposal (176 dwellings, public open space, car park and
employment land). In the case of that development an approximate 'pro-rata' approach
was taken in relation to the amount of public open space and employment land to be
provided. A similar approach has been taken with this application. The calculated
pro-rata requirement for the site would be 0.72 hectares of public open space and 0.9
hectares of employment land. The amount proposed falls slightly short of this at 0.68 ha
of public open space and 0.82 ha of employment land. These marginal variations to the
requirements of Policy NW01 are not considered critical to the consideration of this
application.
Site layout
There are a number of factors which have needed to be taken into account in designing
the layout of development on this site. These include the position and alignment of the
main access road (which it is envisaged to eventually form a through link with the
remainder of the allocated land); the segregation between residential and employment
land uses; the provision of open space and landscaping; the need to provide for on-site
surface water drainage, and the detailed layout of the residential element. In general it is
considered that the approach taken satisfactorily addresses these issues, although
there have been recent discussions between officers and the applicants to seek more
detailed amendments. These included the specification and layout of the more minor
access roads within the development, footpath routes, parking provision and an attempt
to reduce the 'regimentation' of the residential layout.
Development Committee
15
10 March 2016
Public open space / Landscaping
The four proposed areas of open space all contribute towards breaking up the
residential development. They also provide for a different range of functions. The
triangular area at the front of the site adjacent to Norwich Road would not be easily
accessible from the majority of the estate, but is designed to play an important role in
'softening' the appearance of the development at a point which would mark the entrance
into this part of North Walsham. The two central areas would be more useable in terms
of providing informal recreation and the area to the north-east, separated from the
residential area by the spine road, is proposed to accommodate a sustainable form of
on-site surface water drainage.
In terms of landscaping, the proposals include tree planting on the areas of public open
space, a 5m landscaping belt along the southern (open countryside) boundary and tree
planting within the highway verge of the spine road. At present there is a hedgerow
along the entire site boundary with Norwich Road. This will have to be removed in order
to provide footways and accommodate visibility splays. However a new native
hedgerow is proposed to the rear of the open space fronting onto Norwich Road. These
proposals are considered acceptable subject to precise details (species type etc.).
The applicants have indicated that a management company would be set up to maintain
the public open space and southern landscaping belt.
Design
Following deferral of this application at the previous meeting for officers to undertake
negotiations regarding design aspects of the scheme, discussions have since taken
place with the applicants. Amended plans are anticipated in advance of the meeting at
which members will be updated.
Housing mix and type
Core Strategy Policy H01 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than two bedrooms and a floorspace of not more
than 70 sqm. The reason for this policy is to provide a greater range of smaller and more
affordable properties in the district. As proposed 38% of the dwellings would meet this
requirement. However this figure rises to 46% if 3 bedroom units with a floorspace of 70
sqm are included. Essentially it is considered that the proposal meets the broad
intentions of Policy H01.
Core Strategy Policy HO2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) requires that on
developments of this size, 45% of the dwellings should be 'affordable', subject to
viability. However, as mentioned above, the applicants have applied under the Council's
Housing Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing provided to 20%
(20 units). In order to comply with the scheme the applicants are proposing to
implement a number of measures to provide early delivery of the housing development.
These include the construction of road infrastructure and up to 40 dwellings phased
during a two year period following the grant of planning permission. The full details of
this would need to be tied into a S.106 Planning Obligation. The S.106 would include
the proviso that if the Housing Incentive Scheme requirements are not met, there would
be a 'fallback' position whereby 45% affordable housing would need to be provided. The
Council's Housing Officer is satisfied that the proposals now include a mix of properties
which would satisfy both 20% and 45% scenarios. In addition the affordable properties
would be integrated in different parts of the site rather than concentrated in one area.
Highway issues
In terms of the impact of the development on Norwich Road the highway authority has
Development Committee
16
10 March 2016
no objection to the position of the principal access point, nor to the two private
driveways which would adjoin onto Norwich Road. In relation to traffic speeds and road
safety at this main entry point into the town, the view of the Highway Authority is that
compared to the current situation where the site is rural in nature, the change to an
urban environment coupled with the new access junctions and footpath / cycleway
provision will in themselves have the effect of reducing traffic speeds. In addition to
these measures the applicants would be required as part of a legal agreement to fund
the highway authority's specification 'gateway' features on either side of Norwich Road.
The existing 30mph limit which starts at the southern site boundary will be unchanged.
Other features required on Norwich Road include a new bus stop and a dropped kerb
pedestrian crossing (with a central refuge) both of which would be to the northern side of
the main site access.
In addition the highway authority are seeking a financial contribution towards a scheme
of improvements to the junction of the B1150 Norwich Road) and the A149 (Yarmouth
Road) near to North Walsham railway station. This contribution is to be on a 'pro-rata'
basis towards the overall cost of these works, with similar proportionate payments being
sought from developers of the rest of the allocated land.
The highway authority has now confirmed that no objection is raised to the application
subject to the imposition of certain conditions and completion of a suitable S.106
Planning Obligation.
Following comments by members at the last meeting both the applicants and the
highway authority have been asked to respond to the prospect of providing a signalled
pedestrian crossing instead of the currently proposed version.
Other matters
As referred to above the employment land element of this application meets the site
allocation policy requirement. In terms of location this would seem to be the optimum
position in relation to the remainder of the development and the site's surroundings. It
would have convenient access onto Norwich Road, it is separated from the residential
element by the new spine road, and it would allow the possibility of connection through
to adjoining(existing) employment land. In so far as potential employment uses on this
land are concerned, this is left for future approval. It is reasonable to assume however
that the type of employment uses which would be suitable in this location would need to
compatible with nearby residential properties and the immediate road infrastructure.
The site lies within a 'Minerals Safeguarding Area' as identified as part of the Norfolk
Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. In such areas there is a policy to prevent
development which would sterilise the opportunity to economically extract such mineral
deposits. This is supported in paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy
Framework. In this case the site is underlain by deposits of sand and gravel. Following
submission of the applicant's Minerals Safeguarding Assessment the County Council is
satisfied that the site's deposits could not be extracted for use elsewhere on a
commercial basis, but there is the opportunity (subject to further site investigation) to
re-cycle sand and gravel as part of constructing the new development. Hence their
recommendation for a condition to be imposed in the event of planning permission
being approved.
S.106 Planning Obligations
In the event of this application being approved it will need to be the subject of a S.106
Planning Obligation to secure a number of financial contributions and other
requirements including those in relation to the accompanying application under the
Council's Housing Incentive Scheme. In this respect the applicants have agreed to the
Development Committee
17
10 March 2016
following:






Financial contributions towards education, libraries, green infrastructure, fire
hydrants, healthcare, play provision and improvements to the A149/B1150 junction.
Affordable housing requirements.
Future maintenance of the public open space.
Completion of the spine road to the site boundary.
Travel Plan bond.
Agreed level / timescale of dwelling completions and road infrastructure in exchange
for a reduction in the amount of affordable housing (20%).
Conclusions
Development on this site will contribute to the increased supply of new housing
(including affordable housing) plus employment land, and represents a significant step
in bringing forward the second largest land allocation in the district. It should also be
recognised that the applicants are willing to enter into a range of S.106 contributions
linked to the development.
Following members decision to defer consideration of the application at the previous
meeting to enable officers to negotiate details of the scheme design, it is anticipated that
amended plans will be submitted prior to the meeting. Ultimately it will be a matter of
planning judgement for the Committee in reaching a decision on the application, to
weigh the public benefits of the proposal against any perceived disbenefits. As part of
this judgement the Committee needs to recognise the requirement to 'have regard to the
desirability of achieving good design' as set out under Section 39 (2A) of the Planning &
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).
RECOMMENDATION: A formal recommendation will be made at the committee
meeting following the receipt and consideration of amended plans.
In the event of members resolving to grant planning permission this should be
delegated to the Head of Planning subject to the completion of a S.106 Planning
Obligation to include those matters referred to in this report, and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
(3)
PASTON - PF/15/1198 - Demolition of accommodation Block B, swimming pool
and laundry. Use of land to station 21 holiday lodges, reception building,
wardens accommodation together with realignment of internal roads and
associated landscaping.; Mundesley Holiday Centre, Paston Road, Mundesley
for Mundesley Holiday Village Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 28 January 2016
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
C Road
Undeveloped Coast
Coastal Erosion Constraint Area
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 100 years
Development Committee
18
10 March 2016
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19882086 PF
Erect indoor bowls green for use by holiday centre residents & two tennis courts
Approved 27/02/1989
PLA/19951624 PF
Demolish and rebuild accommodation block
Approved 27/02/1996
PLA/19961195 PF
Replacement accommodation block
Approved 25/11/1996
PLA/19971723 PF
New roof and brick outer skin to upgrade kitchen and food preparation area
Approved 13/02/1998
PLA/20021538 PF
Improvements to foul and surface water drainage systems
Approved 29/11/2002
PLA/20090176 PF
Construction of sewer
Approved 20/04/2009
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of concrete bases to support 21 holiday lodges on land at
Mundesley Holiday Village. The holiday lodges would fall within the definition of a
caravan under the Caravan and Site Licences Act 1960 (as amended). Related
development includes the provision of new access roads, car parking together with
bases to support an office/reception building and a lodge for use as warden's
accommodation. Thirteen of the twenty-one lodges would be detached with eight
semi-detached units. Works would involve the demolition of a number of existing
buildings on the site including former swimming pool building and former holiday camp
laundry building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Barry Smith in view of the sensitivity of the site within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and the potential to also affect coastal erosion through
surface water drainage.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Paston Parish Council - Object to the proposal. Whilst development of the holiday
village site is welcomed, this proposal is only the beginning and the applicant has
already made reference to future development on the site which could be inappropriate
for the area. Concerned about the visibility of the 21 lodges from Stow Hill and from
some Mundesley views. The site is in the AONB and there are less visible parts of the
site on which to locate the lodges. Concerned about massive potential traffic increase
turning onto the coast road at Stow Hill. The fact that he proposal may support the local
economy is not sufficient to outweigh other issues.
Development Committee
19
10 March 2016
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters have been received, four in objection and one making comment only.
Summary of representations:
1. Documents are a little ambiguous regarding future plans;
2. The lodges would be on former grassed recreation area and this must be contrary to
Policies EC 9 and EC 10;
3. No objection to lodges but object to caravans;
4. The access road is not part of the site and should not be included in red-line plans;
5. Object to location of reception building;
6. From Stow Mill it is possible to see over the holiday village site to the cliff edge - the
proposal for caravans would be an eyesore;
7. Access to the site when operating as a camp site was predominantly by coach right
up until 2012;
8. Increased use of the site by visitors arriving by car will significantly increase traffic
numbers on the surrounding road network;
9. The existing access onto the coast road is known to be difficult and dangerous;
10. Any development outside the existing confines of the site is likely to be highly visible
and damaging/detrimental to the AONB;
11. The camp dates from 1934 and is an historic holiday facility;
12. Existing/current works to modernise 36 semi-detached dormitory chalets to form 20
self-catering units appears to be acceptable;
13. The placing of caravans/lodges would appear to be contrary to Development Plan
policies;
14. The units would be visible from Stow Hill and the coast road;
15. There is limited assessment of landscape impact in the planning submission;
16. Surface water drainage could impact on coastal erosion rates;
17. Coastal erosion is a real risk to this site;
18. Economic benefits need to be considered carefully against potential adverse
impacts;
19. Bats from Paston Great Barn are known to forage on nearby cliff top scrub land and
blackthorn hedge planted;
20. Peregrine Falcons have also been seen nesting in the clifftop scrub area;
21. There is a high probability of archaeological finds relating to pilgrimages to nearby
Broomholm Priory and also Roman and early Anglo-Saxon activity;
22. We do not need more holiday homes, we need affordable homes for local young
people;
23. Holiday chalets will result in all year round impacts and not just during the summer
months as was the case with the holiday camp;
24. Concerned about drainage issues which will be exacerbated by greater number of
people being onsite
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No Objection subject to the imposition of conditions including
details of proposed sewage disposal and contamination assessment (particularly
following recent early improper demolition of buildings containing asbestos) together
with advisory notes relating to demolition and control of asbestos
County Council (Highway) - No Objection subject to condition to secure maximum
visibility splays (45m x 2.4m x 45m) onto the C634 Coast Road at Stow Hill.
Natural England - Advisory comments only
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No Objection - would not expect this proposal to have a
significant impact on the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Development Committee
20
10 March 2016
Norfolk County Council Flood & Water Management - No response received.
Anglian Water - Development may lead to an unacceptable risk of foul sewage flooding
down stream. A foul drainage strategy would be needed and this should be secured by
planning conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
imposition of conditions to secure additional landscape planting to help screen the
lodges and integrate the site into the landscape. Lodges should be of 'muted' colour
tones rather than creams, yellows or blues.
Coastal Management Team - Advisory comments in relation to coastal erosion risk and
treatment of surface water.
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use
of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be
permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Committee
21
10 March 2016
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 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life or
significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to increase
coastal erosion).
Policy EN 12: Replacement of development affected by coastal erosion risk (specifies
the circumstances under which development affected by coastal erosion may be
relocated).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential approach
for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
Policy EC 8: Retaining an adequate supply of mix tourist accommodation (specifies
criteria to prevent loss of facilities).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to be
attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
Policy EC 10: Static and touring caravans and camping sites (specifies criteria for new
sites and extensions or intensification of existing sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of Development
Background
Impact on wider Landscape
Impact on AONB
Ecology
Coastal Erosion
Surface/Foul Water Drainage
Contamination
Impact on Neighbour Amenity
Highway Impact
Impact on Heritage Assets
Economic Benefits
Development Committee
22
10 March 2016
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The site lies within the countryside policy area where Core Strategy policy SS 2 would
support proposals relating to recreation and tourism subject to compliance with other
relevant core strategy policies. In particular, Core Strategy Policy EC 7 is relevant when
considering the location of new tourism related development together with relevant
landscape policies (EN 1 and EN 2) when considering the site's location within the
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Background
The site consists of a former holiday camp which is understood to date back to the
1930s. The camp was designed in the shape of a windmill (reflecting the nearby Stow
Mill) and is understood to be one of the oldest of its type in the country. The site until
recently consisted of a number of small chalets (containing basic sleeping
accommodation and bathroom) with communal facilities including cafeteria, bar, games
room and entertainment area as well as a separate swimming pool building. It is
understood visitors to the site predominantly arrived by coach and visitors would
generally stay within the camp site confines during their holiday. The camp has been in
declining condition for a number of years and it is recognised that the holiday model
previously offered at the site is no longer attractive to families or viable without
significant financial investment. The site was recently bought by the applicant and works
have already been undertaken to renovate a number of the chalets which has included
converting a number of multiple units into larger units so as to be able to offer modern
standards of accommodation.
The applicant has put into the public domain details of their future vision for the site.
However the Committee are only being asked at this stage to consider the application
before them and therefore future phases would need to be considered later and
considered on their own planning merits.
This proposal is for 21 holiday lodges and office/reception building and wardens
accommodation together related access tracks, parking and landscaping.
Impact on wider Landscape
Part of the attractiveness of this site is the location next to the Mundesley Cliffs and
Beach together with the wider inland landscape setting. Whilst Bacton Gas terminal is in
relatively close proximity to the south of the site, it does not significantly impinge on the
Mundesley Holiday Village site other than the visibility of taller masts and some
chimneys. The site sits within the Coastal Plains Landscape Character type but has
some views back towards Mundesley (Coastal Towns and Villages Landscape
Character type) and Tributary Farmland to the south/west.
The Landscape Officer has noted that 'The old holiday camp is relatively unobtrusive in
the landscape, nestled within a slight depression in the cliff top landscape. Elements of
the park can be seen from the Mundesley/Paston coast road but a hedge line and
scattered trees help screen the existing buildings. Views of the camp can also be seen
by residents of the adjacent holiday park to the north and from walkers along the cliff
path. Any future proposals for the site should seek to conserve and where possible
enhance the existing landscape character, a requirement of policy EN2 of the Core
Strategy.
A significant factor that could affect the impact of the proposal is the colour of lodges to
be installed together with measures to improve landscaping across the site. Existing
chalets that have been renovated have been painted in lighter pastel shades. The
landscape officer has suggested some alternative shades and has suggested that
Development Committee
23
10 March 2016
conditions could be imposed to agree the external colour of the lodges. Officers would
concur with this view.
In respect of landscape planting, the applicant has put forward planting proposals for
the western boundary and a large proportion of this planting had already been
completed at the time of a site visit in January. The Landscape Officer has
recommended further planting where possible within the site to help break up the area
of lodges. An acceptable landscaping scheme can be secured by way of planning
condition together with the timing of planting works.
On balance, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate external
colours for the lodges and appropriate landscaping, the proposal would generally
accord with the requirements of Core Strategy EN 2.
Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
The site lies within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. CS Policy EN
1 (Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & the Broads) states:
‘The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast
AONB... and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted
where it;



