OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 5 JUNE 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Chief 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 BY COMBINED COMMITTEE
1.
HAPPISBURGH – 20080484 – Construction of one
accommodation; Church Farm Barns Blacksmiths Lane
unit
of
holiday
Report regarding the conversion of a building which is contrary to Local Plan policy
in view of the amount of rebuilding required.
Background
This application was considered by Development Control Committee (East) on 8 May
2008 when, contrary to the officer recommendation, Members resolved to refer it to
the Combined Committee with a recommendation for approval. A copy of the report
is attached at Appendix 1.
Key Policy Issue
Policy relating to conversion of buildings in the Countryside.
Appraisal
The site lies within the curtilage of an established group of self catering holiday units
known as Church Farm Barns, which are located in the Countryside policy area,
approximately 200m from the settlement boundary of Happisburgh.
The application relates to the construction of one unit of holiday accommodation on
the site of a former piggery. Although two sections of existing wall would be retained
the remainder of the structure would be newly constructed. New build unserviced
holiday accommodation in the countryside is contrary to both existing Local Plan
policy and that emerging through the Core Strategy. Local Plan Policy 29 states that
in the countryside, the conversion of a building to an alternative use will only be
permitted where (amongst a number of criteria): “the building is soundly built and
suitable for the proposed use without complete or substantial rebuilding and/or
extension …” Furthermore, Policies 5 and 126 of the Local Plan have established a
strong presumption against new build accommodation in order to protect rural areas
from development pressure.
In this case, given the significant amount of rebuilding required as part of the
proposal, it is contrary to Local Plan policy.
The East Area Committee in this instance considered there were a number of
material considerations to justify a departure from adopted policy:1. The self-catering unit is proposed to specifically meet the needs of guests with
mobility, visual or hearing impairments.
2. Proposed self-catering unit will benefit the local economy – guests use local village
facilities/local employment opportunities/support local tourist attractions.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
5 June 2008
3. The site is a brownfield site – the proposed holiday unit would have an identical
footprint to the ruined piggery it replaces.
RECOMMENDATION:Development Control Committee (East) – Approve subject to appropriate
conditions
Head of Planning and Building Control – Refuse on the grounds that the
development is contrary to Local Plan Policies 5, 29 and 126.
(Source: Tracy Armitage, Ext 6158– File Reference: 20080484)
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
MUNDESLEY – 01/071/DEV6/07/010 – The installation of an illuminated sign in a
Conservation Area without the benefit of Advertisement Consent; 32 High
Street
Report requesting authority to prosecute for display of an illuminated sign without
the benefit of Advertisement Consent in a Conservation Area.
Relevant Planning History
20070065 – Change of Use of part of the existing A1 (Retail) Shop to A5 (Hot Food
Takeaway)
Approved, 09/03/07
20070891 – Installation of External Flue
Refused (+ Enforcement Action authorised), 20/07/07
Background
On 4 December 2007, it was brought to the Enforcement Team’s attention that an
illuminated sign had been erected on the wall of a take-away facility at 32 High
Street, Mundesley (in a Conservation Area), without the benefit of Advertisement
Consent. A letter was written to the occupier of the premises on 2 January 2008,
pointing out that to display such an advert without Advertisement Consent was an
offence and advising that the advert should be removed within 28 days of the date of
the letter. The occupier was also warned that, if a retrospective application were to
be submitted it would be unlikely to prove acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
On 30 January 2008 a site visit was conducted and it was found that the sign was still
there. Subsequent attempts to speak to the occupier were thwarted until, on 7 March
2008, it was suggested that, if the cable were pulled out of the sign, the unilluminated sign, as a compromise, would be acceptable to the Local Planning
Authority; 14 days were given for this adjustment to be made.
A further site visit was conducted on 28 March 2008, when it was found that not only
had the cable not been removed, but the sign was illuminated.
On 3 April 2008 a letter was sent to the occupier, warning him of the intention to
submit a report to the Development Control Committee requesting authority to
prosecute. To date that letter has elicited no response.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
5 June 2008
Human Rights
It is considered that the commencement of prosecution as recommended may have
an impact on the individual Human Rights of the person who has contravened
Advertisement Control. However, having considered the likely impact and the
general interests of the public, prosecution is considered to be justified, proportionate
and in accordance with Planning law.
Conclusion
Given that the occupier has been given ample opportunity to remove the cable and
render the advert acceptable to the Local Planning Authority, and had not taken it up,
it was agreed to instigate prosecution for his continuing display of an illuminated
advertisement without the benefit of Advertisement Consent in a Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:That Members authorise prosecution proceedings.
(Source: Deb Struthers, Extn 6228 - File Reference: 01/71/DEV6/07/010)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
This report outlines the need to establish a Working Party to act as the judging
panel for this year’s Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design and to agree
the proposed dates for the judging and presentation of the awards.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design was inaugurated in 1982 as a
memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk District
Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme
considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment within
the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of historic
properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make innovative use
of traditional building forms and detailing.
Under the North Norfolk District Council Constitution, a Working Party has to be set
up to consider, evaluate and judge submissions under the award scheme and make
awards accordingly. Membership of this Working Party is usually drawn equally from
the East and West Committees with the addition of a Chairman (who may be a
member of either Committee) agreed between them. The Working Party has
generally comprised nine Members, the relevant Portfolio Holder, and a permanent
representative from the Allen family. It is proposed that this structure be repeated
again with Graham Allen’s son, Mr Edward Allen, once again agreeing to be the
family member. The closing date for entries is 30 June 2008.
It is suggested that the Working Party convenes on 1 August 2008 at the Council
Offices to consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will
commence with a short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by
a tour of those short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the
Council Chamber on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with members
of the Working Party voting on the entries. The awards will then be presented at a
ceremony in September – suggested date 25 September 2007, after the East Area
Committee meeting.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
5 June 2008
RECOMMENDATION:1.
That Members nominate a total of nine Councillors from West and East
Development Control Committees to form the Graham Allen Award
Working Party, one of whom will be elected Chairman.
2.
That the dates for judging of entries and presentation of the awards be
accepted.
Source: (C Young, Extn 6138 - File Reference G A Award 2008)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
ERPINGHAM - 20080608 - Construction of all-weather, multi-use playing area
(including car parking and floodlighting); adjacent to The Village Hall The
Street for Erpingham Parish Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 May 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Construction of all weather, multi-use playing area (including car parking and flood
lighting). Vehicular access to the car park would be via the existing village hall site. A
2.75m chain link fence would enclose the play area.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilcox having regard to the following planning issues:
Recreational benefit of the proposal needs to be weighed against landscape impact.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters received from local residents objecting on the following grounds:1. Increased traffic.
2. Narrow road.
3. Existing village facilities adequate.
4. Noise.
5. Impact on Conservation Area.
6. Would become a hangout for teenagers.
7. Impact of floodlighting.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
5 June 2008
In a statement accompanying the application it is stated that the applicants embarked
on a project in 2006 of securing a multi use games area (MUGA) for the benefit of the
villagers of Erpingham, Calthorpe, Alby, Thwaite and Ingworth. The idea was driven
by report of obesity and need to encourage active play and exercise for all members
of the community. The Parish Council have considered the siting of the facility within
the boundaries of the existing playing field but because of various constraints found
this difficult (see Appendix 2).
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Objects, on grounds of
the significant detrimental effect it would have on the countryside and area of High
Landscape Value (see full comments in Appendix 2).
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
Environmental Health - Recommend conditions re: hours restriction of floodlights and
surface water disposal.
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, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 17: Control of Noise (aims to protect public amenity from noise generating
developments) (prevents sensitive developments near to noisy environments).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area.
4. Residential amenity.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
5 June 2008
APPRAISAL
The application site comprises a rectangular area of agricultural land directly
adjacent to the eastern boundary of Erpingham village hall and playing fields. Mature
native hedgerows delineate the northern (roadside) and western boundaries of the
site. The site, along with the playing field, is located outside the settlement boundary
of Erpingham in an area designated both as Countryside and an Area of High
Landscape Value. In addition the site lies within the Wolterton Conservation Area.
Policy 5 of the Local Plan allows for recreational uses in the countryside subject to no
adverse harm to the character and appearance of the area. The application seeks
permission for an all weather multi use games area (MUGA). The play area
(approximately the size of a tennis court) would be enclosed and floodlit.
The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised an
objection to the siting and appearance of the proposal. Account has been taken of
the existing appearance of this agricultural land and the relatively low road side
hedgerow. The proposed perimeter fencing would be visible and along with the
proposed floodlighting would introduce an urban feature in to the countryside. Any
proposed new landscaping would take approximately 10-15 years before it would be
established sufficiently to screen the development.
In terms of visual impact therefore, it is considered that the proposal would have a
negative effect on the character of the landscape around the village and on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In terms of impact on residential amenity, the village playing field is an existing
recreational facility. The proposed facility would undoubtedly increase activity and
usage for extended period given the floodlighting sought. Given the proximity of
residential properties a restriction on the hours of use of the proposed play area
would be appropriate. On the basis of the 20.00hrs restrictions suggested by the
applicant it is considered that this would substantially mitigate against any adverse
amenity impact.
