OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 6 MARCH 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 - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
CROMER - 20071829 - Erection of single-storey side extension ; Thornybank
Hall Road for Mrs V Lucking
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20020542 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of garage and erection of twostorey extension
Approved, 09 May 2002
THE APPLICATION
To construct a single-storey extension set into sloping ground in front of the existing
two-storey dwelling and close to the southern (side) boundary of the site. The
submitted plans indicate additional accommodation comprising two bedrooms,
bathroom and 'studio' room. The proposed extension would be constructed of facing
bricks to match the ground floor of the main house with a flat roof.
Amended plans now show an internal link between the extension and the main
house.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Johnson having regard to the following planning issue:
Potential impact on adjoining property.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received from three nearby residents on grounds of possible use of
accommodation for holiday lets; impact on trees, and unsuitability of Hall Road for
any additional traffic.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
6 March 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Site is subject to an
area Tree Preservation Order. Submitted plans do not show any trees or the possible
impact the proposed extension would have on them. Suggests need for an
arboricultural impact assessment, method statement and tree protection plan.
County Council (Highways) - Existing access has severely sub-standard visibility.
Any proposal which would intensify vehicular use of the site would require
improvements to visibility.
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 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 64: Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside (specifies design criteria.
Extensions should be subordinate to original dwelling).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle and size of extension to dwelling in countryside.
2. Appearance.
3. Impact on trees.
APPRAISAL
The site is within an area of countryside but part of a small group of houses set in
woodland on the west side of Hall Road. The house, which was originally constructed
with a flat roof, was extended by the addition of a pitched roof upper floor in 1992.
Although originally submitted as a holiday unit (i.e. a separate residential
unit)/annexe, the application has been amended so as to create an internal link with
the main house and to accommodate two bedrooms, bathroom and studio. On this
basis there is no objection in principle to a modest extension, provided that any
permission is subject to a condition to ensure the accommodation is occupied solely
as ancillary accommodation to the main house.
The proposed extension is on the front of the house but set well back (30m) from Hall
Road where it would have limited impact along the road frontage. The land slopes up
steeply from Hall Road and the extension would be built into the slope in a manner
which would minimise its bulk. It is proposed to occupy the site of a proposed
extension granted in 2002 but never started. That permission was for a full two-storey
extension with pitched roof and would have had a far more dramatic impact on the
appearance of the area. In terms of Local Plan Policy 64 this more modest proposal
would be subordinate to the main dwelling. The proposed extension would have no
Development Control Committee (East)
2
6 March 2008
direct impact on the amenities of the adjacent dwellings to the south and west which
are sited approximately 40m away and the adjacent dwelling to the north is protected
by a substantial hedge and trees. However, there is potential for overlooking of the
adjoining garden from the proposed terrace on the roof of the extension and there is
therefore a need for the erection of a suitable screen fence to ensure privacy on the
side boundary. There are also civil issues which the applicant would need to address
in terms of excavation and construction close to the joint boundary.
The site is within an area where trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order
and the Landscape Officer has asked for an arboricultural impact assessment. This
has not yet been received.
Subject to the applicant demonstrating that the proposal would have no adverse
impact on nearby trees the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Granting
permission would comply with the relevant saved Local Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the applicant demonstrating that the
proposal would have no adverse impact on nearby trees.
2.
CROMER - 20080063 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of operational
deployment base; adjacent North Norfolk District Council Holt Road for Norfolk
Constabulary
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :10 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Undeveloped Coast
Corridor of Movement
Countryside
General Employment Area
Historic Parks and Gardens (Unregistered)
Class 'A' Road, within 60m
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19882205 - (N.N.D.C. General Regs - Reg.4; Outline) - New civic accommodation for
North Norfolk District Council
Approved, 15 Dec 1988
19890025 - (N.N.D.C. General Regs - Reg.4; Reserved Matters) - New civic
accommodation for North Norfolk District Council
Approved, 24 Feb 1989
19892513 - (N.N.D.C. General Regs - Reg.4; Full) - Erection of caretaker's cottage
Approved, 15 Feb 1990
THE APPLICATION
The proposal involves the demolition of the caretaker's bungalow and replacement
with a larger single-storey building to serve as a Police Operational Deployment
Base. The building is to have a mono pitch roof design with a curved bay feature
nearest to the road junction of the Council Offices with Holt Road (A148). Proposed
Development Control Committee (East)
3
6 March 2008
external materials are a mix of timber weatherboarding, render and facing brickwork.