is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area
or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken
as they arise.
Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be
demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less
harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted’.
In respect of national guidance, Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states:
‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National
Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest
status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of
wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should
be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads’.
In respect of the impact on the Norfolk Coast AONB, Natural England advised
consultation with the Norfolk Coast Partnership (NCP). NCP have advised 'Given the
location, which provides only limited visibility from the surrounding area, I would not
expect this proposal to have a significant impact on the landscape of the Norfolk Coast
AONB locally.... particularly if landscaping on the eastern border and internally is
strengthened [Officers understand this is actually the western boundary referred to],
and attention is paid to good design of the units.....Sensitively designed lighting should
Development Committee
24
10 March 2016
also be a consideration'.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and having regard to the
fact that a camp site already exists at this site, it is considered that the proposal to
provide lodges within the site would not detract from the special qualities of the AONB
and would accord with the aims of Core Strategy Policy EN 1.
Ecology
The adjacent Mundesley Cliffs are designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI). The land is included in an Area of Special Scientific interest by reason of its
Flora, Fauna or Geological or Physiographical features pursuant to Section 28 of
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The proposal does not involve works to the cliff
edge. However it is recognised that reintroducing holiday accommodation at the site will
likely encourage visitors to seek to descend the cliffs to the beach below and this could
have some adverse localised impact on the cliffs, although this would be unlikely to
amount to serious impacts based on the 21 lodges proposed. The applicants have
referred in their wider plans for the site to stepped access to the beach. This is not
included for consideration at this stage and steps would require the benefit of planning
permission, at which time the impact on the cliffs could be considered in detail.
The Landscape Officer and a number of other representations have referred to bats in
the area which are understood to link back to Paston Great Barn and which are known
to forage along the cliff tops. Whilst no ecology survey was submitted with the
application, it is considered that the proposed development alone would be unlikely to
result in significant harm to bat populations and other species so long as appropriate
mitigation is included. The landscape proposals set out above could include planting
which would benefit foraging bats and conditions could be included which require
agreement of lighting so as to prevent light spillage out of the site.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposal
would accord with general requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9.
Coastal Erosion
Whilst the area of Mundesley Holiday Village subject of this permission lies outside of
the coastal erosion zone, a large proportion of the site is at risk from coastal erosion.
Great care therefore needs to be taken to ensure that the proposal does not exacerbate
the risk of coastal erosion.
When considering coastal erosion, the Council's Coastal Management Team Leader
has indicated that 'Although the cliff in this location is predominantly sand and free
draining, it would be appropriate that this application....consider the treatment of surface
water and potential impacts on cliff erosion. It is preferable in many cliff locations in
North Norfolk to see positive water management whereby surface water is removed
from site, transferred below beach level or managed in such a way to prevent
exacerbation of potential groundwater driven cliff failures.'
There remain some questions about whether long-term proposals for the site would
amount to an intensification of the existing holiday camp activities. The 36 former
chalets on site are being converted to form 20 larger units which include kitchens and
sitting areas within. This together with the 21 holiday lodges now proposed outside the
coastal erosion zone would be considered unlikely to amount to an intensification of use
of the holiday park. Further development over and above that proposed will require
re-assessment, especially where located within the coastal erosion zone.
Matters relating to surface water management are considered further below.
Development Committee
25
10 March 2016
Subject to appropriate surface water management details being submitted and agreed,
the proposal would be unlikely to significantly increase the risk of coastal erosion and
would accord with Core Strategy Policy EN 11
Surface / Foul Water Drainage
The applicant has indicated in their application submission that they intend to manage
surface water through use of soakaways. Officers consider this could increase the risk
of coastal erosion and therefore full details of alternative surface water drainage
solutions would need to be the subject of a planning condition and works would need to
be carried out only in accordance with approved details. The applicant has already
commenced the formation of bases for the office/reception and wardens
accommodation. This is undertaken entirely at the applicants own risk and therefore any
changes to surface water management arrangements will need to include
arrangements for these units also.
In respect of foul sewage, the applicant has indicated that they intend to connect to the
main sewer. However, Anglian Water have confirmed that development may lead to
unacceptable flood risk downstream and have suggested the imposition of a planning
condition to secure a foul water strategy for the proposed development and that none of
the units should be occupied until appropriate works in accordance with the foul water
strategy have taken place.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate surface water and foul
water management and on the basis that these details are agreed before any further
work is carried out on site in connection with this proposal, the scheme would generally
accord with the requirements of Core Strategy policy EN 10 and EN 11.
Contamination
Whilst it was first considered by the Environmental Protection Team that the proposed
development would not require a full phase investigation (primarily because of the low
sensitivity of the site), reports were received that demolition of the former swimming
pool building and laundry building had been commenced ahead of necessary
permissions and consents being granted. It is understood that a number of buildings
contained asbestos and improper demolition procedures were followed which could
have resulted in a release across the site. With this in mind the Environmental
Protection Team recommend that no further works be carried out until the applicant
undertakes a further investigation and assessment of possible contaminants affecting
the site and, if contaminants are found, to undertake appropriate remediation.
Subject to appropriate conditions and subject to any required works being carried out by
the applicant, the proposal would accord with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy
EN 13.
Highway Impact
A number of the representations received have expressed concern about traffic
movements associated with the application proposal and future potential development
of the site as set out within the 'vision statement', part of the Design & Access Statement
submitted by the applicant. The Development Committee are reminded that it is only the
application proposed before you that can be considered at this stage. Any future
proposals will need to be the subject of a separate planning application that will need to
be assessed on its own planning merits. In making their decision the Development
Committee are not committing the Local Planning Authority to accept future schemes as
yet undetermined.
Development Committee
26
10 March 2016
In respect of specific highway issues, a number of representations have referred to the
historical methods of accessing the holiday camp site, most of which it is understood
being by coach and that access by car will significantly increase traffic levels in the area.
Concerns have also been expressed about the junction with the C634 at Stow Hill which
has limited visibility due to existing bends in the road. When making their decision, the
Development Committee will need to consider the 'fallback' position in relation to the
existing holiday camp. If the applicant were minded to simply renovate and upgrade the
existing holiday camp site, there would be nothing to prevent people from arriving at the
site by private motor vehicle. The 'fallback' position for the site would therefore already
enable private cars to access the site with no specific cap on numbers of vehicles that
could enter and leave the site.
With this in mind the Highway Authority have set out in their response that it would be
very difficult to pass adverse comment on the re-development now proposed. However,
the Highway Authority have indicated that a condition should be imposed to ensure
adequate visibility splays are maintained at the junction with the C634 Coast Road at
Stow Hill and officers concur with this suggestion.
In respect of on-site parking, the applicant has provided an amended plan which shows
the location of parking for the lodges. Parking would be provided in locations generally
adjacent to the lodges amounting to two spaces per unit. Whilst these spaces appear
tight to manoeuvre into in some locations, on balance the parking provision would
accord with adopted parking standards and there is sufficient land on which to park
without causing detriment to highway safety.
Subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal would accord with Core Strategy
Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Impact on Neighbour Amenity
The closest residents to the site are those at Stow Hill Farm (and cottage) and Stow Mill
(and cottage) and surrounding properties adjacent to the junction of the C634 (Stow Hill)
with the access road down to Mundesley Holiday Village. The primary impact on
neighbouring properties will be through the coming and going of vehicles associated
with the proposed development. Whilst residents may notice an increase compared to
when the holiday camp was in operation, given the 'fallback' position described above,
officers consider that there are limited reasonable powers available to prevent use of
the car to access the site and there are no upper limits as to how many cars could
lawfully enter or leave the site. What is known at this time is that overall numbers on site
in relation to the application proposed and renovation works ongoing would not likely
lead to an intensification of the use of the site. On balance therefore, the proposal would
accord with Core Strategy EN 13 in respect of noise impact from the coming and going
of vehicles.
Impact on Heritage Assets
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic
Environment), which states:
‘Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that
would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not
be permitted’.
The Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
Development Committee
27
10 March 2016
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay “special attention” to the
“desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and the character and
appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of preserving the
settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas are
not mere material considerations to which any weight can be attached. When a local
authority finds that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed building
or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm
considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory presumption
against planning permission being granted. That presumption can, however, be
outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including the public
benefits of a proposal.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the NPPF, which
specifically addresses the need for conserving and enhancing the historic environment
at paragraphs 126 – 141.
In particular paragraph 132 states:
‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require
clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building,
park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated
heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected
wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks
and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional’.
Paragraph 133 states:
‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse
consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to
achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following
apply:
 the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
 no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term
through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
 conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is
demonstrably not possible; and
 the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use’.
Paragraph 134 states:
‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’.
Although the NPPF is expressed in terms of balance rather than expressly referring to
issues of weight and significance, the High Court has held that local authorities must
approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of the 1990
Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple balancing
exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in favour of
Development Committee
28
10 March 2016
preservation.
The NPPF defines setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is
experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings
evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the
significance of an asset, and may affect the ability to appreciate the significance or may
be neutral. Significance is defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and future
generations because of its heritage interest. Significance derives not only from a
heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
The NPPF requires local plans to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the historic environment. It recognises that heritage assets are an
irreplaceable resource and they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their
significance. The significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost through
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.
English Heritage guidance, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), advises that ‘setting
embraces all the surroundings from which the heritage asset can be experienced or that
can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary and
cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as
lying within a set distance of a heritage asset.’ The construction of a distant but a high
structure such as a wind turbine may extend what was previously understood to
comprise setting. Development within the immediate or extended setting may affect
significance, particularly where it is large-scale, prominent or intrusive.
The English Heritage document Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the
sustainable management of the historic environment articulates the value of heritage for
its evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. However, the importance of
aesthetic and communal value is not taken through into recent Government policy in the
NPPF.
The nearest heritage assets include:


Stow Hill Windmill, Stow Hill, Mundesley Road, Paston (Grade II listed) – a tower
mill dating from 1827; and
Mundesley Conservation Area
Representations have been received from the owners of Stow Mill raising, amongst
other things, concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the setting of
the mill. Whilst Stow Mill is certainly visible from the application site and the application
site is visible from higher floors within the Mill, the fabric of the mill would not be affected
only the wider setting. Given the undulating topography of the surrounding land, whilst
there may be some harm to the wider setting of Stow Mill, this harm is considered to
amount to less than substantial harm under paragraph 132 of the National Planning
Policy Framework and such harm would need to be balanced against the public benefits
of the proposal.
In respect of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of Mundesley
Conservation Area, the conservation area is approximately 500 metres away from the
holiday village at its closest point and this intervening distance coupled with the
topography of the land and intervening buildings would, in the opinion of Officers, be
unlikely to lead to harm to the character and appearance of Mundesley Conservation
Area and any harm would amount to less than substantial harm under paragraph 132 of
the National Planning Policy Framework and such harm would need to be balanced
against the public benefits of the proposal.
Development Committee
29
10 March 2016
Economic Benefits
The applicant has set out in their submission that the proposed works at the site will
create the opportunity for holiday occupants to help support the local economy in
Mundesley Village and further afield. Whilst there is no clear evidence to support this
statement Officers consider the proposal would be likely to increase the tourism offer in
the area and this is likely to support additional spending in the local economy. Economic
benefits are matters which the Development Committee can afford appropriate weight
when making their decision.
Summary
Whilst the proposal would increase the developed area of the holiday park site, this has
to be balanced against demolition and upgrading works which would not currently result
in overall intensification of development activities at the site. Subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposal would not harm the wider
landscape nor harm the special qualities of the AONB. The proposal would not result in
unacceptable highway impacts and scheme as a whole would offer the opportunity to
modernise an old holiday camp site which is no longer fit for modern needs.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the imposition of conditions including
those relating to surface and foul drainage, highway matters, contamination,
landscaping, colour of the lodges, lighting and any other conditions considered
appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(4)
RUNTON - PF/15/1373 - Extensions to annexe; 2 Garden Cottages, Felbrigg Road,
East Runton for Mr and Mrs Huish
- Target Date: 13 November 2015
Case Officer: Mr A Afford
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091066 HOU
Erection of Extension to Outbuilding to Provide Ancillary Residential Accommodation
Approved 16/12/2009
THE APPLICATION
Extensions to the existing annexe. This will comprise a pitched roof extension 4m x 6m
which will connect to a flat roof extension 10.6m x 5m, this flat roof extension connects
to the existing pitched roof annexe.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Butikofer for the following planning reasons;
1. The annexe is overdevelopment of the site and of a questionable scale for an annexe.
2. The impact on the neighbours to the east.
Development Committee
30
10 March 2016
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
East and West Runton Parish Council - Objection, It is too big for the site and would be
detrimental to the wellbeing of immediate neighbours. The demolition of the flint wall is
also objected to.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five objections received on the following grounds;
1) This is overdevelopment in a conservation area.
2) The plans show the new part of the annex is hard on the boundary so the gutters will
hang over private land.
3) The boundary/new bedroom wall/kitchen wall, the existing garden flint wall will be
knocked down and replaced with brick work. It would be dreadful to lose such a lovely
old flint wall.
4) The height of the Annexe would increase and will shade the sun light from our back
garden.
5) There are old fruit trees in the garden area where the new bedroom/kitchen would be,
it would be terrible to lose such old fruit trees.
6) The new extension to the existing out building is a substantial increase of the building
foot print, again, overdevelopment.
7) There would be increased traffic turning up Broomhill, and also on the existing
Broomhill to Felbrigg Road.
8) The extension to the out building would be clearly seen from the High street and
Felbrigg Road and make the area look over developed and squeezed in.
9) I feel this annexe is being built purely for financial gain and would not add to the
beauty of the village.
10) Loss of light.
11) Already affected by an unauthorised 3m high fence.
12) Sets a precedent.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape - Condition requested to replace fruit trees.
County Council Highways Cromer - No Objection, providing condition is placed to
ensure annex is ancillary to existing dwelling.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
31
10 March 2016
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
EN4 - Design
EN8 - Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
HO8 - House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012):
Section 7 - Requiring Good Design
Section 11 - Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Section 12 - Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Principle of Development
2) Design
3) Impact of Neighbouring amenities
4) Consideration of Overdevelopment of site
5) Loss of trees
APPRAISAL
The application originally went to the Development Committee on the 11/2/16 however
Councillors felt it necessary to undertake a site visit to better understand the site, this
application will therefore be heard at the Development Committee on 10/3/16.
1) Principle of Development
The site is within the countryside policy area where policy SS2 is applicable. An
extension to an existing residential property, including an annexe is acceptable in
principle in such a location.
The site lies within a dense residential area of largely traditional style houses and
cottages.
2) Design
The design in terms of materials, scale, details and massing is considered to be
acceptable both in relation to the host building and surrounding context. The site is
within the conservation area and whilst the proposed development, it is in a prominent
position officers consider that the development will preserve the character and
appearance of the conservation area.
There has been some concern as to the potential for the existing flint walls to the east
being removed, however it has been confirmed that this is not the case. The new walls
will be built behind this existing wall.
The proposals therefore considered to be acceptable in accordance with policies EN4
and EN8 of the NNLDF (2011)
3) Impact on Neighbouring amenities
In terms of proximity to neighbouring properties, in particular to the east and north it is
Development Committee
32
10 March 2016
considered that there will be no significant overbearing and overshadowing impact
caused from the annexe due to the low profile of the proposed single storey building.
There are no new windows that look out onto neighbouring properties. Therefore there
will be no issues of loss of privacy associated with this application.
Overshadowing the property to the north will be limited and appears to impact on
ancillary outbuildings.
4) Overdevelopment of site
Although fairly sizable the annex is not considered to result in an overdevelopment of
the site. The annex will occupy less than 50% of the garden curtilage. It is considerably
smaller than the host dwelling and therefore even with the proposed extension will
remain subservient to the main residence. Sufficient amenity and parking space are to
be provided.
5) Loss of trees
The landscape officer has no objection subject to a replanting condition. However, the
fruit trees are not protected by a TPO, nor are they afforded the same protection since
the site is not within an area that would do so.
Such a condition is not considered to meet the tests all conditions of development must
meet which is set out in the planning practice guidance.
Conclusion
There are not considered to be any significant detrimental impacts arising from the
proposed development, nor is it considered to represent overdevelopment of the site,
therefore development is considered to be in accordance with 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 three 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 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the
site, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
33
10 March 2016
3
The living accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the use of the
main dwelling and shall not be occupied as a separate and un-associated unit
of accommodation
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(5)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1767 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and first
floor extension to rear of dwelling; 14 Hadley Road for Mr & Mrs Fish
- Target Date: 27 January 2016
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
LDFSETT LDF - Settlement Boundary
LDFRESID LDF - Residential Area
CWRM Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20042197 PF
Erection of single-storey rear extension
Approved 08/04/2005
PLA/19830316 HR
Proposed ground floor extensions
Approved 25/03/1983
THE APPLICATION
The application is for a two storey side extension and first floor rear extension to the
existing residential property. The two storey side extension (on the southern side of the
property) incorporates a garage at ground floor level along with a utility room, and a
bedroom/en-suite on the first floor with a first floor south-facing and west-facing obscure
glazed window. The property will adopt a more contemporary look, with white rendered
walls and part timber cladding at first floor level, though with matching tiles. The rear
extension builds upon an existing flat-roofed single-storey rear extension, on the
northern half of the property, allowing for another bedroom and en-suite at first floor
level. The roof arrangement will remain as a hipped design.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr J Oliver and Cllr R Shepherd due to the potential impact upon
neighbouring properties.
TOWN COUNCIL
Sheringham Town Council - no objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, three representations have been received (two from the same property),
objecting to the application and raising the following concerns:
Development Committee
34
10 March 2016