The principle of enhancing recreational facilities is one which this Council would wish
to support. All weather play areas, provided they are managed appropriately can be
valuable community assets which can offer more benefits than problems. However,
the proposed location of this facility raises significant concerns in terms of the
detrimental effect it would have on countryside character and the appearance of an
area designated both a Conservation Area and Area of High Landscape Value and
as such is considered contrary to the relevant policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse on the basis of impact on character of the Countryside Conservation
Area and appearance in the landscape.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
5 June 2008
5.
HAPPISBURGH - 20080537 - Erection of single-storey extension; Cottage
adjacent The Post Office The Street for Mr Chaney
Target Date :27 May 2008
Case Officer :Mrs R Partridge
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19990751 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of outbuilding to holiday cottage
Approved, 04 Aug 1999
20011134 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of holiday accommodation to
dwellinghouse
Approved, 02 Oct 2001
THE APPLICATION
Rear extension to a single-storey dwelling approximately 8.9m x 5.5m narrowing to
4.3m. There are no indicated windows on the north elevation and one small single
casement window on the south elevation.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of objection received
and declaration of interest by local Member.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters received from one neighbouring resident objecting on the following grounds:1. Inadequate parking.
2. Overdevelopment.
3. High density development in Conservation Area.
4. Detrimental impact on their property and that of the applicant.
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, and
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Development Control Committee (East)
7
5 June 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and scale.
2. Residential amenity.
APPRAISAL
The proposal is to extend an existing single-storey converted former outbuilding
which benefits from permanent unrestricted residential use granted under permission
20011134.
The north elevation of the extension would sit tight to the boundary with the
neighbouring Happisburgh School. The plans do not indicate window openings on
this elevation. A condition could be imposed to prevent any such windows being
installed at a future date.
The plans indicate a single casement window to serve the entrance on the south
elevation (facing the rear garden boundary of the objector's property). This is shown
within 2.3m of the boundary which consists of close boarded fence and mixed
vegetation. This is not considered to cause any adverse impact on the neighbouring
dwelling, (despite the Council's minimum basic amenity criteria requirements for such
a relationship being slightly greater at 2.5m). All other proposed windows face west
into the designated amenity area.
It is considered the proposal is appropriate in scale and design in this location and
would have no significant impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring
dwelling. Accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan
Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Materials to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no rooflight shall be installed or other alteration to the roof shall
be undertaken to the extension hereby permitted unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no window shall be inserted in the northern elevation of the
extension hereby permitted unless planning permission has been first granted by the
Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) 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 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily
with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk
Local Plan.
4) To safeguard the appearance of the building and the amenities of nearby
dwellings, in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) To ensure a satisfactory relationship with the neighbouring school in accordance
with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
5 June 2008
6.
HICKLING - 20080576 - Conversion of barn to single unit of holiday
accommodation; Plummer's Farm Barn Pockthorpe Loke Stubb Road for G A
Tallowin and Co
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 May 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Environment Agency Flood Zone 3
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070794 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of barn to two holiday
dwellings
Refused, 05 Jul 2007
THE APPLICATION
Conversion of a barn to single unit of holiday accommodation.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Partridge having regard to the following planning issue:
Flood risk.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support.
REPRESENTATIONS
One joint letter of objection from residents of two nearby properties on Pockthorpe
Loke. No objection to principle of conversion but concerns over:1. Condition and lack of maintenance of Loke.
2. Lack of maintenance of drainage ditch on west side of application site.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
Environment Agency - Object in principle to the development since it fails the
sequential test set out in PPS 25.
Environmental Health - Requests advisory note re contaminated land.
Natural England - No objection, subject to wildlife mitigation measures being
imposed.
Norfolk Landscape
archaeological work.
Archaeology
-
Requests
condition
for
programme
of
Water Management Alliance - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
5 June 2008
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Compliance with Local Plan Policy 29.
2. Flood Risk.
APPRAISAL
The application site comprises a vacant agricultural building and adjoining land. The
site is accessed via an unadopted lane known as Pockthorpe Loke which runs in a
north-easterly direction from Stubb Road. The site is outside the development
boundary of Hickling in an area designated as Countryside and an Area of High
Landscape Value. The site lies with an area identified by the Environment Agency as
being at high risk of flooding (Zone 3).
The application relates to the conversion of the building to a single unit of holiday
accommodation. Policy 29 of the Local Plan is permissive of the re-use and
adaptation of buildings in the countryside to holiday uses provided that proposals
meet the detailed criteria set out in the policy. The existing building is substantial and
appears to be structurally sound. The conversion scheme proposes holiday
accommodation over two floors. Minor extensions, as well as some external
alterations are proposed. These collectively are considered to be acceptable given
that they are largely sympathetic to the character of the existing building. Additionally
County Highways have raised no objection to the application and the submitted
protected species survey raises no adverse wildlife issues. As such the proposal is
broadly compliant with Policy 29.
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) sets out Government's national policy on
development in flood risk areas. The underlying objective of this policy is to avoid
inappropriate development in areas of flood risk and to direct development to areas
at lower risk. The application of the sequential test is fundamental in steering new
development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Given the extent of
operational development involved with a barn conversion the view has been taken
that such applications should be subject to the sequential test. In applying this test it
is considered that there are reasonable options available for such a use in lower risk
areas given the supply of barns in North Norfolk in Flood Zone 1 (low risk). The
application therefore fails the sequential test. This formed one of the reasons for the
refusal of a similar application on this site in July 2007 (20070794).
Development Control Committee (East)
10
5 June 2008
As previously, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the
application. Reference is made in the FRA to the possibility of the site more
reasonably being considered as being in Flood Zone 2 (medium risk). The
Environment Agency is unable to verify this statement since the FRA does not
include a survey of the levels around the site itself. However, even if this were to be
the case, the proposal would still be subject to and fail the sequential test.
The application is therefore considered contrary to the advice contained in PPS25.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The site lies within a defined tidal flood risk area. In accordance with advice in
PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) the council is required to apply a sequential
test to proposed developments in high flood risk areas. Applying such a test in this
case, the Council is satisfied that there are reasonable options available for such a
holiday use in lower risk locations and therefore the proposal fails the sequential test.
In addition, an adequate assessment of flood risk has not been undertaken as part of
the application.
The proposal therefore represents a potential increased risk to life and is therefore
contrary to Government advice in PPS25.
7.
KNAPTON - 20080647 - Erection of two-storey side extension, rear
conservatory, detached garage and alterations to roof; The Old Station Paston
Road for Mr K Lawrence
Target Date :11 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mrs R Partridge
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19900517 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension
Approved, 22 May 1990
20080154 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey side extension, singlestorey side extension, rear conservatory and detached garage/outbuilding
Withdrawn, 25 Feb 2008
THE APPLICATION
The proposal comprises a number of extensions and alterations to a two storey
dwelling (formerly Knapton railway station). These specifically involve the erection of
a two-storey side extension with accommodation in the roof, replacement of an
existing flat roof with pitched roof to same height as existing single-storey section of
building, and rear a conservatory. A detached building indicated as garage, cart bay
with first floor office accommodation also forms part of the application.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Jones having regard to the following planning issue:
Policy 64 and visual acceptability.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
5 June 2008
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 26: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary developments or those which
would be significantly detrimental to appearance or character).
Policy 64: Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside (specifies design criteria.
Extensions should be subordinate to original dwelling).
Government Planning Policy Statement
PPS7: Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Visual impact within the Countryside.
APPRAISAL
The application site lies in the Countryside policy area and designated Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. It comprises the former station building and station
master's house. The external appearance and character of the original station
buildings has been retained and is largely unaltered from its original form.
The site occupies a substantial sized plot accessed via an existing road serving the
property. The nearest other properties are approximately 250m distant across open
countryside. In this respect the proposal would have no impact upon any
neighbouring amenities.
The existing building has a stepped roof line, the original station master's residence
being the two-storey element, the central section which would have been the ticket
office/waiting room has a timber clad vaulted ceiling leading out onto what was the
platform, and the end section consisting of partial flat roof and single height pitched
roof likely to have been the toilet facilities.
Policy 64 criterion stipulates that extensions to dwellings in the countryside, including
any previous extensions, must be subordinate to the original dwelling in terms of
either floor area or visual appearance.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
5 June 2008
The proposed extensions to the dwelling, cumulatively with a previous extension is
equivalent to a 94% floor area increase on the original dwelling/station building. The
height to ridge is approximately 9.4m, the highest part of the original building being
8.3m. The scale and height of this element of the proposal is not considered visually
subordinate in terms of Policy 64.
A detached garage/cart bay is also included in the current proposal. This has a
footprint equivalent to 55% of the original dwellinghouse/station building with a total
floor area of 162sq.m. The ridge height of 7.5m (8.5m height to chimney) is not
dissimilar to the original two-storey dwelling.
The proposal overall is not considered to be visually subordinate by reasons of its
bulk and scale. For these reasons the proposal fails to comply with Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse on grounds that the development is contrary to Local Plan Policies 13
and 64.
8.