The roof would be "green", consisting of a planted sedum matting and would
incorporate four solar panels. A total of 31 parking spaces are proposed, 6 visitor
spaces and secure car park to accommodate 25 police vehicles. The car park would
take access directly onto the Council Offices access road. An element of landscaping
is proposed at the front of the car park area and the Holt Road side of the building.
The overall site (including part of the car park but not the building) would encroach
onto farm land beyond the existing fenced boundary of the Council premises.
The building would comprise primarily of office space and changing room/staff locker
facilities. A lobby entrance area would be accessible by the public.
It is stated that the building may provide accommodation for between 35 - 40 staff on
a shift basis with approximately up to 25 staff on site at any time.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the direct
relationship with Council interests.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Copy of the submitted Design and Access Statement which explains the proposal in
detail is attached in Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Safety Manager - Recommends use of sufficient lighting to allow for
adequate surveillance of exterior areas.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Has
some concern over the "one size fits all solution" in that the design is the same as
other new police bases in Norfolk. However considers the proposed building
generally acceptable. The relatively low profile scale of the building means that it
should sit reasonably well in the landscape and in context with the adjacent Council
Offices. Conditions need to be imposed with regard to landscaping and materials.
County Council (Highways) - Raises no objection in principle but considers the
following points should be considered by the District Council when making a decision
on the proposal:1. The application would appear to result in the loss of a number of existing car
parking spaces for North Norfolk District Council offices. At certain times, the existing
car parking facilities on this site struggle to cope with demand and I would not wish
for any 'overflow' parking resulting from any loss of existing facilities, impacting on
the A148 adjacent to the site.
2. The proposed relocation of the Cromer Police Station to a site away from the town
centre could well make this facility less accessible to certain members of the
community.
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)
4
6 March 2008
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
Refer to the Community Safety Manager's comments above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 9: General Employment Areas (primarily reserved for business, industrial and
warehousing purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 25: Historic Parks and Gardens (prevents insensitive developments).
Policy 74: Non-Conforming Uses (specifies criteria for employment uses outside of
designated employment areas in terms of residential amenities, highway and
environmental impacts).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Encroachment into countryside.
3. Design and appearance.
4. Parking.
APPRAISAL
In terms of Local Plan policy half of the site is within the designated General
Employment Area (GEA) and half within the Countryside. The whole of the site is
within the Area of the Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The proposed building
and approximately half of the car park area is within the GEA. To that degree the
proposal is for a use which is compliant with Policy 9 of the Local Plan.
The rear half of the site, which encroaches upon part of the existing agricultural field
and within the Countryside policy area, includes the remainder of the facility's car
park and a grassed area to the rear of the building earmarked for possible future
expansion.
Policy 74 of the Local Plan addresses employment uses outside GEAs. In the
countryside the policy allows for minor extensions provided that it is accompanied by
a significant improvement to the appearance of the site as a whole. In this case the
site would extend into the countryside by 17m. This represents a relatively minor
encroachment in the context of the area. More importantly, because of the nature of
the local topography and hedgerows adjacent to Holt Road, the building itself is
unlikely to be significantly visible from public views. To this extent the development
would have no significant impact on the character of the countryside and this part of
the AONB.
The extended site area also encroaches into the extreme boundary of Cromer Hall
(unregistered) Historic Park and Garden. Similarly, however the proposal would not
have any significant effect upon this designation.
The building would be reasonably prominent from views travelling out of Cromer on
the Holt Road. This is understood to be deliberate in order to establish the presence
of the facility. In the context of other buildings in the area, particularly the Council
Offices, this is considered acceptable. The Committee will note the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who has no objection to the scale
and design of the building.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
6 March 2008
The proposal would result in the loss of 12 car parking spaces which serve the
Council Offices. Whilst the car park is often used to capacity it currently has in the
region of 240 parking spaces. In this context the loss of 12 spaces is relatively minor
and demand should be reduced within the next few years once the Housing Trust
has been relocated.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal complies with the objectives of
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to appropriate conditions including landscaping and
materials.
3.