Scale and proportion of proposals too large for the local area.
Application is misleading as no. 16 Hadley Road has an extension up to the
boundary - the proposals will effectively join 14 and 16 together with minimal gap.
Hadley Road is unadopted and additional traffic will cause additional deterioration to
the road.
Would like a meaningful space between the existing and proposed buildings.
Proposed extension is very dominant and overpowers the existing building
extending to the front of the property.
Extensions will restrict light to the end glazed wall of a neighbouring one-storey
build.
CONSULTATIONS
None
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design (form and character/scale/appearance)
2. Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The property lies within the designated Residential area of Sheringham, as defined
under Policy SS 3 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals to
extend existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to
compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies. The property sits within a
residential estate with neighbouring properties to the north, south and west. The current
property, which is part cream rendered/part red brick, benefits from a sizeable rear
garden and small front garden with driveway and a single detached garage.
Design (Policy EN 4)
The proposed extensions , when considered together, amount to a large increase in the
size of the dwelling. Objections received relate to the loss of the gap between the
applicant's property and the neighbouring property to the south, as well as highlighting
the overall scale and proportion of the proposed development. Although the gap
between the two properties would be reduced, a gap would still remain and as such, it is
Development Committee
35
10 March 2016
not considered that this is significantly detrimental to the built form of the area. It is
noted that the plot itself is relatively large, with examples of other large dwellings along
the same road. The proposed rear extension builds upon a single-storey rear extension
and, therefore, would not result in an increase in footprint. The two-storey side
extension in design terms, adds a degree of symmetry to the front of the property which
is being modernised. It is not considered that the scale of the two-storey side extension
would amount to an unreasonable increase in the size of the property. The property is
clearly being modernised and a more contemporary elevational treatment is proposed.
There is not considered to be any detrimental impact as a result of the proposed design.
It is, therefore, considered that the proposed design and scale of the extensions comply
with Policy EN 4.
Neighbouring amenity (Policy EN 4)
Concern was raised as to the potential for loss of light to windows on the neighbouring
property to the south, as well as causing issues with regards to maintenance. The
applicant has clarified that the extension will not be flush against the boundary, so there
would be some room for maintenance. In terms of the windows on the neighbouring
property, it is considered that there will be a satisfactory gap between the properties to
allow light to the existing windows on the neighbouring property, which appear to serve
bathrooms and a stairwell - none of these are considered primary living spaces. A large
glazed panel of windows on the front of a single-storey side extension on the same
neighbouring property also exists and, it is argued, would also have light restricted as a
result of the proposed side extension. Again, it is not considered that this glazing would
lose a significantly detrimental amount of light. Light would still be received from an
easterly direction. Furthermore, these windows (two of which are extremely small) face
north and as such, are already unlikely to benefit from the majority of daytime sunlight.
The proposed hipped roof arrangement on the proposed extension should help with
light, as will the hipped arrangement on the rear extension in regards to the rear first
floor windows of the neighbouring property to the north. Finally, the chosen wall
materials, being white render, should again reflect light better than a traditional brick
wall.
None of the proposed first floor windows should result in any detrimental overlooking of
neighbouring properties – those serving the en-suite rooms will be obscure glazed (to
be conditioned). Permitted development rights for additional windows would be
removed for those upper floor elevations facing both neighbouring properties.
As such, it is considered that the proposals are compliant with Policy EN 4 in terms of
neighbouring amenity.
Parking (Policy CT 6)
The parking situation on the site will remain unaltered, with the existing garage being
replaced by the side extension which incorporates a garage on the ground floor.
Concerns were raised as to the possible deterioration of the unadopted road as a result
of the development, however, this is not considered to have any significant relevance to
what are proposed extensions to an existing family property.
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan policies,
subject to appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
Development Committee
36
10 March 2016
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 2004.
2.
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site,
in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3.
The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be
in full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to
retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the
approved development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4.
The first floor ensuite windows on the west-facing elevation of the side extension
and south elevation of the rear extension hereby permitted shall be installed with
obscured glazing with a degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5. The
glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no window, other than
hereby approved, shall be inserted in either the north or south-facing elevations
of the extensions hereby permitted unless planning permission has been first
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
Development Committee
37
10 March 2016
(6)
STALHAM - PF/15/1857 - Erection of 2 bungalows and associated works (Revised
Scheme 15/1370 refers).; Land adjacent to Holly Grove, Yarmouth Road for East
Anglian Property Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 12 February 2016
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS


Countryside
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/1430: Erection of eight detached dwellings and garages - approved 11/02/2014
PF/14/0837: Erection of three detached dwellings - approved 16/09/2014
PF/15/0012: Variation of conditions 2 and 9 of planning permission ref: 14/0837 to
permit revision to design and re-location of three dwellings- approved 03/03/2015
PF/15/1370: erection of 2 bungalows and associated works - refused 24/11/2015
THE APPLICATION
To erect two detached bungalows in place of the house granted planning permission.
The bungalows are of the same design, each with three bedrooms and a single
attached garage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Stevens having regard to the following planning issues:
The principle of development, the wider landscape impact and neighbour amenity.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Stalham Town Council: object - overdevelopment of the site
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters from neighbours in support of the application preferring bungalows to the
house approved as they consider there would be less overlooking.
One letter from an estate agent in support of the application stating there is an
overwhelming demand for bungalows and a shortage of retirement bungalows in the
area.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority - no objection subject to conditions regarding the new access,
visibility splays, provision of parking and infrastructure note access works.
Natural England - no objection
Landscape Officer - when the officer visited the site no tree protection was in place for
the current development and the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of trees marked as T40 &
T41 the tree survey plan on the Arboricultural Impact Assessment had been
Development Committee
38
10 March 2016
compromised by heavy vehicles due to no fencing or ground protection.
The trees on the site are protected by Tree Preservation Order ref. 15/0905. The
proposals would result in the loss of a Category C larch tree (T39) which forms part of
area G4 of the TPO. There is a concern that significant stresses would be placed on
the remaining trees within G4 through the construction process of the drive way.
Although the Arboricultural Report submitted with the development indicates that many
of these concerns could be overcome through the installation of no-dig driveways and
careful arboricultural supervision and method statements, it is considered that overall
the combined stresses on the trees due to the recent damage and poor arboricultural
management would result in future decline of the individual trees and reduce the
amenity value of the Tree Preservation Order.
The replanting suggested would not replace the amenity lost nor would it reduce the
impact of the development on the local landscape.
The overall impact would be a loss of public amenity in the natural landscape features of
this part of Yarmouth Road which is contrary to policy EN4 of the Core
Strategy. Construction of an individual dwelling was granted permission (ref. 13/1430)
in 2014, and it is considered that this is the maximum number of dwellings that this plot
can accommodate without causing harm to the trees on the site without the requirement
of an extra driveway.
Strongly recommend that the application is refused as it would jeopardise the future
longevity and amenity value of the TPO.
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, refusal 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
Policy SS 2: 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 HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
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).
Development Committee
39
10 March 2016
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
National Planning Policy Framework
Achieving Sustainable Development paragraphs 7 - 10
Core Planning Principles paragraph 17
Requiring Good Design paragraph 56
Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment paragraph 118
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle
 Protected trees
 Design
 Affordable housing
 Neighbour amenity
APPRAISAL
Background and Principle
A planning application (ref. PF/13/1430) for 8 houses, in two groups of 5 on Area A and
3 on Area B was submitted in late 2013. When the application for 8 houses was
originally considered in February 2014 the National Planning Policy Framework had
already introduced as a material consideration that in the circumstances a Local
Planning Authority could not demonstrate that it had a five year land supply the planning
policies could not be considered up to date. In such circumstances development
proposals should be considered with a presumption in favour of sustainable
development.
At that time the Council could not demonstrate a five year land supply and as a result
the application was approved under delegated powers. An additional dwelling was
subsequently approved on the eastern part of Area B later that year, making 9 dwellings
in total on areas A and B.
In April 2014 and again in April 2015 the Council was able to demonstrate land supply in
excess of five years. The five year land supply has been thoroughly examined recently
at a public inquiry and found to be sound. As such new development proposals should
be determined in accordance with the Development Plan and all housing policies can be
considered, including those restricting where new development should occur.
Consequently, the current proposal should be considered in the context of policy SS 2,
which sets out the Countryside policy area. Policy SS 2 restricts the development of
new dwellings in the Countryside unless they are for Affordable Housing in accordance
with the rural exceptions policies, relocating existing development affected by coastal
erosion, or an agricultural or other occupancy restricted dwelling. As such the
proposals are considered to be contrary to Policy SS 2 of the Core Strategy.
In addition a previous application for the two bungalows on this area was refused under
delegated powers in November 2015 (ref. PF/15/1370).
The application site has been extended to include a 9m wide strip on the northern edge.
Without that extra land the proposed dwelling could not be fitted onto the plot.
Development Committee
40
10 March 2016
Protected Trees
Regard must also be had to the long term impact of the development on the protected
trees. The Landscape Officer is of the opinion the development would be prejudicial to
the long term health of trees which are of substantial amenity value. Although the
siting has been amended by repositioning the dwellings 2m further back this has not
significantly reduced the negative impact on the trees. The main group of mature trees
protected by a Tree Preservation Order are at the front of the plots, and they would be
completely encircled by the large driveways The concern of the Landscape Officer is
that the construction works and stresses upon the trees would be detrimental to their
future health and wellbeing and so would jeopardise their longevity and future amenity
value. As such the proposals are considered to be contrary to Policy EN 4 of the Core
Strategy.
Design
Policy EN 4 explains how proposals should be suitably designed for the context within
which they are set and retain important landscaping features. It should be noted that
paragraph 56. of the NPPF makes it clear 'Good design is a key aspect of sustainable
development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to
making places better for people'.
As regards the design, the bungalows are considered to be a retrograde step to
previously approved single dwelling of the original application. The bungalows are
essentially suburban in appearance. The ridge height of 6.7m is akin to a chalet
bungalow or house with the potential to develop rooms in the roof space. However, the
main design concern is the layout of the development.
The over-arching constraint are the Protected Trees and their root protection areas.
As a consequence of the trees being retained the revised layout sees the bungalows
being sited 2m further back into the plot, away from the trees. This reduces garden
depths, and necessitates the construction of disproportionately long areas of driveway.
The two dwellings are proposed on the outer edge of the development site taken as a
whole where a less dense development would be better suited to lessen the landscape
impact of the site. As a result the proposed dwellings do not integrate well with the
wider landscape setting of the site. The driveways create an excessively large area of
hardstanding, separating large areas of curtilage from the dwellings which would have
questionable liveability for the future occupants of the bungalows. As such the
proposed layout is not considered to represent good design and the proposals are
therefore considered to be contrary to Policy EN 4 of the Core Strategy.
Affordable housing
Policy HO 3 requires that any additional dwellings in the Countryside should be for
affordable housing.
On the original application for 8 dwellings the developer took advantage of the Council's
Housing Incentive Scheme. In exchange for a fast implementation of the planning
permission the affordable housing requirement was waived. The extra dwelling
proposed on this site under the new application would not be eligible for that
concession.
The agent is promoting the development as two retirement bungalows, meeting a local
housing need, but have not put forward any proposal that would restricted the
occupancy to this population group. Any such conditional restriction would not meet
Development Committee
41
10 March 2016
the tests of conditions as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Therefore, the
proposal is considered to be contrary to the criteria of SS 2 and HO 3 with regard to the
provision of affordable housing in the Countryside. Essentially these are for market
housing and could be occupied by anyone.
Residential amenity
The properties closest to the application site are a significant distance from the site and
are not sufficiently close that overlooking would be an issue in planning terms.
Conclusions
The substance of the applicant's case is that these dwellings should be approved
because they represent sustainable development and an additional dwelling would do
no additional harm.
The original application succeeded because of the lack of a 5 year land supply at that
time meant the policies in the Core Strategy restricting housing development could not
be regarded as up to date and hence could not be considered in decision making. This
proposal raises further considerations of sustainability that indicate it is other than
sustainable development. The Council can now demonstrate a 5 year land supply and
the restrictive housing policies can now be considered as the primary test of sustainable
development.
The principle of additional development is not considered to be appropriate in the
Countryside. The poor design, impact upon the trees and the lack of social housing
mean that the proposal fails to comply with the policies SS 2, EN 2, EN 4 and HO 3 of
the Development Plan and paragraphs 7, 17, 56 and 118 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
RECOMMENDATION:
1
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
EN 4 - Design
HO 2 - Provision of affordable housing
HO 3 - Affordable housing in the Countryside
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
CT 6 - Parking provision
The proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the
Countryside policy area where there is a general presumption against
residential development. It is considered that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate satisfactorily that there are material considerations to justify a
departure from Development Plan policy in this case or that compliance with
paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework in terms of the social
and environmental dimensions of sustainable development has been achieved
for the following reasons:

The proposal would result in the loss of a Larch Tree and would place a
Development Committee
42
10 March 2016
significant threat to other protected trees during and after construction. The
development would jeopardise the future longevity and amenity value of
trees protected by Tree Preservation Order ref. 15/0905.