NORTHREPPS - 20071895 - Demolition of buildings and redevelopment of site
for residential development and retention of two units to include retail
convenience store; Shrublands Farm Church Street for Cherryridge Poultry
Limited
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :05 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
Selected Small Village
Village Employment Area
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
The site covers an area of approximately 1.5ha and comprises vacant
land previously used by a poultry processing business. The proposal
buildings, with the exception of a flint-faced building to the front of
redevelop with housing and including a convenience store within
building.
buildings and
is to clear all
the site, and
the retained
The application when originally submitted was described specifically for the erection
of thirty-eight dwellings plus retention of one existing building. An illustrative plan was
submitted indicating a site layout of these dwellings. The agent has since written to
amend the application to one for "residential development and retention of two units
to include retail convenience store".
Whilst no precise details have been submitted, access would be via a single point at
the existing entrance onto Church Street. The original illustrative plan and the agent's
latest letter propose an area of open space at the rear of the site.
All matters are now reserved for subsequent approval.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
5 June 2008
Supporting documentation accompanying the application include the following:Design and Access Statement.
Economic Viability Statement.
Report on pre-application consultation (including with public).
Flood Risk Assessment.
Geo-environment Assessment.
Transport Assessment.
In correspondence the agent states that the proposal would include 40% affordable
housing.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is a departure from the Development Plan and the Committee has
previously held a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Raises concerns at the possible permanent loss of this potential employment site and
the prospect of Northrepps becoming a dormitory village. Comments that villagers
welcome the reduction in HGV traffic but concerned about the need to improve roads
into the village given the car generation caused by the development. Supports
inclusion of a 'convenience store', but raises serious concerns over additional burden
on local infrastructure and services (drainage, local primary school). Considers that
the village is being presented with a stark choice between a large housing
development and a derelict industrial site (see full comments in Appendix 3).
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter received from local resident, not objecting but concerned that the eventual
detailed development is in keeping with traditional design of the village and does not
cause overlooking. Suggests that if the number of dwellings is reduced there would
be the opportunity for open space at the front of the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is both sufficient water supply and capacity within
the foul sewerage network to serve the proposed development. Foul drainage would
be treated at the Northrepps sewage treatment works.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - Recognises that
the current state of the site and a continuation of the existing buildings would not be
in the best interests of the form and character of the Conservation Area. On the basis
of the limited details applied for at this stage considers that the proposed
development potentially offers a way of stitching together the centre of Northrepps
and enhancing the appearance, character and setting of the Conservation Area.
Welcomes the retention of the former cottages at the front of the site.
County Council (Highways) - Previously recommended refusal (to the originally
submitted application for 38 dwellings) on grounds relating to the level of traffic
movements such a development would create in an unsustainable location and
where the immediate and surrounding road network is poor in terms of width,
alignment, visibility and pedestrian facilities.
Following subsequent representations made by the applicants' highway consultants
and a meeting with them a further response has now been received. This states that
no objection would be raised if the development was for no more than 17 dwellings
supported by appropriate measures to improve vulnerable highway users in the
centre of the village. However, the Authority maintains an objection to the proposal if
it is to exceed 17 dwellings for the following reasons:-
Development Control Committee (East)
14
5 June 2008
1) The proposed development does not adequately provide off-site facilities for
pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or
others with mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and local services,
contrary to Norfolk Structure Plan Policy T2.
2) The proposed development does not have adequate access to an appropriate
level of public transport provision as set out in the adopted Norfolk Bus Strategy
published by the Transport Authority, contrary to Norfolk Structure Plan Policy T2.
3) All roads that lead to the site are country lanes that do not provide adequate
access to the route hierarchy, due to their width, alignment and lack of forward
visibility. Therefore, they area unsuitable to cater for the vehicular movements
generated by the proposal which, if consented, would be likely to give rise to
conditions detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Norfolk Structure Plan Policy T2.
4) Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway, contrary to Norfolk Structure Plan Policy T2 and Local Plan
Policy 147.
The Authority concludes that if the District Council "were to be of a mind to approve
an application for development in excess of 17 dwellings against the
recommendation of the Highway Authority, it is strongly advised that in addition to the
foregoing requirements, the applicants should extend their study to address the road
safety implications along the C291 New Road, with a view to including a package of
measures to provide intervisible passing places on the route connecting the site with
the A149". (See full response in Appendix 3)
Environment Agency - Removes earlier objection subject to conditions regarding
provision of SuDS (sustainable drainage systems), repair and maintenance of nearby
surface water pond, surface water design details and removal of permitted
development rights.
Environmental Health - Recommends the imposition of conditions regarding land
contamination and lighting.
Norfolk Constabulary - Requests that a payment of £9,749 (based on contribution of
£257 per dwelling towards policing infrastructure, staff and custody facilities arising
from the development) to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement.
Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator (County Council) - Requires a financial payment
of £75,439 for primary school provision, £1,900 to the library service and £610 for a
fire hydrant to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement. Requests re-consultation in
event of the application not being determined within three months.
Planning Policy Manager - In summary:
1. The proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy.
2. There is a high demand and need for housing in the District.
3. Until new sites are allocated through the LDF there will remain the possibility of a
shortfall in the District's five year land supply.
4. Northrepps is a relatively unsustainable location due to the absence of key
facilities and for this reason is not identified in the emerging Core Strategy as a
settlement for new housing development.
5. The current Local Plan employment allocation of the site reflected its historical
use. It is unlikely that such an allocation would have been made if the previous
business had not existed. This is not to say that it is not important to ensure the
provision of local employment opportunities.
6. Possible alternative uses or mix of uses involving some employment opportunities
arguably represent a more acceptable development of the site.
Development Control Committee (East)
15
5 June 2008
Strategic Director (Communities) - Advises that the Council's Economic Development
Unit has considered the submissions made with the application and has no objection
to the proposed development.
Strategic Housing - There is a demonstrated need for more affordable housing in the
area (currently 445 applicants on the housing register expressing a wish to live in
Northrepps). Considers that the starting point for provision of affordable housing
should be current Local Plan policy subject to 'open book' evidence of the viability of
development of the site. A minimum of 80% of the affordable housing provision
should be for rent and a maximum of 20% for sale on a shared ownership basis. A
Section 106 Agreement would be needed to secure the provision, integration and
phasing of an agreed level of affordable housing on the site.
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, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
Refer to the response from Norfolk Constabulary above.
POLICIES
Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999 - saved policies):
Policy T.2: New Development (to be assessed against effect on traffic generation and
alternative modes of access. Adequate access necessary).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 10: Village Employment Areas (reserved for small-scale business, industrial,
storage purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 57: Affordable Housing in the Countryside (specifies criteria for 'exception'
cases in the Countryside policy area. Sites have to immediately adjoin village
boundaries).
Policy 58: Affordable Housing in Selected Small Villages (developments of over four
dwellings should be made up of affordable housing provision, subject to genuine
local needs).
Policy 105: Playing Space in New Housing Developments (refers to playing space
requirements).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Control Committee (East)
16
5 June 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Loss of employment site.
2. Principle and scale of housing development.
3. Highway safety/infrastructure.
4. Affordable housing provision.
5. Impact on character of village.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the meeting in April to allow negotiations to take
place between the Highway Authority and the developer. Members had previously
visited the site in January.
The proposal represents a departure from the current Development Plan. The main
bulk of the site is within the settlement boundary and is designated as a village
employment area (Local Plan Policy 10). A significant rear section of the site is
outside of the settlement boundary, in the Countryside policy area (Local Plan Policy
5). Neither of these policies permits housing development, except in the case of
Policy 5, provided that the site adjoins a village boundary (which this does) and it is
for affordable housing only. There are, however, other local and national policy
issues, together with other material considerations, to be taken into account before
reaching a decision that the application should necessarily be refused because of
current land designations.
Physically, the site is an integral part of this small village. It is vacant and has been
so since the poultry processing business closed in December 2006. Its derelict
industrial appearance does not sit easily with its designation within the AONB (Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty) or its partial inclusion within the village Conservation
Area. Whilst its previous use provided employment, it was a far from ideal neighbour
to adjacent residential properties and the local road network was never designed for
the heavy vehicle movements associated with the use. Its designation in the Local
Plan as a village employment area reflected its use at the time of preparing the Plan.
It is highly unlikely that such a large designation would have been made in the
absence of that former use.
Notwithstanding this, the potential value of the site to provide further employment
opportunities in the area needs to form part of the consideration of this planning
application. Evidence provided with the application shows that the site was marketed
during 2007 (at no set price) but no offers were received. At least in the current
economic climate this appears to indicate that the site is not one which is likely to
attract alternative business interest. Members will note that the Council's Economic
Development Unit has not raised an objection to the application.
Taking all of the above factors into account, it is not considered that the application
should be refused on grounds that the site should be wholly reserved for future
employment purposes.
The proposal represents perhaps the obvious alternative use of the site. The agent's
response to a possible alternative mixed development incorporating housing and
employment related uses is that there is no evidence of demand and anyway
employment opportunities exist nearby at the Northrepps Enterprise Development
and in North Walsham, in far more accessible locations.
Development Control Committee (East)
17
5 June 2008
There are a number of arguments in favour of redeveloping the site for housing.
These are as follows:1. It would represent a compatible neighbour to adjacent residential properties.
2. It would enhance the character and appearance of the village, Conservation Area
and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. It would make effective use of previously developed land.