CROMER - 20080077 - Erection of canopy/conservatory to garden centre and
canopy to service yard and installation of satellite dish and air conditioning
condenser; Homebase Ltd Holt Road for Homebase Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :13 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
General Employment Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061150 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of DiY store and garden centre with
access, car parking and landscaping
Approved, 16 Oct 2006
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for extensions to the rear (northern) side of the newly constructed
Homebase store, comprising a loading bay, garden centre conservatory and open
sided canopy. Materials comprise brickwork and profile sheet cladding to the loading
bay, polycarbonate sheeting to the conservatory and a white fabric covering to the
open canopy. The proposal also includes a small satellite dish on the rear northeastern corner of the building and ground level air conditioning units alongside the
conservatory.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Johnson and Cabbell Manners having regard to the
following planning issue:
Proposed extended building totally out of proportion with what was originally
visioned.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on grounds of overdevelopment.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Recommends condition regarding details of air conditioning
units.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
6 March 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 9: General Employment Areas (primarily reserved for business, industrial and
warehousing purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Design/appearance.
APPRAISAL
The original planning application for the Homebase store indicated on the layout plan
similar positioning of these extensions within the rear yard of the development, but no
details were submitted at the time. Hence this application for the detailed designs.
The site lies within the designated General Employment Area where the functional
appearance of buildings and extensions such as these are within reason to be
expected. The site is also within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB). Given the degree of development which has occurred in this part of the
town over the years, however, the proposals would have no impact on the wider
character and appearance of the AONB.
The main consideration relates to the design and appearance of the extensions. It is
considered that they would be relatively well screened from public view by the now
installed fencing and screening to this rear part of the site. This would be assisted
further when the landscaping to the Holt Road embankment becomes established.
Part of the roof structures, in particular the top half of the curved roof to the open
canopy (closest to Holt Road), would protrude marginally above the screening. There
would not appear however to be any reason to object to the proposals on
design/visual impact grounds. The extensions would not interfere with the use of the
service yard by delivery vehicles.
It is considered that the proposals comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
6 March 2008
4.
CROMER - 20080135 - Retention of sprinkler tank; Homebase Ltd Holt Road for
Hargreaves Estate and Management Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :24 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
General Employment Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061150 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of DIY store and garden centre with
access, car parking and landscaping
Approved, 16 Oct 2006
THE APPLICATION
The retention of a cylindrical galvanised metal water storage tank (9.6m high x 9.3m
diameter) located in the north-eastern corner of the near completed 'Homebase' site
on the eastern side of Holt Road.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Johnson having regard to the following planning issue:
Visual impact.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects. Do not feel it is necessary to erect such a tall structure. Would like thought
to be given to other ways of dealing with the problem.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters received from residents of the Cromer Hall Estate objecting on grounds of
the size and appearance of the tank, its impact upon views into Cromer and from the
Cromer Hall Estate.
On request the agent has been requested to explain why other alternatives to supply
water to the system have not been considered. In response it is explained that there
has to be an on-site supply as a mains water supply cannot be guaranteed. Whereas
it would be theoretically possible to pipe the supply from an underground tank or one
concealed in a building, in this case these alternatives are either not practical or
prohibitive on cost. The possibility of having two smaller tanks has been considered,
however this option was rejected for three reasons:1) Two tanks would impose restrictions on vehicle manoeuvring.
2) Two tanks would in their view be more visually intrusive as they would still need to
be of a significant size.
3) There would be a requirement for a considerable amount of pipework which would
be technically difficult and prohibitive in cost.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Observes that the tank, when viewed approaching Cromer on the A149, appears
above the roofline of the main store and is very obtrusive in the landscape due to its
bulk and size. Furthermore, the tank sits awkwardly against the tree lined boundary
with Cromer Hall.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
6 March 2008
Due to the negative impact of this tank on the panoramic view of Cromer at this key
view at the brow of the hill and its prominence in the wider landscape setting, refusal
is recommended.
Environmental Health - Requires details of any plant and/or pumping device
associated with the tank (including noise levels) to be subject of a condition if
permission is granted.
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 9: General Employment Areas (primarily reserved for business, industrial and
warehousing purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Visual impact.
APPRAISAL
The tank is to be used to supply water to the fire sprinkler system installed in the new
Homebase store. The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the size of
the tank is the minimum necessary to provide adequate water supply to the sprinkler
system as recommended by the Fire Officer, and that a single tank has been chosen
in preference to two smaller tanks, because it allows for more efficient turning
movements by HGVs within the service yard.
The provision of adequate fire safety measures for a development of this type is an
obvious necessity and a statutory requirement under the Building Regulations.
Although set to a rear corner of the site, the tank is particularly prominent when
viewed from the approach into Cromer on the Holt Road. The structure projects
above the roof of the new store building adjacent to the point where it adjoins a
neighbouring woodland. The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager.