The proposed dwellings by reason of their height, plot coverage, bland
appearance and extensive areas of driveway would to respect the
landscape context of its countryside setting.

The proposed development provides for no element of affordable housing
as required by Policies HO 2 and HO 3 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would
fail to accord with policies SS 2, EN 2, EN 4 and HO 3 of the Development Plan
policy and with paragraphs 7, 17, 56 and 118 the National Planning Policy
Framework, and the applicant has failed to provide substantive material
considerations sufficient to outweigh the identified policy conflicts.
(7) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1761 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Seal Cottage, 55 High Street for Mr J Rhodes
- Target Date: 09 February 2016
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential area
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19880784 LD
Alterations to front elevation of property
Approved 03/05/1988
PLA/19880782 PF
Alterations to front elevation of property
Approved 07/06/1988
PLA/19881235 LA
Subdivide into 2 no. Dwellings
Approved 16/06/1988
PLA/19881234 PF
Subdivision of property into 2 dwellings & change of use from retail shop to residential
Approved 04/08/1988
PLA/19920794 PF
Reconstruction of semi-derelict garage to form a studio
Approved 31/07/1992
PLA/19920666 LE
Demolition of garage to be rebuilt as private studio
Approved 31/07/1992
Development Committee
43
10 March 2016
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to erect a modest (3.1m W x 3.1m D x 3.8m H to highest point)
single-storey extension to the rear elevation of Seal Cottage, 55 High Street,
Wells-next-the-Sea.
Amended plans were received in respect of the changes to the design of the roof and
the numbering of the neighbouring properties.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on the grounds that the development would
result in a loss of amenity for neighbouring properties and the loss of a unified open
aspect of the garden /courtyards of this group of cottages.
TOWN COUNCIL
Wells Town Council: raised no objection to the proposal
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notices expired on the 1 February 2016. To date the Local Planning Authority
has received 5 letters objecting to the scheme. All of the objectors own properties
neighbouring the development site. The following is a summary of the objector's
concerns:








The development contravenes guidance relating to development in a Conservation
Area
The development would negatively impact on the character and setting of a
designated Conservation Area
The development is in breach of many national and local regulations
The size of the development would be both unsightly and intrusive
The development would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in
terms of loss of privacy
The property is used as a holiday let and the development would significantly reduce
the outside space of the property and its storage space, resulting in the property's
car port being used for storage resulting in cars parking in the communal area;
creating a nuisance
The property forms part of an eight unit development which includes garages and
gardens built around three sides of a courtyard. The properties all follow the same
basic design pattern which provides for an open garden area adjacent to each
house. The proposed extension would adversely affect the visual harmony of the
area.
The pitched roof would be deleterious to the overall visual appearance of the area should the application be approved a flat roof to match the car port and neighbouring
garages would be more in keeping with the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): The
Conservation and Design officer raised no objections to the proposed development.
The implication being that the rear elevation extension would be away from the public
domain and as such would not significantly negatively impact on the wider Conservation
Area. The officer did, however, recommend conditions relating to the proposed building
materials be added to the decision notice.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Development Committee
44
10 March 2016
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraphs 17, 56 and 135
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Amenity - impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupants
Design - out of character with the open plan design of the area
Impact of development on a Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The proposed development site lies to the rear elevation of Seal Cottage, 55 High
Street, Wells. The proposed extension would extend beyond the property's original rear
wall by more than 3m (Notification for Prior Approval for Larger Home Extensions
Applications are not applicable within AONB), hence the need for planning permission.
Seal Cottage lies to the northern corner of a courtyard development to which eight
properties overlook a central courtyard and detached garages. Immediately to the rear
(east) elevation of each property lie small private garden areas and beyond that lies a
footpath from which the cottages are accessed. Whilst these gardens have partition
fencing they remain relatively open plan.
Seal cottage is situated in the northern corner of the courtyard. A 2.5m wall separates
the cottage from its north elevation neighbour; 53 High Street. To its east elevation lies
the cottage's carport beyond which lie the neighbouring properties' detached garages.
The extension would lie 2.9m north of No. 57 High Street's boundary fence.
Amended plans indicate the extension would have patio doors and a velux style
rooflight to the extensions south facing elevation.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would overlook the rear gardens of the
properties to the south, it is argued that given the open plan nature of the courtyard and
the access footpath there is already significant overlooking of the garden spaces. It is
considered that the erection of a garden room would not exacerbate the existing
Development Committee
45
10 March 2016
situation. Furthermore, the easterly direction of the rear elevation suggests that for
much of the day the occupants of 55 High Street would be within the garden room rather
than using the outside patio area; thereby reducing any noise to neighbouring
occupants.
With regard to the design of the garden room: objectors suggested that a flat roof would
be more in keeping with the site given the flat roof of the car port and neighbouring
garages. The Planning Officer considers that the extension's 30º pitch would be a more
appropriate and in keeping with the host property. Furthermore, the North Norfolk
Development Plan's Supplementary Document: Design Guide does not endorse flat
roofs, especially in association with traditional buildings.
In terms of the proposed extension's impact on the open plan design of the courtyard
complex: the extension would be tucked into the northern corner of the courtyard,
adjacent to a 2.5m wall and partially screened by the property's carport suggesting its
impact on the open plan design of the courtyard complex would be marginal.
The application form states the existing facing material is red brick and the proposed
extension would match the existing. The existing finish to the property is in fact painted
brick. A condition will be imposed to ensure the proposed extension's external walls are
painted in a colour to match the existing rear elevation.
Seal Cottage lies within a designated Conservation Area, however, the property's rear
elevation is in a private courtyard and away from the public domain. The District
Council's Conservation and Design team raised no objection to the proposal subject to
the imposition of conditions relating to external finishing materials.
CONCLUSION:
On balance, it is considered that the extension would pose no significant detrimental
impact upon the privacy of the neighbouring occupant's gardens than already exists and
its 'tucked away' location suggests it would not compromise the integrity of the open
plan design of the courtyard complex. Furthermore, being away from the public domain
the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the wider conservation
area.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.

This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 252 - 02 Revision C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 3
February 2016.

Prior to the first use of the extension hereby permitted the external walls shall be
painted in a colour to match the exterior walls of the Seal Cottage and thereafter
retained as such. All roof tiles will match those of the existing property.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be
installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
46
10 March 2016