4. It would contribute to the District's five year land supply.
5. It would contribute to meeting the local need for affordable housing.
Northrepps, however, is not considered to represent a sustainable location for any
significant new residential development. It is lacking in a range of local facilities
(although it does have a public house and a school), and public transport is very
limited. Consequently it can be expected that new residents would have a high
reliance on car use. It is for this reason that the village is not a selected settlement in
the submitted LDF Core Strategy. If it is to be concluded that because of the
particular circumstances of this site the principle of residential development is
acceptable, then the approved amount of new housing would need to be assessed
with these sustainability issues in mind.
Members were advised at the last meeting of the objection raised by the Highway
Authority to the originally submitted proposal for 38 dwellings and of the response by
the applicants to amend the description to one for residential development only, in an
apparent attempt to delay the issue of dwelling numbers to be addressed at a future
date. The Committee was advised however that to grant planning permission without
some controls set at the outline stage, in terms of either the area to be developed
and/or the density of housing, would place the Council in a weakened position in
terms of negotiating the amount of development at a reserved matters stage. It is
also evident that the applicants wish to establish a number of dwellings at this stage.
The basis of the Highway Authority's objection is that Northrepps represents an
unsustainable location for further residential development given its remoteness from
principal services and facilities, its lack of public transport links and the consequent
reliance by residents upon the use of the car. In addition the road network within and
leading to the village is substandard. Having visited the site Members will have
appreciated these latter concerns.
Following deferral of this application in April the applicants' consultants have
attempted to persuade the Highway Authority that development of the site (in the
region of the 38 dwellings originally applied for) would not represent an increase in
traffic movements compared with the former commercial use of the site. The debate
has been based on what daily traffic movements were generated by the former use
and the average number of traffic movements which should be applied to an
individual dwelling. Agreement has not been reached on this point.
The Highway Authority remains to be convinced regarding the applicants' contention
that there were formerly a minimum of 240 car and 40 HGV daily movements to and
from the premises. Neither does the Highway Authority agree with the applicants that
a typical dwelling in this location would generate 3 to 4 vehicle trips per day (based
on a one day survey of the nearby recently completed Bennett Homes development).
As stated in its recent response (Appendix 3), the Highway Authority considers that
100 vehicle movements is a more realistic figure which should be applied to the
former use and typically a minimum of 6 vehicle trips per day should be applied to
each new dwelling. Hence the position of the Highway Authority is that a
development of 17 dwellings (100 vehicle movements/6 movements per dwelling) is
Development Control Committee (East)
18
5 June 2008
the maximum which would equate with the former use of the site, and combined with
improvements to the centre of Northrepps, is one which would not be objected to.
The Highway Authority maintains an objection to the development in excess of 17
dwellings, although states that if the District Council is minded to approve a
development in excess of this number then consideration should be given to
additional highway improvements along the C291 New Road.
At the time of preparing this report, without prejudice discussions are taking place
with the applicants on the basis of a proposal well in excess of the 17 dwellings
stipulated by the Highway Authority, but including a significant proportion of
affordable housing. It is understood that financial information will be provided with
regard to the financial viability of affordable housing provision. In addition it is
understood that the applicant would be willing to undertake survey work with a view
to agreeing off-site highway improvements as part of any planning approval.
In conclusion it is considered that on balance, the principle of re-development for
housing represents an acceptable solution, taking into account the particular
circumstances of this site. However the acceptability of the scheme remains
dependent upon the details of the proposal in terms of dwelling numbers and
affordable provision, together with associated highway improvements. Members will
be updated at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee will be updated at the meeting following further discussions
with the applicants.
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071817 - Erection of six two-storey terraced dwellings;
site at Avenue Road for Stapletons (Tyre Services) Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :17 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071150 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of six terraced houses
Refused, 13 Sep 2007
THE APPLICATION
To construct a terrace of six two-storey houses on land that was formerly the
overspill car park for an adjacent tyre fitting depot. The proposed houses would be
constructed with brick gable ends and projecting gables on the front, with a coloured
render finish on the rear and parts of the front elevation. The roof is proposed to be of
clay pantiles.
Amended plans show the realignment of Avenue Road and its junction with Norwich
Road, and its reconstruction to adoptable standard from Norwich Road to the site
access, with a turning head.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting to investigate the health and
safety implications of the proposal.
Development Control Committee (East)
19
5 June 2008
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects over concerns about over-development of the site as a whole and highway
matters relating to the number of vehicles likely to exit the site at a very busy junction
of Norwich Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter from adjacent business concerned about need to retain access to rear service
road, about surface water drainage problems in the area and about need to restrict
access to the rear of the site.
Letters received from two nearby residents concerned about the proposals to
reconstruct the road, the future maintenance of the road, and the relationship
between the proposed houses and the adjacent bungalow.
Letter from applicants attached as Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objections; recognises the advantages of gathering
the various accesses to Norwich Road to a single point. Amended plans incorporate
required improvements to junction.
British Pipeline Agency - Comments awaited.
Environmental Health - Recommends advisory note re contamination.
NNDC Civil Contingencies Manager - Draws attention to the presence of flammable
material in the condensate tanks, but does not constitute that the construction of six
dwellings would present a significant problem in emergency planning terms.
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, and
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 1: Growth Towns (main towns for growth in district).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 51: Hazardous Pipelines (protects against increase in risk to life or property).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
Development Control Committee (East)
20
5 June 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Visual impact in street scene.
2. Highway safety.
3. Health and Safety - proximity to condensate tanks.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at a previous Committee to enable further information
to be obtained about the health and safety issues in relation to the nearby
condensate storage tanks.
The site is within a residential area defined in the Local Plan where redevelopment
for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle. The site is on the opposite
side of Avenue Road to a terrace of red brick and tile houses, and on the east side
adjoins a detached bungalow set in large plot, with a substantial evergreen hedge
approximately 2m high on the joint boundary.
The proposed building would reflect the general proportions of the terrace on the
opposite side of the road, but with modern detailing. The application incorporates
parking spaces in front of the dwellings, accessed off the improved section of Avenue
Road and private gardens 7m deep at the rear. This shortfall on the recommended
minimum garden sizes is considered to be acceptable in this location close to the
town centre. In other respects the proposal would meet the requirements of the basic
amenity criteria in the Design Guide and it is considered that the design of the
proposed houses is generally acceptable.
The Highway Authority accepts that there are benefits in highway safety terms in
constructing a properly designed access road and junction (including a formal turning
area within Avenue Road) and in serving the proposed new dwellings and the
existing houses on Avenue Road off the new access. The amended plans address
concerns about the detailed design of the junction. The site lies just beyond the
defined town centre and in a location where the District Council parking standards
contained in the Local Plan would require only one parking space per dwelling. The
submitted application proposes nine spaces for the six houses proposed, and as the
site is close to the town centre, bus stops and the railway station and therefore has a
high level of accessibility, it is not considered that any additional parking is required.
The British Pipeline Agency (BPA) has defined safety zones around the condensate
tanks which stand some 140m to the west of the site on the opposite of the A149.
Using a computer modelling system provided by the HSE the site is shown to be on
the edge of an 'inner zone'. The system indicates that in such a location the HSE
would "advise against" the development. The condensate tanks are classed as a
'lower tier COMAH' (Control of Major Accidents and Hazards) site where the HSE
has no formal jurisdiction or enforcement powers and is therefore unable to provide
any advice.
The Council's own Civil Contingencies Manager draws attention to the presence of
the flammable material stored in the tanks, but does not consider the proposed
development of six dwellings to represent a significant problem in emergency
planning terms. Comments are awaited from the British Pipeline Agency as operators
of the tanks, but at this stage it appears that the proposal does not represent a
significant increase in risk to life or property and granting planning permission would
comply with the relevant saved policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no significant objections from the
BPA and to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (East)
21
5 June 2008
10.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080512 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; 28
Bacton Road for Mrs D Miller
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :22 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071426 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of dwelling and erection of two
two-storey dwellings and two flats
Refused, 28 Nov 2007
THE APPLICATION
To replace a two-storey dwelling with a terrace of three dwellings, each of two
storeys with third floor accommodation in the roof space. The new building would be
sited a minimum of 7m back from the back of the pavement on Bacton Road and
approximately 1m from the southern site boundary on Glaven Close. The proposed
building would be approximately 9m high to the ridge.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Anne Moore having regard to the following planning
issue:
Considers that the proposal accords with planning policy.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object - highway safety and access.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection from five nearby residents concerned about the potential loss of
light from the proposed building, the design being out of scale with neighbours and
the traffic problems which the proposed new access and parking area might create.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Notes that the proposed car parking facilities do not
accord with emerging NNDC standards, but given the requirements of PPS 3 and the
location adjacent to the designated town centre finds it difficult to substantiate a
refusal on highway grounds. Requests standard conditions requiring a 2m footway
along the site frontage and provision of on site parking and turning areas and a 2.4m
parallel visibility area prior to occupation of any of the dwellings.
Environmental Health - Recommends advisory note about possible contamination.
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, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (East)
22
5 June 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Form and scale of development.
2. Impact on nearby residents.
3. Adequacy of car parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is within the residential area of the town and the site is currently occupied by
a dwelling. There is therefore no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the
site with housing.
The existing building is a two storey house with a double pitched roof. The proposal
involves its demolition and replacement with a building that would be 16m long and
approximately 9m tall to the ridge. Although reasonably well designed in itself the
building would appear out of scale with its more modest neighbours which are, in the
main, semi-detached pairs of Edwardian houses with wide side gardens. The
proposed building would cover the majority of the site frontage and because of its
scale and height would have a dominating and overbearing impact in the street
scene.