This site and adjacent land on both sides of Holt Road have had a longstanding
designation (both in the Local Plan and preceding planning proposals maps) as a
General Employment Area. Such a designation accepts to a degree the functionality
in terms of the appearance of new buildings within the area. This tank has an
industrial appearance, which contrasts with the large but clean lines of the new
building. The tank's new reflective finish may dull in time, but the overall visual impact
is of a structure which is over-prominent and incongruous within its surroundings.
Applying a paint finish to the tank would not overcome this concern.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
6 March 2008
The tank is visible through trees from a small part of the adjoining Cromer Hall
Estate, which is an unregistered historic park and garden and part of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Overall, however, it is not considered that the
tank has any significant impact upon the character and appearance of the historic
park and garden, but does have a negative impact upon the adjacent woodland
which forms part of the AONB.
In conclusion, whilst fire safety measures should be taken into account in considering
this application, it would appear this single tank has been chosen for reasons of
practicality and cost alone. These are not reasons which should outweigh
considerations of the tank's appearance. For the reasons referred to above, the
visual impact of the tank is considered unacceptable and refusal is recommended.
If the Committee endorses the recommendation below it is also recommended that
enforcement action be taken to remove the unauthorised tank from the site, with two
months for compliance.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse on grounds that the appearance of the tank is detrimental to the visual
amenities of the area in this part of the AONB.
5.
CROMER - 20080117 - Erection of fourteen dwellings; land at Burnt Hills for A
G Brown Builders Ltd
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :23 Apr 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
THE APPLICATION
To construct an estate road and fourteen dwellings on an area of paddock between
Burnt Hills and Roughton Road. Details of access and layout are included for
consideration at this stage. Indicative details are supplied of the scale of the
proposed dwellings and show four bungalows, a pair of semi-detached chalet
bungalows, two pairs of semi-detached cottages and four houses, with the houses
along the western side of the site and the bungalows towards the eastern (Burnt
Hills) side of the site.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the number and
nature of local objections.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection in principle to number of dwellings proposed. However, concerned
about close proximity to existing buildings and to mature trees, and about loss of light
to existing properties. This area consists of bungalows only, could present proposal
be re-designed for bungalows only.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
6 March 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received from 13 local residents expressing concern about:1. Juxtaposition of two-storey properties with existing bungalows.
2. The number of dwellings.
3. The additional traffic.
4. The type and size of housing.
5. The impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, on wildlife and on trees on
the adjoining site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Requires further details of road widths and proposed
surface water drainage.
Community Safety Manager - Makes detailed suggestions about design measures to
minimise crime.
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
Refer to the Community Safety Manager's comments above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Density of development.
2. Type of housing proposed.
3. Highway safety.
4. Crime prevention.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the defined settlement boundary for Cromer and within a defined
residential area. It also lies within the historic boundary of the designated Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This said, the whole of the Burnt Hills estate
lies within the AONB and as such this infill development would not affect the
appearance and character of the AONB. Residential development of the site would
therefore be acceptable in principle. The application proposes 14 dwellings on 0.47
ha - a density of just below the Government's recommended minimum density of 30
dwellings per hectare. This density is considered to be an acceptable compromise
between the need to make optimal use of land and the need to safeguard the low
density suburban character of the area.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
6 March 2008
The application indicates a mix of house types, with bungalows on the eastern part of
the site where the existing estate is comprised of bungalows in very small plots. The
western part of the site adjoins dwellings which are set in larger plots and the
proposal includes two-storey cottages and houses here where the greater degree of
separation reduces any potential problems of overlooking. Although the surrounding
area includes almost exclusively single-storey properties, the inclusion of two-storey
dwellings in the proposed layout is necessary to achieve a mix of house types and to
provide a density which makes efficient use of the land. Minor amendments to the
layout are being discussed with the agents in order to reduce further the impact on
existing properties, and to clarify the relationship with the trees in an adjoining
garden.
The site has a frontage of 35m to the existing estate road, sufficient to form a
properly designed estate road junction and with appropriate visibility splays. The
County Council is seeking minor modifications to the estate road design details, and
requires details of surface water drainage from the road. Subject to these points
being satisfactorily addressed there is no objection on highway grounds.
Granting planning permission in this case would comply with the relevant policies of
the Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to minor alterations to the layout and to
the receipt of the highway details as requested.
6.