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no window shall be inserted in
the walls or roof of the rear extension hereby permitted unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR INFORMATION
8.
PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS
Decisions on appeals against the refusal of planning applications by the District
Council are reported to the Development Committee and copies of the decisions sent
to Ward Members. In addition, summaries of appeal decisions are presented to the
Committee, normally at the next available meeting. As meetings of the Committee
were rescheduled in November and December a number of appeal decisions have
been received but not previously reported; this has however allowed an opportunity for
a more detailed assessment of the appeal decisions to be made, including how
Inspectors are weighing the policies of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy against
the National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF”).
The regular reports to the Committee on appeals in hand and determined forms part of
the monitoring process of the performance of the Planning service against agreed
targets set out in the Annual Action Plan. The decisions made by the Inspectors
appointed by the Secretary of State also provide a mechanism for external scrutiny of
the Council’s decisions on planning applications and of the extent to which the
Council’s policies in the Core Strategy are consistent with the NPPF.
The NPPF was published in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It is a material
consideration in planning decisions which “must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise” (Section 38 (6)
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
Summaries of ten recent appeal decisions are appended to this report (Appendices 1
- 10). These cover a broad spectrum of applications for planning permission, ranging
from a retrospective application to retain a boundary wall (Paston - application
PF/15/1073), proposed replacement PVCU windows on a building in a Conservation
Area (Cromer - PF/15/0533), proposals for new dwellings in the Countryside
(Neatishead – PF/15/0451,Sutton – PF/14/1382 and Horning – PO/14/1297) and an
outline application for 8 dwellings in an established residential area (North Walsham –
PO/14/1668). The appeal decision relating to application PF/14/1515 for a change of
use from a D2 visitor attraction to siting of 13 holiday chalets at Priory Maze, Beeston
Regis is particularly significant as the appeal Inspector accepted that “modest
economic and other benefits would arise from the proposal” but that these do not come
close to outweighing the harm to the heritage assets (the Grade 1 Listed St Mary’s
Priory, also a scheduled monument).
Clearly the various applications were considered against a range of constraints and by
reference to different policies in the Council’s Core Strategy. The matrix appended to
this report (Appendix 11)) lists the policies to which the appeal Inspectors have made
reference in the summarised decisions and also the paragraphs in the NPPF noted in
those decisions. Whilst this analysis is limited in scope by the range of the appeal
decisions and thus cannot be considered entirely comprehensive, the following points
Development Committee
47
10 March 2016
can be drawn from this analysis.
1.
It is pleasing to report that all ten appeal decisions have been made in the
Council’s favour and dismissed. The relevant service performance indicator is for
less than 30% of appeals to be allowed (i.e. determined against the Council) so
that for the period over which these decisions were issued it is clear that the
Planning service has exceeded its published target.
2. In several decisions Inspectors have specifically stated that key policies in the
Council’s Core Strategy are consistent with the objectives of the NPPF.
3. Some appellants have sought to argue that the Council’s Core Strategy is now
somewhat dated and drawn attention to the fact that work on a replacement Core
Strategy is in hand, a point also taken on behalf of the appellant company seeking
to develop the site at Lodge Close, Holt (previously reported to the Development
Committee). This is an argument to which Inspectors have not been attracted, as
evidenced by the Council’s current success-rate on appeals and by repeated
confirmation that the Council’s current policies comply with the NPPF.
The Council’s record in defending planning appeals has been consistently good for
many years and typically we would expect to win between 70 – 80% of appeal cases.
The more recent results suggest that there has been no discernible change in this
following publication of the NPPF in 2012. It is of particular note that there has been no
successful challenge to the Council’s Five Year Land Supply position and the
presumption against market housing in the Countryside policy area and other
unsustainable locations is being broadly supported by Inspectors.
The Committee is asked to note the contents of this report and also that the number of
appeals has significantly increased in recent months (as noted in a report to the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee by the Head of Planning on 13 January, the number
of appeals in hand from 1 April – 30 November 2015 has increased by 100% from the
same period in the previous year).
Recommendation: The Development Committee is requested to note the contents of
this report and the outcome of the appeals summarised in Appendices 1-11).
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager, Ext. 6016)
(9)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BARSHAM - PF/15/1285 - Retention of two existing sheds in new location (one
used as garden store and one used as workshop); The Slipper Chapel, Gray's
Lane, Houghton St. Giles for R C National Shrine
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/15/0704 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling; Holly
Cottage, Smallburgh Road, Barton Turf, Norwich for Mr & Mrs Bullen
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/1839 - Conversion and extension of garage to create
residential annexe; 73 Regis Avenue, Beeston Regis for Mr Wragg
(Householder application)
Development Committee
48
10 March 2016
BINHAM - PF/15/1748 - Conversion of single storey agricultural barn to one
dwelling; 2 Westgate Barns, Warham Road, Binham for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1737 - Construction of flood defence wall and berm bank;
North Granary, The Quay, Blakeney, Holt for Dr Hall
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1537 - Erection of replacement boat house and office; Bliss
Blakeney, Morston Road, Blakeney for Bliss Space Design Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/15/1867 - Erection of front porch, two storey side and
single-storey side/rear extensions; 143 Fakenham Road, Briston, Melton
Constable for Morrissey Builders Ltd
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/1460 - Conversion of barn to dwelling with new access on to
Church Road; Home Farm House, Church Street, Briston for Ms B Crighton
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/15/1590 - Redevelopment of part of the site to provide farm shop
with ancillary space and car parking.; Staithe Farm, New Road for Mr P Flint
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1045 - Erection of detached garage/boat store;
Riverside House, High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr A Livesey
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1782 - Alterations and extensions to front, side and
rear of dwelling and erection of studio/store; Hill Top House, Hilltop,
Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr and Mrs S Stevenson
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1823 - Conversion of redundant barn to residential
dwelling and demolition of part of frontage wall to widen access; Barn at Green
Farm, Holt Road, Cley-next-the-Sea, Norfolk for Mr & Mrs Armstrong
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/1824 - Conversion of barn to dwelling and
demolition of part of frontage wall to widen access; Barn at Green Farm, Holt
Road, Cley-next-the-Sea, Norfolk for Mr & Mrs Armstrong
(Listed Building Alterations)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/1650 - Erection of extension and
remodelling of existing bungalow to include raising roof to provide habitable
accommodation in the roof space and installation of first floor balcony; Valley
Farm Bungalow, Wood Dalling Road, Corpusty for Mr Worden
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/1885 - Erection of two-storey dwelling
following demolition of dwelling. (Revised scheme PF/15/0124 refers); Lime Kiln
Bungalow, Holt Road, Heydon, Norwich for Mr Orrow
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
49
10 March 2016
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/1897 - Erection of extension to front of
dwelling; Colwall, Post Office Lane, Saxthorpe for Mr W James-Allison
(Householder application)
CROMER - AI/15/1669 - Display of internally illuminated fascia and ATM signs,
one non-illuminated projecting sign and additional four signs; 61A Church
Street, Cromer for RBS
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/15/1840 - Upgrade of existing telecommunications installation to
facilitate incoming operator, comprising replacement of 2 rooftop antennas,
replacement of 2 ground based equipment cabinets with a single unit and
ancillary development; Albany Court, 33-38 Beach Road, Cromer for CTIL and
Telefonica UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1631 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings following
demolition of existing dwelling.; 5 Colne Place for Stephen Thompson Builders
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - AN/15/1876 - Retention of fascia sign; Cromer Furniture Ltd, Cadogan
Road, Cromer for QD Commercial Group Holdings
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/15/1889 - Single storey link extension to rear of building and
internal alterations to first and second floors to create 4 flats.; 12 Hamilton Road,
Cromer for KGM Holdings Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/1724 - Change of use of building to create dwelling; Building to
rear of 22-24 Church Street, fronting Surrey Street, Cromer for Panacea PM Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1800 - Alterations and erection of first floor extension to
front of dwelling.; Aldergrove, Ramsgate Street for Ms & Mr Bird & Braillie
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1754 - Change of use of snooker hall (D2) to 5 units of mixed
use of retail, financial & professional services, restaurant & cafe and hot food
take away (A1, A2, A3 and A5); The Pot Black Club Rear Of, 21 Oak Street,
Fakenham for A&B Management Services Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/15/1755 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
conversion of snooker hall to 5 units of mixed use A1, A2, A3, & A5; The Pot
Black Club Rear Of, 21 Oak Street for A&B Management Services Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1562 - Change of use from hot food takeaway to dwelling;
23A Bridge Street, Fakenham for Mrs D Pollard
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1431 - Erection of three-storey building comprising 2 retail
units and 4 residential flats; 31-34 Upper Market, Fakenham, NR21 9BX for A&B
Development Committee
50
10 March 2016
Management Services Ltd and Abbey Commercial Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/15/1432 - Erection of a three-storey building comprising 2
commercial units and 4 residential flats; 34 Upper Market, Fakenham, NR21 9BX
for A&B Management Services Ltd and Abbey Commercial Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - AI/15/1721 - Retention of signage as displayed; Aldi Foodstore Ltd,
Norwich Road, Fakenham for Aldi Stores Ltd - Chelmsford
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/1835 - Variation of condition 2 of 15/0903 to allow alterations
to layout; Magistrates Court, Barons Close, Off Norwich Road for Pryde
Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/14/0532 - Internal rearrangement and door and fenestration
alterations; Former Workshops, Star Meadow for Mr Kirby
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FIELD DALLING - LA/15/1517 - Increase in roof height to facilitate structural
repairs and improvements; Priory House, 54 Langham Road for Mr N Deterding
(Listed Building Alterations)
GRESHAM - PF/15/1827 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and front
porch; 11 Cromer Road, Lower Gresham, Norwich for Mrs Gillery
(Householder application)
HICKLING - LA/15/1850 - Internal & external alterations to facilitate creation of
attic bedroom accommodation, insertion of rooflights to north elevation
roofslope and additional ensuite facilities at ground and first floors; Hickling
Hall, Town Street, Hickling, Norwich for Mr Ellis
(Listed Building Alterations)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/15/1313 - Construction of multi use games area and roller
skating/scooter area; Recreation Ground, The Street for Hindolveston Parish
Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/15/0578 - Installation of French doors; 3 Bull Close, Bull Street, Holt
for Mr Hodgson
(Householder application)
HOLT - AN/15/1702 - Display of 1 fascia sign, 1 hanging sign, 1 acrylic board sign
all with gold lettering on a green background; 2 Station Road, Holt for East
Anglia's Children's Hospice (EACH)
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HOLT - LA/15/1703 - External alterations to facilitate the fixing of a wall mounted
sign; 2 Station Road, Holt for East Anglia's Children's Hospice (EACH)
(Listed Building Alterations)
HORNING - PF/15/1802 - Erection of two-storey extension to side of dwelling,
replacement porch and render to painted brickwork.; 6 Kimberley Terrace, Mill
Development Committee
51
10 March 2016
Hill, Horning for Mr Frosdick
(Householder application)
HORSEY - PF/15/1733 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
dwelling; Warren Farmhouse, Palling Road, Horsey for Mr Hopcroft
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/15/1887 - Erection of single-storey and first floor side extensions
and detached double car-port; Holmwood, Tunstead Road for Mr Williams
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/15/1741 - Erection of side extension; Sunset Cottage, Sydney
Street, Ingham for Mrs S Fellows
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PU/15/1831 - Prior notification of intention of change of two barns use
from storage or distribution buildings (B8) to two dwellinghouses (C3); The
Barns, Mill Road, Ingham for Red Frog Developments Ltd
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
INGHAM - NMA1/11/1328 - Non-material amendment to allow garage to be built
without doors and centre pier as previously approved; Woodlands, Calthorpe
Street, Ingham for Mr & Mrs Conrathe
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/15/0689 - Continuation of use of land for seasonal camping
for up to 7 tents.; Mannington Hall Estate, Mannington Hall Road, Mannington,
for Lord Walpole
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/15/1769 - Erection of replacement detached garden room;
The Old Rectory, 81 The Street, Kettlestone, Fakenham for Mr & Mrs Little
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - LA/15/1770 - Erection of replacement detached garden room;
The Old Rectory, 81 The Street, Kettlestone, Fakenham for Mr & Mrs Little
(Listed Building Alterations)
KNAPTON - PF/15/1834 - Renovation of barn to create ancillary residential
accommodation; Cornerstone House, The Street for Mr & Mrs M Pardoe
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - LA/15/1826 - Retention of a conservatory with door into it,
insertion of door and window in rear elevation, insertion of dormer window in
rear elevation, substitution of pitched roof for flat roof over single storey
extension.; The Forge, The Street, Little Snoring, Fakenham for Ms Hallett
(Listed Building Alterations)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/15/1862 - Erection of front porch extension; Lancaster
House, The Street, Little Snoring for Mr & Mrs Moores
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/15/0829 - Non material amendment request to permit
insertion of first floor window with obscured glazing to side elevation; 3 Meadow
Close, Mundesley for Mr and Mrs Day
Development Committee
52
10 March 2016
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1884 - Erection of first floor side, two-storey side and rear
extension, balcony to front and front porch; 25 Sea View Road for Mr & Mrs Hall
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/1875 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of dwelling
and detached car port with annexe to first floor.; Willow Cottage, Cangate Road,
Cangate, Neatishead for Mr Abbey
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1599 - Erection of two-storey attached
dwelling(re-submission); 16 Millfield Road, North Walsham for Mrs D King
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/15/1692 - Site for the erection of two town-houses and
four flats; Land at Black Swan Loke, North Walsham for Mr Elliott
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1873 - Formation of dropped kerb and vehicle access;
57 Mundesley Road, North Walsham for Mr Simpson
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/16/0011 - Erection of 42cm slatted wooden panels on top
of existing front boundary wall; 98 Norwich Road for Mr S Oakley
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PO/15/1715 - Variation of Conditions 2 and 3 and removal of
Condition 6 of planning permission ref: PO/14/0451 to enable layout,
landscaping, appearance and scale to be considered under reserved matters
submission, and variation of condition 20 of planning permission ref: PO/14/0451
relating to renewable energy.; Land south of Mundesley Road, Overstrand for
Hopkins Homes Limited
(Outline Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/1870 - Erection of timber shed; Dove House Farm,
Dove House Lane, Potter Heigham, Great Yarmouth for Mr L Whyatt
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1872 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential garden
and erection of detached outbuilding for car-port and store; Wren Cottage,
Helhoughton Road, West Raynham, Fakenham for Mr D Mason
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1745 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Land at
Uphouse Farm, Swaffham Road, South Raynham for Uphouse Farm Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/1637 - Insertion of farm gate on land within the curtilage of St
Margarets House; Land rear of St Margarets House, The Street, West Raynham,
Fakenham for Mr H Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/1811 - Erection of greenhouse; Highview House, Norwich
Road, Roughton for Mr G Last
Development Committee
53
10 March 2016
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/1865 - Demolition of bungalow and garage and erection of
one and a half-storey dwelling and detached double garage; Woodlands, Cromer
Road, Roughton for Mr Buck
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/15/1772 - Erection of single storey extension to rear of dwelling; 6
Melinda Cottages, High Street, East Runton for Mr Long
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/1861 - Erection of single-storey link rear extension; 4 Buxton
Close, East Runton, Cromer for Mr Blakey
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/1822 - Change of use to surf hire and shop; Storage building,
Beach Road, East Runton for The Glide Surf School
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/15/1807 - Erection of garden room with glazed link to dwelling;
Valley Farm, Cross Lane, East Runton for Mrs Rees-Myers
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/1896 - Erection of detached open sided car-port; 3 Church
Cottages, Cromer Road, West Runton, Cromer for Mr Tuck
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/15/1801 - Erection of extension to rear of dwelling and alterations
to roof and external walls.; Langdale, Norwich Road, Langor Bridge, Little
Ryburgh for Mr Browning
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/1292 - Variation of Conditions 5(b), 5(g) and 8 of PF/14/1334 to
permit alternative ecological monitoring arrangements and revision to
landscaping mitigation; Scottow Moor Solar Ltd, Scottow Enterprise Park,
Lamas Road, Badersfield, Scottow for Scottow Moor Solar Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/1894 - Change of use of Building 12 to automotive
manufacture/hand tools and lifting equipment (B1); Unit 12, Scottow Enterprise
Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield, Scottow for Mr Dockerty
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1682 - Insertion of larger first floor north facing attic
window with obscured glazing; 8 Augusta Court for Graham Hayward Ltd
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1216 - Demolition of swimming pool building and erection
of 4 detached dwellings; 15 Hooks Hill Road for Barsham Securities Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1505 - Erection of detached double garage; 68A Cromer
Road, Sheringham for Mr R Williamson
(Householder application)
Development Committee
54
10 March 2016
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1678 - Erection of single storey building to provide
overnight accommodation, washrooms and changing facilities for volunteers;
North Norfolk Railway, Station Approach for North Norfolk Railway PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1744 - Insertion of door to front elevation; 33 Cromer
Road, Sheringham for Mr B Perera
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1881 - Alterations to shop front; 17 Station Road,
Sheringham for Mr & Ms Flynn & Bray
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1618 - Erection of extensions to rear of dwelling to provide
accommodation to first floor and single storey extension with balcony over.; 9
Churchill Crescent, Sheringham for Mrs Church
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1797 - Erection of detached garage; 5 Cypress Crescent,
Sheringham for Mr & Mrs Wells
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/16/0026 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 35 Cremer
Street, Sheringham for Mr & Mrs Hunter
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1820 - Single storey rear extension; 5 Montague Road,
Sheringham for Mr J Reynolds
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - PF/15/1391 - Conversion of redundant barn
accommodation; The Wain, Bells Lane, Stibbard for Ms D Clarke
(Full Planning Permission)
to
holiday
STODY - PF/15/1662 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extension and
porch to dwelling; Rose Cottage, Kings Street, Hunworth for Mr Wotton
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - LA/15/1409 - Conversion of ancillary outbuilding to habitable space
with associated internal and external works. Demolition of existing double
garage and erection of double cart shed style garage; Swafield Hall, Knapton
Road, Swafield, North Walsham for Mr Payne
(Listed Building Alterations)
SWANTON ABBOTT - LA/15/1856 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
new doorway, removal of partition wall, insertion of replacement joinery and
installation of replacement rooflight; Lilac Farmhouse, Long Common Road,
Swanton Abbott, Norwich for Mr Clarke
(Listed Building Alterations)
TATTERSETT - AN/15/1730 - Display of signage to indicate location of church;
Corner of field at Tattersett junction on the B1454 for Syderstone PCC
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
Development Committee
55
10 March 2016
THORNAGE - LA/15/1500 - Installation of external lighting to the 'Long Barn'.;
Barns at, Thornage Hall, The Street, Thornage for Mr E Hare
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/15/1812 - Use of building as dwelling (Retrospective
application); St Hilarys, Cleaves Drive, Walsingham for Mrs G Harris
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/15/1890 - Installation of lift and replacement stairs; The Old
Mill, Cokers Hill, Walsingham for John Gurney Charitable Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/15/1817 - Erection of detached annexe; Long View, Westgate,
Walsingham for Mr & Mrs B Tutte
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1841 - Alterations to provide window and roof
light to study/bedroom.; 16 Manor Farm Drive for Mrs Molloy
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/1844 - External alterations to facilitate the
installation of carriage lights either side of front door, portico above side door,
erection of pair of 2 metre timber gates with 2.2 metre gate posts, intruder alarm
box, proposed treatment of east railings, and colour of rainwater goods and
railings.; Clarence House, The Buttlands, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr Hopkins
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1888 - Erection of single-storey rear extension
and conversion of part of garage to habitable accommodation; 53 Waveney
Close, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr & Mrs Hawkins
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/16/0002 - Erection of detached storage building and log store;
Sandy Hill House Sandy Hill Lane Weybourne for Mr Nichols
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/15/1132 - Erection of agricultural livestock building (Barn
A); Lyng Hall Farm, Lyng Hall Lane, Wood Norton for K J Bell and Son
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/15/1133 - Erection of agricultural livestock building (Barn
B); Lyng Hall Farm, Lyng Hall Lane, Wood Norton for K J Bell and Son
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/15/1855 - Alterations to dwelling and construction of
external staircase and balcony; Bluebell Barn, Lyng Hall Lane for Mr P Tweedie
(Householder application)
Development Committee
56
10 March 2016
(10) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - LA/15/1810 - External alterations to facilitate replacement of timber
double glazed windows on front elevation; Corner Cottage, 9 High Street,
Blakeney, Holt for Mr Luckhoo
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/15/1538 - Conversion of agricultural building to two units of
holiday accommodation.; Boundary Farm, Reepham Road, Briston, Melton
Constable for Mr & Mrs Berwick
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/15/1615 - Erection of single storey extension with balcony to first
floor to rear of dwelling; 9 Wyndham Park, East Runton, Cromer for Ms S Ilsley
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
(11) NEW APPEALS
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/1669 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum
height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation
building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure;
Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead for Selbrigg Generation
PUBLIC INQUIRY
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0968 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 35
Fairview Road, North Walsham for Mr P Banthorpe
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
WALCOTT - PF/15/0503 - Retention of single-storey replacement dwelling; The
Glen, Helena Road, Walcott, Norwich for Mr & Mrs Robinson
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(12) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS – PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks and
crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road, Bodham for Genatec Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 November 2016
(13) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BRISTON - PF/15/0337 - Use of land as agricultural contractor's storage yard,
erection of agricultural contractor's storage building and retention of alterations
to access.; Tithe Barn Lane, Briston for Mr C Nutkins
FAKENHAM - AI/15/1236 - Instillation of illuminated "H" frame totem sign; 16-18
Norwich Road, Fakenham for Aldi Stores Ltd - Chelmsford
Development Committee
57
10 March 2016
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham
TATTERSETT - ENF/14/0248 - Unauthorised storage of tyres, following refusal of
planning permission ref. PF/13/0941; Land At, Flag Street, Tattersett Busn And
Leisure Pk
(14) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
58
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 1
HORNING – PO/14/1297 – proposed bungalow at Cloverhill, Letheringtons Lane, Horning
APPEAL DECISION – DISMISSED
Outline planning permission for a detached bungalow in part of the garden of an existing
dwelling was refused. The application indicated that the bungalow would provide suitable
accommodation for the appellants both of whom have disabilities. The Council’s decision
was subject to appeal.
The Inspector identified the main issue as