The existing dwelling on the site is set well forward towards the Bacton Road
frontage, with access to its parking area achieved from Glaven Close to the side. The
proposed replacement building would extend some 4m further north towards the
adjacent dwelling on Bacton Road, and would also extend approximately 6m further
back towards the rear (eastern) boundary of the site. Because of this it would be
likely to have a significant impact on the amenities of residents of the existing
bungalows at the rear of the site which at the closest are only 15m away. Although
there would be no second floor windows in the rear roof slope there is still the
potential for overlooking from the first floor windows, and because of its height the
building would be a dominating presence for the occupiers of the bungalows. The
greater size and the position of the proposed terrace of houses would also create a
greater impact on the existing dwelling immediately to the north of the site. The
proposal would therefore be damaging to the amenities of the adjoining dwellings.
The proposal incorporates three parking spaces (one existing off Glaven Close, two
new spaces off Bacton Road). This provision would comply with the Council's
standards which look for a minimum of one space per dwelling in towns, although the
standards in the emerging Core Strategy will increase this requirement to two spaces
per dwelling. The site is immediately outside the town centre where current standards
would not require any minimum level of parking and where there is public off street
parking available for visitors.
Development Control Committee (East)
23
5 June 2008
Although the proposal involves a new access 8m to the north of the existing Glaven
Close access, the Highway Authority raises no objection. Accordingly it must be
concluded that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms.
To conclude, the design and scale of the proposed building are considered to be out
of character with its surroundings, damaging to the street scene and to the amenities
of nearby properties, and thus contrary to Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Local Plan on 2 April 1998 for all
planning purposes. The following saved policies as listed in the Direction issued by
Government Office for the East of England on 14 September 2007 are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy 6: Residential Areas
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed dwellings of the scale and
in the position proposed would be out of character and out of scale with the
surrounding residential area, and would be damaging to the amenities of nearby
residents by means of overlooking and overshadowing.
11.
SOUTHREPPS - 20080556 - Erection of four two-storey dwellings; Honeysuckle
Cottage Long Lane for Mr M Hardingham
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :28 May 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071811 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of three dwellings
Withdrawn, 14 Jan 2008
THE APPLICATION
Erection of four two-storey dwellings. One point of access is proposed from Long
Lane. A pair of semi-detached properties is shown fronting Long Lane with two
detached dwellings to the rear.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold having regard to the following planning issues:
Overdevelopment and access.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strongly object:1. Overdevelopment.
2. Lack of garden space.
3. Scale and design would fail to enhance the character of the village.
4. Access. Long lane is a narrow 'quiet lane'.
5. Light pollution.
6. Building line.
Development Control Committee (East)
24
5 June 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection received:1. Loss of privacy.
2. Overshadowing.
3. Loss of trees and hedgerow.
4. Access.
5. Increase in traffic.
6. Parking.
One letter of support:
1. Visual enhancement.
2. Brownfield site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and form of development.
2. Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area.
3. Impact on adjacent residents.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application site (0.15ha) forms part of land associated with The Cottage, a
detached residential property with an adjoining barn. The site is L-shaped with a
frontage onto Long Lane. The site lies within the settlement boundary of Southrepps,
a Selected Small Village. Under the terms of Local Plan Policy 4 the principle of
small-scale housing development such as this is acceptable subject to enhancement
of the character of the village and other planning considerations. The site also lies
within the village Conservation Area and within the AONB designation (which
includes the whole of Southrepps).
Development Control Committee (East)
25
5 June 2008
The proposed four dwellings represent a density equivalent to 26 dwellings/ha. The
scheme seeks best use of the depth of the site (47m) by proposing both frontage
development (a pair of semi-detached properties) and two detached dwellings to the
rear. All four properties would be served by a new single point of access onto Long
Lane and two parking spaces have been indicated for each property (four in an open
'cart shed' garage). The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application.
The proposed pair of semi-detached properties facing Long Lane is indicated in line
with The Cottage, but forward of the adjacent dwellings to the south. Whilst this
position is considered generally acceptable for development within the context of the
street scene, there are aspects of the design and siting which would benefit from
improvement. These relate to the width and position of the blank gable wall which is
currently considered too wide and too close to the neighbouring boundary on the
southern side of the site.
The two properties proposed to the rear would be sited in a courtyard-type
arrangement reflecting the character of The Cottage and adjacent barn. Both
properties would have a traditional cottage appearance. However, it is also
considered that the proposed dwelling on the southern side would benefit from being
moved further from the neighbour's boundary.
All four properties have on site parking and access to private amenity space.
Although the proposed depth of the garden areas would be below Design Guide
recommended minimum standards (6-9m), given their overall dimensions it is
considered that they would provide an adequate level of amenity to future residents.
Subject to design and siting alterations as referred to above it is considered that the
proposal would have a positive impact on the character of the village and the
Conservation Area and is considered compliance with relevant policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
12.
SUTTON - 20080297 - Erection of three dwellings and garages; Rustic House
The Street for Mr and Mrs P Cutting
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :24 Apr 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Flood Zone 3
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071870 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of four dwellings and garages
Withdrawn, 08 Jan 2008
THE APPLICATION
Erection of three dwellings with detached garages on garden land within the grounds
of a detached two-storey house.
Development Control Committee (East)
26
5 June 2008
Amended plans have been submitted revising drainage and access details. A further
amendment has been made to increase the diameter of the surface water drainage
pipe through the site to 600mm (equivalent to the combined diameter of pipes
crossing The Street into the site).
A Flood Risk Assessment accompanies the application.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strongly objects because:1. The local flood alleviation scheme for Sutton is incomplete, further development
will exacerbate the problems. The proposed 450mm pipe under the street is
inconsistent with the two 300mm pipes under the street. Pipes are not as efficient as
ditches. Bends in the pipes would lead to blockages
2. Sewage system inadequate.
3. Insufficient parking for all plots.
4. Overlooking to neighbouring properties.
5. Highway safety.
6. Inadequate turning bay.
7. Three plots will cover the same ground area as the four plots originally proposed.
8. Estate style design.
9. Trees cut down before planning application submitted.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of representation has been received raising objections on grounds of:1. Overloading sewers, drains and increasing the risk of flash floods.
2. Overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy.
3. Noise and disturbance.
4. Highway safety - speeding traffic, lack of footpaths.
5. Overdevelopment.
6. Out of character with surrounding properties.
7. Bungalows preferable.
8. Internal Drainage Board should pipe the ditch further away from the site.
9. Smaller more affordable houses are needed in the village.
10. Internal Drainage Board alleviation scheme is not complete
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to all plots being accessed from
the private drive.
Environment Agency - The flood risk assessment proves that, contrary to the
Environment Agency Flood Zone maps, the site does not fall within Flood Zone 3.
The Environment Agency assumes that it lies within Flood Zone 1, the low risk Flood
Zone. The sequential and exception test are therefore not required for this
application.
Water Management Alliance - In principle a new pipeline across the site to take water
from the culverts under The Street to a board maintained watercourse is acceptable.
The new pipeline should be installed adjacent to but not beneath the open channel
along the northern boundary. The Broads Internal Drainage Board will impose
conditions regarding the precise line of the pipe, and to restrict development within
3m of the pipe and planting of trees and bushes within 9m. Discharge of overflows
from the rainwater harvesting tanks will require the Drainage Board's consent.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
Development Control Committee (East)
27
5 June 2008
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, and
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Flood risk.
3. Local drainage issues.
4. Impact on character of village.
5. Residential amenity.
6. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting to invite the Parish Council to
submit evidence regarding historical flooding on the site.
The application site is formed from the subdivision of the garden of an existing
dwelling which lies within the village development boundary on the western side of
Sutton. Under the terms of Local Plan Policy 4 the principle of small-scale housing
development such as this is acceptable subject to enhancement of the character of
the village and other planning considerations.
The site lies within an area identified on the Environment Agency Flood Risk Map as
at high risk from flooding (Zone 3) and within a part of Sutton where there are clearly
documented issues of poor local land drainage. These are issues that require careful
examination in the determination of this application. It is however important to
recognise the distinction between the two different flooding issues affecting this site.
Members will be familiar with Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood
Risk (PPS25) which requires Local Planning Authorities to apply the sequential test
to all new development within areas at high risk of flooding. The consequence of
applying this test to proposals for residential development is that wherever possible
such development should be located in areas of low flood risk.
In this instance, the application of the sequential test is not straightforward. The site
lies close to the outer edge of the flood risk zone. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
submitted with the application which considers the probability of both fluvial flooding
Development Control Committee (East)
28
5 June 2008
and a coastal breach scenario, concludes that the site should not be included within
the area at highest risk from flooding. The Environment Agency has evaluated the
flood risk assessment and is satisfied that the land is at low risk of flooding (zone 1)
and the sequential test should not be applied to this site.