ERPINGHAM - 20080122 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at Rosebank
Eagle Road for Mr and Mrs P Clarke
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :19 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a single-storey dwelling to the rear of a bungalow, 'Rosebank'. Access to
the property (the only detail applied for at this stage) is indicated to the north of the
existing property via a private drive.
An amended plan has been received revising the dimensions of the driveway.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the nature of the
objections received.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received on the following grounds:1. Access by emergency vehicles.
2. Increased traffic and proximity to the access gate to neighbouring property.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
6 March 2008
3. Drainage.
4. Alternative access would be possible.
5. Not in keeping with adjoining development on John Franklin Way.
6. Height.
7. Noise pollution.
8. Overdevelopment.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Due to the length of the access drive from Eagle Road, a
turning area will be required in order to achieve fire vehicle access to all points of the
proposed dwelling.
There may also be difficulties with the sharp corners of the driveway proposed
around Rosebank, and the access may be better placed to the front of the existing
property rather than to the rear as shown.
Amended plan indicates satisfactory access/turning for emergency access.
County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to standard conditions, including
surfacing of the access; on-site turning and drainage.
Environmental Health - No objections subject to standard condition.
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) (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 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Siting and scale.
3. Access.
APPRAISAL
The application site forms part of the rear garden area of a residential property
known as 'Rosebank'. The property lies within the settlement boundary of Erpingham,
identified as a Selected Small Village in the North Norfolk Local Plan. In such
locations the principle of small scale development is acceptable subject to proposals
enhancing the character of the village and complying with more detailed assessment
criteria set out elsewhere in the Development Plan.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
6 March 2008
The proposed dwelling would be single-storey and therefore comparable in scale to
'Rosebank'. This part of Erpingham is characterised by a mix of property types and a
bungalow would not appear out of character in this context. The eastern boundary of
the proposed plot abuts John Franklin Way, a modern cul-de-sac development. The
indicative siting of the bungalow relates to the established line of properties at the
northern end of John Franklin Way and as such, despite the backland location, it
would not appear out of character with surrounding development.
The proposed site is rectangular in shape and given its size (14m x 35m) would be
capable of accommodating an appropriately-sized property. The shape of the site
would allow for the primary windows to be south facing. A minimum garden length of
10m could be provided and given the single-storey form of the proposal, adequate
privacy levels could be maintained.
The alignment of the proposed driveway serving the development as proposed would
run directly adjacent to the front boundary of 'Springbank'. In this location there would
be a risk that the comings and goings associated with the proposed dwelling would
impact on the amenities of this property. The garden area to the north of the existing
bungalow is in excess of 12m wide and therefore offers the opportunity for the
proposed driveway to be moved away from the boundary with the neighbour and for
landscaping to be provided. An amended plan indicating a revised access
arrangement is awaited.
There are no highway safety issues associated with the proposal.
On the basis of the above it is considered the proposal complies with the relevant
policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to the receipt of a satisfactory amended plan
indicating the revised access arrangement and the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
7.
HANWORTH - 20071454 - Change of use of barns to provide caravan storage;
Glebe Farm White Post Road for Mr M Attew
Target Date :14 Nov 2007
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20060084 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of land from agricultural to
caravan storage and wash down area
Refused, 09 Mar 2006
20061246 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of land and barns to caravan
storage
Withdrawn, 06 Jul 2007
Development Control Committee (East)
14
6 March 2008
THE APPLICATION
As originally submitted this application was for the change of use of two agricultural
buildings and an adjoining area of open land for the storage of touring caravans. The
accompanying Design and Access Statement stated that there would be a maximum
of 170 caravans stored, two thirds of which would be stored in the buildings.
An amended plan has now been submitted which deletes reference to any outside
storage and proposes covered storage in four agricultural buildings. The plan also
makes reference to improvements to the site access at its junction with White Post
Road.
The application is submitted initially on the basis of a three-year temporary
permission.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
In view of previous similar proposals considered by Committee and at the request of
Councillor Wilcox having regard to the following planning issue:
Public impact of the development.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objected to the originally submitted plans on traffic, landscape and character
grounds.
In response to the amended proposals, still objects and considers that the following
information is required to enable the Parish Council to make their observations:1. A revised Design and Access Statement is required as the original one is now no
longer relevant.
2. The number of caravans now proposed to be stored in the existing buildings.
3. Proposals for landscaping and details of the proposed alterations to the access in
the Conservation Area.