Effect of the proposed bungalow on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area
In a comprehensive decision the Inspector set out the policy context by reference to the
Council’s Core Strategy policies SS1 and SS2. He noted that Horning is identified as a
service village where a small amount of new development will be focussed to support rural
sustainability. The appeal site is on the edge of Horning but within the countryside policy
area.
The Inspector described the appeal site in relation to the nearby village and its surroundings,
concluding that the proposed development would result in a harmful consolidation of
development at this rural location, also resulting in a “noticeable projection of housing into
the countryside”. This would, according to the Inspector’s decision, be significantly harmful
to the clear countryside character of the area, contrary to Core Strategy policy SS2.
The Inspector also found the proposed foul drainage solution proposed as part of the
application would not be currently acceptable. This was a matter of timing, following recent
remedial works in the Horning catchment area currently subject to monitoring by the
Environment Agency. In this regard the Inspector referred to policies EN9 and EN13 of the
Council’s Core Strategy.
Under the heading “other material considerations”, the Inspector considered the Public
Sector Equality Duty (the PSED) set out in the Equality Act 2010. He referred to the
appellants’ disabilities and to supportive evidence from their doctors and to correspondence
from Norman Lamb MP. He also took into account the appellants’ case relating to their
Human Rights and the other appeal decisions to which his attention had been drawn.
In a concluding section to the appeal decision the Inspector balanced the provisions of the
development plan (the Council’s Core Strategy) and NPPF against the personal
circumstances of the appellants’ quality of life in light of the social dimension of sustainability
in the NPPF (paragraphs 8 and 9). However the Inspector concluded that the “particular and
significant harm in terms of the character and appearance of the countryside in conflict with
Core Strategy policy SS2 and possible harm from the additional foul drainage outweighed
the benefits of the proposal.
The appeal was dismissed.
Some key points from the Inspector’s decision are that

The Council’s Core Strategy policy which seeks to protect the rural character of the
countryside (SS2) is consistent with the NPPF.
Development Committee
59
10 March 2016


Another recent appeal decision had confirmed that the Council has sufficient housing
land to meet its emerging objectively assessed housing need (OAHN).
Whilst the Inspector clearly had some sympathy for the appellants’ personal
circumstances, these did not in this case outweigh the relevant national and local
Planning policies.
NNDC Core Strategy policies:
SS1, SS2, EN9, EN13
NPPF:
Paragraphs 8, 9, 14, 17, 49
Development Committee
60
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 2
SUTTON – PF/14/1382 – Proposed detached bungalow at “The Horseshoe,” The Street,
Sutton
APPEAL DECISION – DISMISSED
Planning permission was refused on policy grounds for a bungalow at this site. The
Inspector found the main issue for consideration to be:

Whether the location to be acceptable having regard to the principles of sustainable
development
The key policy is the Council’s Core Strategy Policy SS2 which restricts new housing in the
countryside, to promote more sustainable development patterns and to deter reliance on the
car to gain access to basic services. The Inspector assessed the site in relation to services
at Stalham, which is over a kilometre from the site and also took into account other planning
decisions to which the appellant had drawn attention.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would conflict with policy SS2. The
appeal was therefore dismissed.
NNDC Core Strategy Policies:
SS2
NPPF
No specific reference but the inspector by implication has referred to paragraph 14.
Development Committee
61
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 3
BEESTON REGIS – PF/14/1515 - Proposed change of use from D2 (visitor attraction) to
siting of 13 holiday chalets at Priory Maze and Gardens, Cromer Road.
APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED
The appeal inspector found the main issues to be:



Effect on heritage assets and their settings
Effect on character and appearance of the surrounding landscape
Highway safety
This appeal was determined following a hearing at which both the Council and appellant
were represented by Counsel. The Inspector’s comprehensive decision was issued on 10
February 2016.
On the first issue (heritage assets), the Inspector described the adjacent remains of St
Mary’s Priory with its chapterhouse and cloisters. This is a scheduled monument and also a
Grade I listed building. The site is also close to Abbey Farmhouse, a Grade II listed building
and within the Beeston Regis conservation area. The Inspector found that the appeal site
constitutes a “strongly positive contributor to the setting of the scheduled monument and the
listed buildings.” The proposed thirteen chalets and associated facilities would harmfully
compete with the scheduled monument and listed buildings in the Inspector’s view. On this
issue the Inspector found that the proposed development would “materially and
unacceptably fail to preserve the setting of the heritage assets”. The decision-letter refers to
the “special regard” which the decision-maker must apply under section 66 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and also to the relevant policy in the
Council’s Core Strategy. The Inspector also concluded that the proposed chalets would be
contrary to the historic environment policies in the NPPF, specifically paragraph 132.
On the landscape issue the Inspector agreed that the site is part of the “undeveloped gap”
between Sheringham and Beeston Regis which performs an important role “in preventing the
settlements from coalescing.” The proposed chalets would in the Inspector’s view materially
erode this important function and be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance
of the surrounding landscape. The decision- letter refers to policies EN 2 and EN 4 of the
Council’s Core Strategy and to paragraph 58 of the NPPF on this issue.
Turning to highway safety, the appeal Inspector disagreed with the Council’s refusal reason
(which adopted the consultation – response from the Highway Authority) and found that the
proposal would not be harmful to highway safety.
In his overall conclusions the Inspector accepted that some “modest economic and other
benefits would arise from the proposal” but that these do not come close to outweighing the
harm to the heritage assets and surrounding landscape. The appeal was therefore
dismissed.
NNDC Core Strategy policies:
EN2, EN4, EN8, EC10, CT5
NPPF
Paragraphs 32, 58, 132, 134, 135, 139
Development Committee
62
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 4
NORTH WALSHAM – PO/14/1668 – Proposed residential development (8 dwellings) at 45
Happisburgh Road, North Walsham
APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED
In this case, outline planning permission was refused in May 2015 and the appeal decision
issued in January of this year. Refusal of the application followed a site visit by the
Development Committee. Reflecting the refusal reasons in the Council’s decision, the
Inspector identified the main issues in the appeal as the effects of the proposed
development on:



character and appearance of the area
living conditions of adjacent occupiers and
highway safety
On the first issue, the Inspector’s decision includes a description of the appeal site in relation
to surrounding development. He noted that the density of the proposed development would
be high in relation to the existing detached properties along Happisburgh Road but lower
than that of the adjacent Fairview Road estate. He found that the proposed 8 dwellings
would not appear cramped and concluded, contrary to the Council’s refusal reasons, that
there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area. Further, the Inspector
found that the density of the proposed development (25 dwellings per hectare) would accord
with Core Strategy policies EN4 and HO7.
Turning to the second issue, the Inspector found that the proposed dwellings would be sited
sufficiently far away from the neighbouring dwellings to maintain privacy. In his view, there
would be no harm to living conditions and the proposed development would therefore accord
with policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
The Highway authority had raised concerns about the potential effect of the proposed 8
dwellings on highway safety. The Inspector assessed visibility from the proposed access
and noted that in the north-west direction, this would be only 17 metres, considerably short
of the required standard. Visibility could be improved by agreement with adjoining
landowners but the Inspector found no evidence of any agreement with the adjacent owners
to provide the splays. There was no section 106 obligation in place and in the Inspector’s
view a Planning condition to require such splays would not be reasonable.
The Inspector therefore concluded that the development would be “unacceptably prejudicial
to highway safety” and therefore conflict with Core Strategy policy CT5. The appeal was
therefore dismissed but on highway safety grounds alone.
NNDC Core Strategy policies:
EN4, HO7, CT5
NPPF
Paragraph 206
Development Committee
63
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 5
GREAT RYBURGH – PF/15/0213 – Proposed change of use of C3 dwelling to tearoom (use
class A3) and extension/pergola at 19a Station Road, Great Ryburgh.
APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED
The Committee will recall visiting this site prior to resolving to refuse the application to
change the use of this vacant dwelling to a tea room, adjacent to an existing hot food
takeaway. The application was refused on highway safety grounds and the Inspector found
this to be the main issue in the appeal.
The Inspector noted that policies SS2 and EC2 of the Core Strategy are generally supportive
of conversion of existing buildings to economic uses but that this is subject to compliance
with other relevant policies, including those relating to highway safety. He described the site
in relation to the surrounding road network and referred to traffic conditions at the time of his
site visit. The Inspector also referred to the views of the Highway Authority, specifically that
“the existing access is unsuitable for increased vehicular use due to both substandard
visibility and inadequate carriageway width to serve the rear parking area”
Having assessed the respective cases of the appellant and the Council, the Inspector
concluded that the proposed change of use to a tearoom would be harmful to highway safety
and therefore conflict with policies CT5 and CT6 of the Core Strategy. The Inspector noted
that both policies are consistent with the policy aims of the NPPF.
On the other elements of the proposal, the Inspector found that the proposed extension and
pergola would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and
acknowledged that the proposed tearoom would offer potential benefits for the local
community and rural economy. However these benefits did not outweigh the identified harm
to highway safety.
The Inspector also noted a significant number of third party
representations, most of which were supportive of the proposed tearoom.
The appeal was dismissed.
NNDC Core Strategy policies:
SS2, EC2, CT5, CT6, EN4, EN8
NPPF:
No specific paragraphs are referenced in this appeal decision but the Inspector confirmed
that several Core Strategy policies are consistent with the framework.
Development Committee
64
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 6
HINDRINGHAM – PU/15/0274 – proposed conversion of general purposes agricultural
building to dwelling at Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road, Hindringham
APPEAL DECISION – DISMISSED
This appeal was against the Council’s decision that the use of this building could not be
changed to residential under the permitted development rights conferred by the General
Permitted Development Order (“the GPDO”). Class Q of the GPDO permits development
comprising a change of use of agricultural buildings to a Class C3 dwelling house use and
building operations “reasonably necessary to convert the building to a Class C3 use”. An
appeal against the District Council’s decision was made on behalf of the owner of the
building, Norfolk County Council.
The Inspector noted that the current Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes clear that the
GPDO Class Q rights do not include the construction of new structural elements for the
building. Therefore, to have Class Q PD rights, the building must be structurally strong
enough to take the loading which comes with the external works to provide for residential
use.
The Inspector found the main issues to be:




whether in fact change of use to residential use would be permitted development,
having regard to the extent of the building operations.
if the use of the building can be changed under PD rights, siting in relation to possible
noise and dust from adjacent development
on-site contamination risks and
design and external appearance
On the first issue the Inspector noted that it was proposed to remove the concrete sheet
cladding on the external elevations, reclad the upper half of the building with timber
boarding, insert doors and windows and internally insulate the building. Although these
works are extensive, the Inspector found them to be reasonably necessary for residential
use, as required by Class Q of the GPDO. He therefore concluded that the proposal would
be permitted development.
Having dealt with this first issue the Inspector went on to consider siting. He noted that the
building is close to a large potato store on adjacent land and that the Council’s
Environmental Health officers and also the owners of the store had raised concerns that
future occupiers may experience noise and dust. The Inspector concluded that “in the
absence of the clear evidence on the comings and goings of vehicles in relation to the potato
store, the siting of the building would make residential conversion undesirable”.
On the issue of possible contamination, the Inspector noted the conclusion of a
contamination report in 2009, in connection with an earlier planning application. This report
had identified the potential for asbestos within the cement board panels and roofing but that
these could be removed with very low remaining risk.
On external appearance, the Inspector’s conclusions were that residential conversion would
clearly alter the appearance of the building but that this would not be as “suburban” as the
Council had asserted. Assessing this against the relevant Class Q criteria, the Inspector
found that design and external appearance would be acceptable.
Development Committee
65
10 March 2016
This appeal was therefore dismissed but on grounds relating to siting only.
During the course of the appeal an application for costs was made against the District
Council. The Inspector found that the Council had not failed to provide evidence to support
its reasons for refusal and had otherwise acted reasonably. The costs application was
refused.
As this decision related to an application for approval under the GPDO 2015, the Inspector
did not refer to the Council’s Core Strategy in the appeal decision.
Development Committee
66
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 7
NEATISHEAD – PF/15/0451 – Proposed detached dwelling at Street Hill Farm Neatishead
APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED
Planning permission was refused for a new dwelling in Neatishead and an appeal made to
the Secretary of State under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The
appeal was dealt with under the written representations procedure and the decision issued
on 6 February 2016.
The Inspector found the main issues to be:


Planning policies relevant to the provision of new housing in the countryside
Highway safety
On the main policy issue the Inspector set out the relevant policies from the Council’s Core
Strategy (SS1 and SS2) and concluded that the new house in this location would contravene
these policies. He went onto consider the proposal against the NPPF, specifically
paragraphs 49 and 55, and found no evidence to contradict the Council’s statement that it
can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Inspector assessed the
site in relation to the village and found that whilst it would not be physically “isolated” (a
reference to paragraph 55 of the NPPF) the appeal site is read as an integral part of the
extensive countryside landscape. A new dwelling here would “substantially urbanise the
site” according to the Inspector who went on to describe the proposed dwelling and garage
as having an “unremarkable and essentially suburban appearance”.
However, on balance the Inspector concluded that the proposed dwelling would not
contravene paragraph 55 of the NPPF as it would be adjacent to the principal built up area of
the village. However a new dwelling here would be contrary to paragraph 17 of the NPPF
(that Planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside) and
also to paragraph 58 which seeks to ensure that Planning decisions should respond to local
character and reflect the identity of local surroundings.
On the highway issue, the Inspector agreed that the proposal would have a detrimental
effect on highway safety and be contrary to policy CT5 of the Council’s Core Strategy and
also contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
The appeal was dismissed
NNDC Core Strategy policies:
SS1, SS2, CT5
NPPF
Paragraphs 2, 6 17, 32, 49, 55, 58, 59
Development Committee
67
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 8
CROMER - PF/15/0533 – proposed change from timber to PVCU bay windows at 28 High
Street, Cromer
APPEAL DECISION – DISMISSED
Planning permission was refused to change the existing bay windows at this property from
timber sliding sash to PVCU sliding sash windows. The Inspector found the main issue in
the appeal to be the effect “on the character and appearance of the host building and the
Conservation Area”.
In the decision the Inspector described the building and its relationship with surrounding
development in the Cromer Conservation Area. He then described the existing windows and
assessed the design of the proposed UPVC replacements. This was found to introduce an
incongruous angular form of bay window which would “disrupt and unbalance the
characteristic sequence of bay windows within the host building when viewed from High
Street and Church Street”. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the
host building and its neighbours.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed replacement windows would fail to preserve the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to policies EN4 and EN8 of
the Council’s Core Strategy.
The aims of these policies are consistent with the NPPF (the appeal decision refers
specifically to paragraph 132 of the Framework). The Inspector did not accept the
appellant’s suggestion that the windows could be replaced under permitted development
rights.
This appeal was dismissed.
NNDC Core Strategy policies:
EN4, EN8
NPPF:
Paragraph 132
Development Committee
68
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 9
MUNDESLEY – PF/15/0655 - Proposed dwelling on site adjacent to 57 Sea View Road,
Mundesley
APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED
Planning permission was refused for a new dwelling on a plot subdivided from the garden of
57 Sea View Road. This decision was subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. The
Inspector found the main issues to be:


Location, with particular regard to coastal erosion
Living conditions in neighbouring properties, specifically the existing dwelling at 57
Sea View Road
On the issue of location, the Inspector found the appeal site to be in an enclave of residential
development but within the designated Coastal Erosion Constraint Area, identified in the
Council’s Core Strategy. The site is some 70 metres from the cliff edge. The Inspector
noted that the Constraint Area designation is supported by evidence in the Shoreline
Management Plan and that Core Strategy policy EN11 is intended to prevent new
development within the Constraint Area, except where it can be demonstrated that it will
result in no increased risk to life or significant risk to property. The appeal decision states
that the Council’s policy is consistent with paragraph 107 of the NPPF.
It was common ground between the parties that in the long term the appeal site is at risk
from coastal change. To address this, the Appellant had suggested that the Inspector could
impose a condition (in the event of the appeal being allowed) or the parties could make a
section 106 agreement to limit the development to a temporary period. The Inspector did not
find either option acceptable. Assessing the proposal against Core Strategy SS4, he
considered that the “harmful exposure of people and property to the risks of coastal erosion
outweighs any environmental, social and economic benefits which may arise from the
provision of a single dwelling in this location”.
With regard to the potential effects of the proposed new dwelling on living conditions, the
appeal Inspector described the site in the context of surrounding development and the
relationship with the existing dwelling at 57 Sea View Road. He concluded that the new
proposed dwelling would have an unacceptable impact by way of its overbearing and
overshadowing effect. The development would therefore conflict with policy EN4 of the Core
Strategy (which he also found to be consistent with the NPPF).
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
NNDC Core Strategy policies:
EN11, SS4, EN4
NPPF
Paragraph 107
Development Committee
69
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 10
PASTON – PF/15/1073 – replacement retaining wall to support existing garden structure
(retrospective) at Meadow View, Bears Road, Paston
APPEAL DECISION – DISMISSED
The Council refused planning permission to retain a replacement wall at the above property.
At the subsequent appeal, the Inspector found the main issue to be:

effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
The appeal site is within the AONB and the Inspector found this to be a “sensitive gateway
site” where Chapel Road enters the village from the open countryside. He found the height,
length and position of the new wall to be “harmfully overbearing” at odds with the otherwise
rural character of this location. He also found the design and detailing of the wall to be
visually discordant.
The Inspector’s overall conclusion was that the effect of the replacement wall is “significantly
harmful” to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. He found the
development to be contrary to the Council’s Core Strategy policies SS2, EN1, EN4 and CT5
and also not in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
NNDC Core Strategy Policies:
SS2, EN1, EN4, CT5
NPPF
General objectives to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and to
secure quality design (paragraph 17)
Development Committee
70
10 March 2016
APPENDIX 11
Analysis of NNDC Core Strategy / NPPF references
APPEAL
PF/14/1297
(Horning)
CORE STRATEGY POLICIES
SS1, SS2, EN9, EN13
NPPF PARAGRAPHS
8, 9, 14, 17, 49
PF/14/1382
(Sutton)
SS2
14
PF/14/1515
(Beeston Regis)
EN2, EN4, EN8, EC10, CT5
32, 58, 132, 134, 135,
139
PO/14/1668
(North Walsham)
EN4, HO7, CT5
206
PF/15/0213
(Great Ryburgh)
SS3, EC2, CT5, CT6, EN4, EN8
“Consistent”
PF/15/0274
(Hindringham)
Application for approval under GPDO, Class Q
-
PF/15/0451
(Neatishead)
SS1, SS2, CT5
2, 6, 17, 32, 49, 55, 58,
59
PF/15/0533
(Cromer)
EN4, EN8
132
PF/15/0655
(Mundesley)
EN11, SS4, EN4
107
PF/15/1073
(Paston)
SS2, EN1, EN4, CT5
“Consistent”
Development Committee
71
10 March 2016
Development Committee
72
10 March 2016
Development Committee
73
10 March 2016