Environment Agency flood maps are generalisations based on land contours and an
extrapolation of historic data. They make no distinction between river and sea
flooding, and perhaps, most importantly, take no account of flood defences. The
Government places the responsibility for a thorough site specific evaluation of the
flooding probability on the developer. This site-specific flood risk assessment is a
detailed analysis of the various flood risks and includes such factors as; flood
defences, climate change, site characteristics, water flows, distance from a probable
event and storage capacity of the intervening land and flood plains. Local Planning
Authorities are reliant upon the Environment Agency expertise to evaluate their
content and conclusions.
Therefore in terms of fluvial (river) or tidal (sea) flood risk, there is no reason to object
to this application.
The second, not entirely unrelated issue affecting the site relates to the local
drainage problems experienced in Sutton. Water drains from a small catchment of
agricultural land on the eastern side of Sutton under The Street westwards towards
Sutton Broad through a series of drainage ditches and culverts. Localised flooding
problems have been exacerbated historically by poorly maintained private ditches.
The Internal Drainage Board has taken over this responsibility and has implemented
an improvement scheme in Sutton and continues to make improvements where the
need arises.
This site is important because a large drainage ditch which is located on its northern
boundary forms part of that drainage system. The Water Management Alliance (IDB)
has previously indicated that it would be advantageous if the ditch were piped
(although it is outside the application site). The amended plan indicates the provision
of such a pipe running parallel to the existing ditch. The pipe would be funded by the
developer and maintained by the IDB and would provide scope to mitigate surface
water problems in this part of the village. The Water Management Alliance has been
consulted on this revised scheme; its comments are awaited.
The FRA assumes that driveways would be permeable and the water run-off from the
buildings would be stored as part of a rain water harvesting scheme. If the application
were approved, such measures could provide mitigation for both flood risk and local
drainage, but would need to be carefully conditioned to ensure the capacity is
adequate and the scheme is fully implemented.
With regard to the other planning details of the scheme, the layout provides for one
dwelling on the street frontage with the other two dwellings at the rear of the site.
This pattern of development is not dissimilar to other developments along this side of
the village. The proposal equates to a density of 15 dwellings per hectare, which,
whilst well below than that advocated in PPS3 (minimum of 30 dwellings per
hectare), reflects favourably with the character of this part of the village. Furthermore
the amount of built development potential on the site is constrained by the need to
provide maintenance distances from water courses around its perimeter.
In terms of design, the appearance of the house on the frontage plot would
incorporate features of the adjacent Rustic House, whereas the dwellings in the rear
plots would be a modern interpretation of the cottage style. Overall, given the mix of
building styles in the area, the design approach is considered appropriate for this
particular location.
Development Control Committee (East)
29
5 June 2008
The development, in terms of the garden sizes and the relationship of the proposed
houses and neighbouring properties, accords with the Council's Design Guide basic
amenity criteria.
To summarise, the general layout and design of this proposal is considered
acceptable; the Environment Agency has confirmed that the site lies within the low
flood risk zone and the sequential test does not need to be applied to this site;
measures proposed as part of the application should assist in improving localised
drainage issues, and there are no Highway Authority objections to the proposal.
Consequently, the proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan and
approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval, subject to the further comments of the Water Management
Alliance (IDB), the imposition of appropriate conditions including materials,
drainage, access, provision of parking and turning and flood resistance and
resilience measures.
13.
THORPE MARKET - 20080532 - Conversion of hotel and outbuildings to nine
dwellings, erection of two semi-detached dwellings; Green Farm Hotel Cromer
Road for Mr and Mrs Lomax
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Corridor of Movement
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
Conversion of hotel and outbuilding to nine dwellings and erection of two semidetached dwelling. The submitted plans indicate the main flint farmhouse sub-divided
into 3 dwellings plus 6 dwellings within the existing outbuildings of the hotel. The
proposed 2 new dwellings are designed to have the appearance of a barn
conversion.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Acceptability of scheme despite loss of hotel.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection although sorry to lose the village pub and restaurant, but design
sympathetic and will generate less traffic.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter received. No objection to the proposed change of use but raises issues of
water quality of any surface run-off and impact on adjacent pond.
Development Control Committee (East)
30
5 June 2008
The applicants are the current owners of the site and have operated Green Farm for
the last 26 years. The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application
sets out the background to the proposal and the following key points are made:1. Green Farm falls into the mid-market sector of hotel accommodation - recent
trends have favoured the budget and the top quality establishments.
2. Prices attainable from the mid market no longer cover overheads.
3. Upgrading of the accommodation would be uneconomic.
4. The hotel has been marketed as a going concern for the past two years at a value
of £1.7m. The response from the market has been poor, viewings limited in number
and no genuine offers.
5. Over the last two years the business has made a net loss of approximately
£32,000.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Comments regarding means of escape.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Raise
conservation and design concerns re the works to sub-divide the main listed building
and proposed siting and design of the new dwellings.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Condition required re waste disposal.
Economic Development and Tourism Officer - Requests further information re
viability of hotel use.
Strategic Housing - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999 - saved policies):
Policy EC.10 - The Change of Use of Hotels, Holiday Parks, Chalet, Camping and
Caravan Sites.
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 37: Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings (prevents proposals which
would be detrimental to character).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Development Control Committee (East)
31
5 June 2008
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy EC 9: Retaining an adequate supply and mix of tourist accommodation
(specifies criteria to prevent loss of facilities).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Loss of hotel.
2. Affordable housing provision.
3. Impact on listed building and Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
Green Farm Hotel is located within the settlement boundary of Thorpe Market,
identified as a Selected Small Village in the existing Local Plan. The premises
comprise a 16th Century Grade 11 listed former farmhouse, together with a range of
outbuildings. The site lies within the village Conservation Area.
The application seeks the conversion of the hotel and outbuilding into 9 dwellings
and the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Structure Plan Policy EC10
seeks to resist the loss of hotels where they make a significant contribution to both
the stock and range of facilities available. The Green Farm Hotel comprises 20 guest
bedrooms, restaurant (24 covers), bar and conference facilities/function room (100
guests).
The Economic and Tourism Development Officer has referred to the increasing
number of applications being received seeking a change of use from hotel/serviced
accommodation and that if the situation remains unchecked then the characteristics
of the tourist accommodation in the District will change. He has referred to emerging
policy (EC9) in the Core Strategy and the criteria against which proposals involving
the loss of tourist accommodation will be assessed. Although mindful of the fact that
the hotel has been marketed he has requested an independent viability test be
submitted. This analysis would consider the longer term viability of a hotel use in this
location. Until this information is available the Economic and Tourism Officer is
unable to comment on the loss of the hotel facility.
In terms of the residential development being proposed on the site, the plans indicate
the creation of nine dwellings through the conversion of the existing buildings and the
erection of two new build dwellings to the rear of the site. The entire site is currently
within the settlement boundary of Thorpe Market where the principle of small groups
of dwellings (up to 4) is acceptable subject to enhancing the character of the village
and meeting other more detailed assessment criteria. In this instance eleven
dwellings are proposed and as such Development Plan policy would require the
excess, (seven) to be affordable.
The proposed redevelopment scheme makes no provision for on site affordable
housing. In support of the proposal a viability calculation has been submitted and the
agents suggest that on the basis of those figures a commuted payment of £50,000
could be made to the Council towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere.
These financial figures are yet to be accepted by Council officers since verification of
projected costs have been sought.
The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has made a number of
detailed comments regarding the scheme as submitted and these have been
forwarded to the applicant's agent. The existing scheme raises a number of issues
primarily in relation to the proposed conversion works within the main listed
'farmhouse' and in relation to the two new build dwellings. It is understood the agent
is seeking to address these concerns and it is anticipated that amended plans will be
submitted.
Development Control Committee (East)
32
5 June 2008
Further discussions are scheduled to take place with the applicants regarding the
outstanding issues and as such it is anticipated that further information will be
submitted as well as the details of the proposal revised.
RECOMMENDATION:Members to be updated orally.
14.
WORSTEAD - 20071976 - Conversion of barn to two units and erection of twostorey dwelling; Laurels Farmhouse Front Street for Worstead Farms Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :13 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Village Employment
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071014 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barn to two dwellings and
erection of two two-storey dwellings
Refused, 30 Aug 2007
THE APPLICATION
To convert a roadside barn into two dwellings and to demolish an agricultural
workshop and replace it with a two-storey dwelling. The originally submitted design
for a Georgian style house has been amended to provide for a granary style building.
This has been further amended to produce a more traditional appearance.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilkins having regard to the following planning issue:
Employment land designation.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application because the new dwelling is not in keeping with the
immediate properties and lacks sympathy towards the barn. The mass is too great,
the appearance not enhancing the Conservation Area. A smaller property would be
considered more suitable and somewhat mimic the barn. The barn conversion was
considered to be agreeable now the privacy issues for Swann's Yard have been
addressed.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter expressing concern about the detailing of the barn conversion and its
impact on the houses on the other side of the road.
Letter of support in principle from the occupiers of the adjacent house to the north.
A detailed Supporting Statement provided by the agent is appended (Appendix 5).
Development Control Committee (East)
33
5 June 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - No comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Objected to the original designs for a pastiche Georgian style house on this site
commenting that "rather than duplicating the existing farmhouse, a granary or
functional barn approach is much more likely to sit comfortably alongside the existing
buildings. It would also maintain and strengthen the enclosure within the yard if sited
more appropriately".
Considers that the latest amended plans now safeguard the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to suitable conditions.