4. Clarity as to whether any alterations to the existing buildings are proposed.
Comments that the application is a major development in Hanworth and the Parish
Council is aware of considerable concerns that the earlier applications have raised.
REPRESENTATIONS
13 letters of objection have been received plus a letter said to be from 76 residents of
Hanworth Parish.
103 letters of support have been received, the majority of which are of an identical
format. 18 of these letters from North Norfolk addresses, 32 are from elsewhere in
Norfolk and 53 are from outside the County.
The applicant has submitted a draft Section 106 Agreement which would limit users
of the caravan storage facility to caravan owners who use the nearby caravan site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Raises no objection subject to a suitable legal
agreement which will limit caravans being stored to users of the applicant's nearby
caravan site, and subject to agreed details of improvements to the existing site
access.
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)
15
6 March 2008
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 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appropriateness of use of buildings.
2. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this site and similar previous planning
applications, one of which was refused in 2006 on grounds relating to visual impact
and highway safety and the other of which was eventually withdrawn following a
Committee site visit last year.
Caravan storage currently takes place on the site (without the benefit of planning
permission) within certain of the buildings and the internal farmyard.
The application as now amended is solely for the storage of caravans within existing
buildings. Thus previous concerns with regard to the external storage of caravans
having a detrimental impact upon the surrounding landscape no longer apply. In
terms of the Local Plan, Policy 29 allows for the re-use and adaptation of buildings in
the countryside subject to a number of criteria, including that the buildings are
suitable for the proposed use without any significant alteration or reconstruction, and
that there are no adverse highway safety implications.
The buildings concerned are of rudimentary agricultural construction combining
external materials of blockwork, metal cladding and timber. They nevertheless
appear to be structurally sound and there is no indication that they would require any
substantial external alterations for the nature of the storage use proposed. In this
respect it is considered that the proposal would comply with Local Plan policy.
The main issue relating to this proposal relates to the highway safety implications of
caravans being delivered to and from the site. The Highway Authority has always
maintained concerns with regard to, not only the storage facility, but also the
applicant's now established 'Deers Glade' caravan site off White Post Road,
particularly with regard to the junction of White Post Road and the A140.
Nevertheless the Highway Authority has indicated that if suitable controls were put in
place to ensure that the caravans stored at the facility were ones primarily using the
Deers Glade caravan site, then it would no longer object to the proposal.
Development Control Committee (East)
16
6 March 2008
To this effect the applicant has submitted a draft Section 106 Agreement. This
Agreement specifies that a Deers Glade Storage Club would be established and only
members of that club would be permitted to use the storage facility. A condition of the
club membership would be that a caravan owner had stayed at the caravan site for a
minimum of 14 days in the same or preceding calendar year. A clause in the
Agreement would be that the applicant maintains a record of the club membership to
include the members' names, addresses, frequency of visits, details of length of stay,
and that this information would be available to the Local Planning Authority on
request. The Agreement also specifies that no caravans would be stored on the site
outside the existing buildings.
Subject to formal confirmation by the Highway Authority that it is satisfied with the
wording of the Section 106 Agreement it is considered that this proposal, as now
amended, raises no significant planning objections. The fact that the application is
submitted on the basis of a three-year temporary permission would allow the Local
Planning Authority and the Highway Authority to monitor the use and activity of the
storage facility and review the situation in the event of permanent planning
permission being applied for on the expiry of a temporary permission.
With regard to the points raised by the Parish Council, these details are being
provided by the agent with the intention that the Parish Council will be able to make
further comments prior to the Committee meeting.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposal as now submitted complies with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval for a temporary three-year permission, subject to approval
by the Highway Authority of the terms of the Section 106 Agreement,
completion of that Agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
HORNING - 20071734 - Erection of fifteen two-storey houses/flats and two
bungalows; Petersfield House Hotel 101 Lower Street for Cripps Development
Limited
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :05 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20051116 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of hotel and re-development
for housing
Approved, 17 Feb 2006
20060715 - (Full Planning Permission) - Removal of condition 10 of planning
permission reference 20051116 (off-site footpath)
Approved, 03 Jul 2006
Development Control Committee (East)
17
6 March 2008
THE APPLICATION
The redevelopment of the site previously occupied by the Petersfield Hotel with the
construction of seventeen dwelling units including four affordable flats. All dwellings
would have their own private gardens, except for the flats which would have shared
amenity space and parking.