Environmental Health - Recommends standard note about contaminated land.
Strategic Director (Communities) - Awaiting comments.
Worstead Amenity Society - Consider the latest design an improvement, but still
prefer the original "Georgian" style proposal. (Full comments attached at Appendix
5).
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, and
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character).
Policy 10: Village Employment Areas (reserved for small-scale business, industrial,
storage purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Residential use of Village Employment Site.
2. Design.
3. Impact on Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site lies just to the south of the village centre of Worstead, and is currently a
farmyard, with a traditional brick and tile barn on the east side of the site adjacent to
the road, and a modern steel framed and clad building on the west side of the site
formerly used for repairing agricultural vehicles and equipment.
Development Control Committee (East)
34
5 June 2008
The site is allocated in the adopted Local Plan as a Village Employment Area where
Policy 10 specifies that B1 (Light Industry), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage
and Distribution) will be permitted, and that introduction of non employmentgenerating uses will not be permitted. The proposal is therefore in clear conflict with
this policy of the Plan. However the agent's supporting statement (Appendix 5)
identifies a number of reasons for seeking to change the use of the site from
employment to residential. These include the problems of potential noise and
disturbance from commercial uses on the site, the difficulty of access by large
vehicles, and the existence of other sites in the parish better suited to commercial
uses. The decision on this application will therefore need to balance the conflict with
this policy with the potential benefits of an alternative residential use for the site.
The site lies within the settlement boundary for Worstead defined in the Local Plan,
and hence in other respects residential use of the site would be appropriate in
principle. The conversion of the traditional barn adjacent to the road on the eastern
side of the site into two permanent dwellings would accord with Policy 13 in terms of
the design details. A wildlife survey of the building has been carried out which has
not revealed any trace of bats or barn owls, and which defines the potential
significance of the site for these species as limited. As noted in the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager's comments, the conversion would offer a viable
means of securing the building which is an important feature of the Conservation
Area. Although window-to-window distances across the road to the cottages to the
east would be less than the figures specified for new buildings in the basic amenity
criteria section of the Design Guide, the six small first floor windows and the only two
ground floor windows on the east elevation would have obscure glass to avoid any
direct overlooking.
The steel framed and sheet steel clad workshop building on the western side of the
site is not attractive and its removal would have a beneficial impact on the
appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. The application proposes replacing
this building with a detached house sited on a north - south axis parallel to the
existing barn and 20m away from it.
The design of the proposed building is considered to be generally acceptable,
reflecting as it does the form and appearance of a granary type building. The
proposed building would have a positive impact on the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjoining house.
In traffic terms the proposal would reduce the potential traffic generation of the site,
but the Highway Authority is nevertheless seeking a parallel visibility splay which
would require the removal of most of the existing wall on the northern boundary.
Although this element would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area the
proposal includes the construction of a new wall, and taken as a whole the
replacement of the workshop building with a new dwelling would be positive in terms
of the impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area.
Although the loss of the employment potential of the site would be in conflict with
Policy 10 of the adopted Local Plan, the conversion of the agricultural building and
the replacement of the workshop building would create a significant improvement to
the appearance of the village and the Conservation Area and would comply with
Policies 4 and 42 of the Local Plan. Given that the site has had limited independent
employment use in the past, and that there are employment opportunities available
elsewhere in the parish (near the station) it is considered on balance that the granting
of permission would accord with relevant policies of the Development Plan and that
any conflict with Policy 10 is justified by other material considerations.
Development Control Committee (East)
35
5 June 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to appropriate conditions.
15.
WORSTEAD - 20080692 - Erection of dwelling; Ivy Cottage 38 Honing Row for
Mr R Bates
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :25 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071967 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of dwelling
Refused, 10 Mar 2008
THE APPLICATION
Erection of one dwelling with only means of access included for determination at this
stage.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilkins having regard to the following planning issues:
Lack of detail to assess the impact on the Conservation Area, highway safety,
overdevelopment.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter from a local resident on grounds of impact upon the character of Worstead
through the loss of yet another cottage garden.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to conditions regarding the
provision of visibility splay, access construction, parking and gate details.
Worstead Amenity Society - Objects.
The historic heart of Worstead is over-dominated, ruined, by new large dwellings not
appropriate to their architectural context.
No details of dwelling - North Norfolk needs one or two bedroom dwellings.
Local Development Framework policies will prohibit this development.
Amendment to the access will not lessen the detriment to highway safety.
Loss of hedgerow.
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, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (East)
36
5 June 2008
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appropriateness of site for development.
2. Impact on Conservation Area.
3. Highway safety.
4. Residential amenity.
APPRAISAL
The application site is formed from the subdivision of the garden of Ivy Cottage, a
two-storey property which is sited at right angles to Honing Row. It is within the Local
Plan development boundary for Worstead. In principle therefore a new dwelling may
be considered acceptable provided that the site is of sufficient size, the proposal
would enhance the character of the village and not adversely affect neighbour
amenity or highway safety. The application is a resubmission following a previous
application submitted earlier this year for a similar proposal, refused on grounds of
inadequate visibility at the access.
The application site is located on a bend where Honing Row narrows and visibility is
poor. The Highway Authority previously indicated that it would not object if the access
were repositioned closer to Ivy Cottage and the front boundary hedge were removed
along the roadside frontage and the application site. Removal of the hedge would
improve visibility for other highway users as well as improving visibility for the existing
cottage. The applicant has amended the position of the access accordingly and the
Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to this application.
Moving the access in this manner however raises concerns about its close proximity
to the existing dwelling, which has its main aspect fronting the application site. The
agent has submitted a further plan to illustrate the access, parking and manoeuvring
area. In the opinion of officers this fails to demonstrate that the amenities of the
existing dwelling would not be adversely affected by the vehicle movements
associated with a further dwelling.
In many instances a plot of these dimensions, 14m wide with an average depth of
25m could accommodate a modest-sized dwelling. However in this case, given the
orientation of the existing dwelling, the unsatisfactory position of the proposed joint
access and the lack of detail submitted with the application, it is far from clear that
such a proposal would meet the policy requirements of preserving or enhancing this
part of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (East)
37
5 June 2008
Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:Refusal on grounds that in view of the access arrangements and lack of
additional details the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of the
existing dwelling and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
16.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY - 20080564 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide annexe;
Ambleside 4 Town Green for Mrs S Riches-Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - 20080383 - Erection of detached garage; The Gatehouse School
Road for Mr and Mrs P Butikofer
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - 20080397 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 4
Coronation Cottages Staithe Road for Mr M Oakden
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - 20080365 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings and garages;
land rear of Greenacres New Road for Mr N Phillippo
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - 20080479 - Erection of side conservatory; 1 Thorn Road for Mr and
Mrs Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - 20080500 - Erection of four dwellings and garages; Stone Cottage
New Road for T C and C A Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080305 - Erection of swimming pool enclosure; North Cottage
Overstrand Road for Mr and Mrs Massingham
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080360 - Display of flag advertisement; Cromer Country Club 127
Overstrand Road for Diamond Resorts (Europe) Limited
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
CROMER - 20080384 - Removal of conservatory and erection of single-storey
rear extension; 5 Hill Close for Mr and Mrs B Bateman
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080398 - Erection of front extension; 16 St Martins Close for Mr J
Cannell
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080517 - Installation of roller shutters to front of golf practice
range bays; land at Overstrand Road for New Angle Promotions
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
38
5 June 2008
CROMER - 20071966 - Conversion of and alterations to former youth centre to
A1 (retail)/A2 (financial and professional services) with flat above; 14 Church
Street for Catalyst Commercials Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - 20080072 - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of garage
for the repair, servicing and maintenance of motor cycles, motor tricycles and
quad bikes and general motor engineering; Brandywell Youngmans Lane for
Mr and Mrs C Walpole
(Certificate of Lawfulness)
EAST RUSTON - 20080448 - Erection of part two-storey side extension; The Old
School House Mill Road for Mr and Mrs L Cutting
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - 20080332 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions;
North Winds The Street for Mr and Mrs R Buddle
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - 20080346 - Installation of cladding to lower section of lounge
walls; The Limes The Street for Mr G Cox
(Alteration to Listed Building)
ERPINGHAM - 20080463 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extension and
front bay window; Alvermead School Road for Mr and Mrs Compston
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - 20080528 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Ash Hill House
West End Ingworth for Miss G Chillcott
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - 20080445 - Erection of conservatory; 1 The Loke North
Walsham Road for Mrs L Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - 20080286 - Erection of first floor front extension, single-storey
side extension and two-storey rear extension; Oak Tree Farm Back Southrepps
Road for Mr E Janes
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - 20080375 - Retention of beach access steps; land at Manor
Caravan site The Hill for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - 20080494 - Retention of summer house; 2 High House Church
Street for Ms L Hughes
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - 20080524 - Retention of stables/cart shed and use of land for
keeping of horses; Field opposite 2 High House Church Street for Ms L Hughes
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
39
5 June 2008
HOVETON - 20080356 - Retention of two vehicle bodies used for timber
storage; Charles Barr Furniture Stalham Road Industrial Estate Littlewood
Lane for Charles Barr Furniture Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20080403 - Variation of condition 10 of planning permission
reference 20041723 to permit revised access to unit 2; Two Saints Farmhouse
Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363 Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20080408 - Erection of replacement headquarter building; St. John
Ambulance Station Road for St John Ambulance
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - 20080291 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and attached car
port; Failte Water Lane for Mr and Mrs S Wexler
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - 20080368 - Erection of single-storey side extension and one-and-ahalf-storey rear extension; 20 Lawn Close for Mr C Knight and Miss J Dando
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - 20080407 - Formation of vehicular access; 1 and 2 School Close
for Mr Myhill
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - 20080417 - Siting of replacement diesel tank; Ludham Garage High
Street for Ludham Garage Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20080424 - Change of use from residential to a mixed use of
residential/A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe); 2 Cromer Road for Mrs C Turner
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071691 - Demolition of two dwellings and erection of
eleven terraced dwellings; 4 and 6 New Road for Worstead Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080304 - Erection of 1.8m vertical close boarded fence;
1 Thirlby Road for Mr M G Cubitt
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080389 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide
additional restaurant and toilet facilities; The Cockerel Tea Rooms 6 North
Street for Mr and Mrs Rushen
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080482 - Erection of single-storey front and side
extensions; 13 Meadow Close for Mr P Cossey
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080483 - Demolition of garage and dwelling and
erection of four dwellings; 28 and 35 Kimberley Road for Ms V Crabb and Mr
and Mrs Humphrey
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
40
5 June 2008
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080520 - Erection of rear conservatory; 8 Hamlet Close
for Mr R Gillespie
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080207 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; adjacent 17
Cherry Tree Lane for T and S Properties Limited
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080355 - Erection of detached garage; 17 Aylsham Road
for Mr Cranmer
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080391 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
canopy; 27 Station Road for Mr and Mrs Riches
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080410 - Erection of single-storey workshop extension;
Paynes Stonemasons Midland Road for Paynes Stonemasons
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080428 - Change of use of first floor from A1 (retail) to
tattooist parlour; 40 Market Place for Miss E Seaman
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080456 - Internal re-arrangement to provide an
additional assisted living unit; 42 Yarmouth Road for Guild Retirement Housing
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - 20080535 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; The
Poplars Stevens Road Cromer for Mr B Harding
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - 20080323 - Erection of gates and walls; Paston Barn Bacton Road
for N Norfolk Historic Buildings Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - 20080324 - Erection of gates and walls; Paston Barn Bacton Road
for N Norfolk Historic Buildings Trust
(Alteration to Listed Building)
POTTER HEIGHAM - 20080684 - Erection of agricultural storage buildings;
Glebe Farm Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
(Prior Notification)
ROUGHTON - 20080373 - Erection of relocated timber shed; The Ark Chapel
Road for Mr P Stemp
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20080440 - Change of use from annexe to one self-contained unit
of holiday accommodation; Barn 3 Grove Farm Back Lane for Mrs C Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20080515 - Internal alterations to facilitate use of annexe as
holiday accommodation; Grove Farm Back Lane for Mrs C Wilson
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (East)
41
5 June 2008
RUNTON - 20080425 - Erection of rear conservatory; Corner Cottage Broomhill
East Runton for Mrs D Beale
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20080334 - Erection of conservatory; Osier Cottage Home Close
West Runton for Mr Hunt
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20080351 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings; Disused
Builder's Yard Newell Crescent West Runton for A G Brown (Builders) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20080522 - Conversion of ground floor shop to residential flat;
Patricia House 41 Cromer Road West Runton for Mr and Mrs E Warren
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - 20080536 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Aintree Cottage
Low Street for Mr Reid
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - 20080514 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Flint
Stones Low Street for Mrs Bygraves
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20080388 - Erection of garden shed; Cobble Cottage 14-16
Chapel Street for Mr C Needham
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20080581 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
20061234 to enable commencement of development before 3 July 2008;
Greenways Thorpe Road for Southrepps Development Company
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20080348 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (tea rooms); 62-64
High Street for Ms Over
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20080378 - Erection of detached garage; 12 Laxfield Road for Mr R
Hopewell
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080340 - Re-construction of garage and erection of
attached car port; Pond Farm The Hill for Mr H Read and Ms M Dewing
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080438 - Erection of part one and a half storey and part
single-storey extension; 3 The Terrace Aylsham Road for Mrs K Tims
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - 20080393 - Erection of double bay cart shed; Tanglewood
Church Road for Mr and Mrs Constable
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - 20080497 - Conversion of toilet block to staff living
accommodation; Woodlands Caravan Park Cromer Road for Woodlands
Leisure Park (Trimingham) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
42
5 June 2008
WITTON - 20080455 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Jenta The Street
Ridlington for Mr and Mrs G Schreiber
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - 20080543 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Chadwyns White Horse Lane Briggate for Mr M Grey
(Full Planning Permission)
17.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - 20080439 - Erection of one and a half storey building to provide
ground floor reception/office/spa with manager's accommodation above;
Rainbows End Chalet Park Mill Lane for Tingdene Parks Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - 20080406 - Change of use of agricultural buildings to one unit of
holiday accommodation; Grange Farm Barns Chapel Road for Rumford Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - 20080362 - Change of use of land from agricultural to amenity,
excavation of fishing pond and formation of car park; Ruston House Chapel
Road for St George's Fishery
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20080454 - Change of use of class B1 offices to beauty salon (unit
3a) and hairdressers (unit 3b); Unit 3a/3b Tilia Business Park Tunstead Road
for Tilia Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20080421 - Use of land for siting of five beach huts; land at
Beach Close for The Beeston Group
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - 20080477 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide twostorey annexe; Danesfield Beach Road for Mr R Kennedy
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - 20080667 - Prior notification of intention to erect poultry shed;
Poplar Farm Coast Road Waxham for Sunrise Poultry Farm Limited
(Prior Notification)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080447 - Erection of a pair of semi-detached twostorey dwellings; land adjacent The White Cottage Aylsham Road for Mr M
Chipperfield
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - 20080501 - Erection of replacement single-storey extension and
wall; The Hall Market Street for Mrs G Foulds
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - 20080502 - Demolition of extension and wall and erection of
replacement extension and wall; The Hall Market Street for Mrs G Foulds
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (East)
43
5 June 2008
WORSTEAD - 20080458 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide two
units of holiday accommodation; Church View Westwick Road for Mr D P
Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - 20080459 - Conversion and extensions to the forge to provide a
residential dwelling; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D P Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - 20080460 - Erection of two-storey extension and subdivision to
provide two separate dwellings; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D P
Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
18.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER (SUFFIELD PARK WARD) - 20071320 - Removal of condition 2 of
planning permission reference 20050527; Fletcher Hospital Roughton Road for
Mr S A Sheikh
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
MUNDESLEY - 20071272 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 39-41
Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs Briggs/Mr and Mrs Roberts
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM (EAST WARD) - 20071806 - Erection of attached two-storey
dwelling; 1 Woodbine Close for Miss J Dyble
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
RUNTON (EAST WARD) - 20071542 - Erection of rear dormer window;
Inglewood Bungalow High Street for Mr and Mrs R Brownsell
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
19.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
NORTH WALSHAM (WEST WARD) - 20071135 - Residential development; land
at Cromer Road and Bradfield Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
NORTH WALSHAM (WEST WARD) - 20071136 - Residential development; land
at former Marricks Wire Ropes Cromer Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
SUFFIELD - 01/097/DEV6/07/001 - Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D & M Hickling
Properties Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SUFFIELD - 01/097/DEV6/07/001-1 - Barn conversions not being carried out in
accordance with plans; Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D & M Hickling
Properties Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Development Control Committee (East)
44
5 June 2008
SUFFIELD - 20071381 - Conversion of barns to six units of holiday
accommodation; Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D & M Hickling Properties
Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SUFFIELD - 20071627 - Variations to approved scheme to include new
vehicular access, erection of walls and installation of three LPG vessels with
security fence; Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20070243 - Erection of 4 terraced dwellings; land
adjacent former Weavers Arms Aylsham Road for Horning Properties
INFORMAL HEARING 24 Jun 2008
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20071469 - Erection of three detached houses; land
adjacent to Ex Weavers Arms Aylsham Road for Horning Properties
INFORMAL HEARING 24 Jun 2008
20.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BACTON - 20071293 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; land at Sea Holly
Kimberley Road for Mr S Norman
KNAPTON - 20071727 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; The Spinney
Mundesley Road for Mr and Mrs Merrill
SITE VISIT :- 01 May 2008
MUNDESLEY - 01/071/DEV6/07/005 - Authorised enforcement action for
removal of unauthorised flue; 32 High Street for Halit Kol
MUNDESLEY - 20071149 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at 20
Beckmeadow Way for Mr and Mrs D Spinks
NORTH WALSHAM (WEST WARD) - 20071509 - Erection of two-storey
extension to provide two apartments; Garden Court Aylsham Road for T H P D
Properties Limited
SITE VISIT :- 01 May 2008
OVERSTRAND - 20071678 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage;
Beckhythe Cottage 3 High Street for Mr and Mrs Aylward
OVERSTRAND - 20071879 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at 3 Cromer
Road for Mr and Mr P Eden
21.
APPEAL DECISIONS
HOVETON - 20071247 - Demolition of hotel and erection of twenty-four
apartments with car parking below; The Broads Hotel Station Road for Mr J R
Herbert
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (East)
45
5 June 2008