An accompanying Arboricultural Report addresses issues with regard to the impact of
the development on the trees that are within the site and which are subject to a
Preservation Order. A Design and Access Statement details the design concept and
the considerations that have been given to the appearance and layout of the scheme.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee for a site
visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Raises concerns in respect of drainage, vehicular parking, access and apparent lack
of sustainable homes.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters received raising the following issues:1. The design of the block of flats.
2. Impact on the existing trees.
3. Parking provision.
4. Affordable housing provision.
Following confirmation from the applicant that drainage from the site will be via a new
connection to the public mains, one of the previous letters of objection has been
withdrawn. A further letter from a neighbouring resident has sought assurances
regarding the retention of trees that currently provide an effective screen to the
proposed dwellings.
CONSULTATIONS
Broads Authority - No objections.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Requires amendments
to safeguard trees and provide adequate distance between trees and the proposed
dwellings.
County Council (Highways) - Requests amended plans to indicate visibility splay, a
footpath, revision to the access and provision of an adoptable road. Also,
appropriately designed turning heads need to be shown together with two parking
spaces for each of the eight flats.
Environmental Health - Recommends a condition requiring details of refuse storage
areas.
Planning Obligations Co-ordinator - Awaiting comments.
Strategic Housing - Confirms that on the basis of the viability of a scheme for 17
dwellings the development can support on-site affordable housing provision
comprising 3 x two-bed flats for rent and a two-bed flat for shared ownership. These
properties can be provided by a Registered Social Landlord without the need for any
public subsidy. Advises that a draft Section 106 Agreement has been received
regarding the affordable housing provision.
Development Control Committee (East)
18
6 March 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) (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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and layout of the proposed dwellings.
2. Relationship with existing development.
3. Impact on existing trees.
4. Access and highway requirements.
5. Amount of affordable housing.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site visit.
Although the proposal has been submitted as a full application the principle of
residential on the site has been accepted by the granting of outline permission for
residential development in 2006.
The site comprises the grounds of the former Petersfield Hotel, which has been
demolished and cleared from the site. The site has an area of 0.82ha and is situated
on the northern side of Lower Street. It lies within the settlement boundary of the
village and forms part of an established residential area. The character of the
immediate area is one of detached dwellings in relatively large plots, although to the
north of the site more recent estate-style dwellings exist. To the south, on the
opposite side of Lower Street, other dwellings and boat moorings with access to the
river and the Broads exist. The area is thus varied in character.
In terms of Local Plan policy the site lies within the defined settlement boundary of
Horning where Policy 4 allows for small groups of dwellings which would enhance the
character of the village. A small group is defined as being up to four dwellings. Policy
58 requires that residential development for more than four dwellings may be
permitted provided the excess dwellings are for affordable housing. Current
Development Control Committee (East)
19
6 March 2008
Government guidance contained within PPS3 requires Local Authorities to ensure
that best use is made of development land, but any scheme is nevertheless required
to respect the form and character of the area as well as provide an agreed level of
affordable housing.
Although the density (22 dwellings per hectare) of the proposed scheme is lower than
the PPS3 requirement of 30 dwellings per hectare the character of the locality and
the landscaped setting of the site make the proposed lower density form of
development more appropriate. This character assessment approach is supported by
the latest Government guidance.
The outline permission was conditioned on the need for a scheme for affordable
housing to be submitted and agreed. It is acknowledged that affordable housing
needs to be provided but also that the development also needs to be viable. The
applicant, on request, has provided a detailed viability assessment in accordance
with an open accounting approach that is required in situations such as this, and the
Council's Housing Enabling Officer is satisfied that the financial details provided
justify the provision of four affordable units as proposed and is appropriate in the
circumstances of this development. This assessment has taken into account financial
factors, including providing appropriate profit margins and the viability of the site.
Details of the financial assessment are attached in Appendix 5 (confidential).
The application site is on elevated land, sloping up from Lower Street and is bounded
by many mature trees which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The Design
Statement explains that the concept is to maintain a landscaped setting for the
development and therefore the majority of these trees are being retained to maintain
the character of the area and for the benefit of the development itself. The
Arboricultural Report has been assessed by the Countryside Officer and has required
the layout to be revised to safeguard some of the trees and create appropriate
distances between the trees and dwellings to provide suitable amenities that will
accrue to the residents. A scheme indicating replacement planting of trees that are to
be felled will be submitted to include specimens more appropriate to the area and
setting.
Amended plans have also been submitted that indicates a Type 6 adoptable roadway
to replace the Type 3 previously indicated. This shared access road is considered a
more appropriate design that takes into account the sensitivity of the site and an
arrangement that now meets the requirements of the Highway Authority in terms of
adoption. The layout has also been revised to provide three additional parking
spaces in relation to the proposed apartments thereby providing fifteen spaces for
the eight flats; a shortfall of one but given the nature of the accommodation is
considered acceptable.
At the last meeting Members asked that consideration be given for some play area
provision on the site. For developments of fifteen or more dwellings the Local Plan
would normally require the provision of a Local Area of Play (LAP). A LAP is a small
area of play equipment intended for use by young children.
The applicants are however reluctant to provide this facility as they cite examples
where such areas create a serious liability, and rather than being welcomed by
residents are seen as a negative feature. The applicants suggest that the communal
areas to the flats and the sizeable gardens of the dwellings are more likely to be
favoured by residents rather than a small area of play separated from the dwellings.
An alternative approach could be the payment of a commuted sum towards the
provision of play areas on the larger recreation ground in the village and this matter is
under discussion. Members will be updated at the meeting.
Development Control Committee (East)
20
6 March 2008
The developer has confirmed that drainage from the site would be wholly to a new
sewer in Lower Street.
In conclusion, the proposed scheme creates a form of development that is in keeping
with the form and character of the area and would provide an acceptable amount of
affordable housing.
Subject to the receipt of a suitably amended plan to overcome concerns with regard
to the relationship of dwellings to trees it is considered that the proposal accords with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval, subject to satisfactory resolution of the play area issue,
the receipt of suitably amended plans, the applicant entering into a Section 106
Agreement to ensure the provision of affordable housing and the imposition of
conditions to include those required by the Highway Authority, material details,
tree protection and refuse storage.
9.
LUDHAM - 20071989 - Erection of part two-storey, part single-storey rear
extension; High Mill Hill Cott High Mill Hill Yarmouth Road for Mr M Murr
Target Date :18 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19771704 - Proposed erection of two bedroom and kitchen extension
Approved, 09 Dec 1977
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a two-storey rear extension to provide a kitchen, lounge and study on
the ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom above. A large, flat-roof, sun
lounge extension would be demolished to make way for the extension.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilkins having regard to the following planning issue:
Scale of the extension in the Countryside policy area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
21
6 March 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 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 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 64: Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside (specifies design criteria.
Extensions should be subordinate to original dwelling).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Scale of the extension.
APPRAISAL
High Mill Hill Cottage is a detached dwelling located within the Countryside policy
area, where in principle extensions to dwellings are acceptable provided they are
appropriate in terms of size in relation to the dwelling and its setting.
High Mill Cottage is sited at right angles close to the road in a spacious garden. The
property is well screened from the road by trees along the boundary. As a
consequence of its siting there is little space to extend at the front and sides of the
cottage, and together with the physical constraints of the building itself, a rear
extension represents a practical solution. Restricting the extension to one side of the
cottage has the added benefit of preserving the character of the original cottage and
lessening its impact from the limited public views.
The extension is relatively large, amounting to an increase of 160% in floorspace,
although it is only from the south (non-public view) that the full scale of the extension
would be readily apparent. Consequently, it is considered that it would be difficult to
substantiate a refusal on the basis of adverse impact on the amenity and character of
the countryside.
Accordingly, it is considered that although the proposal does not fully comply with all
criteria of the Development Plan policy it is reasonable in this case to grant planning
permission.
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
22
6 March 2008
10.
MUNDESLEY - 20070290 - Demolition of public conveniences and erection of
five flats; Marina Road Public Conveniences Beach Road for North Norfolk
District Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :16 Apr 2007
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Coastal Erosion Risk
Residential
THE APPLICATION
To demolish single-storey toilets and construct a three-storey block of five flats. The
site occupies land on the corner of Beach Road and Marina Road. Access from
Marina Road into a car parking area with five parking spaces. The proposed building
would be constructed of red brick walls and rendered panels with a roof of smut clay
pantiles.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objections, but have the following concerns:Design too overpowering and not in keeping with the area, only five parking spaces
and no long term policy in this area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters received, four objecting on grounds of loss of the toilets and two on
grounds of access, with one reference to the proposal being an overdevelopment of
the site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - The dedicated on-site parking provision of five spaces
does not, strictly speaking comply with the requirements of your Authority's adopted
car parking standards (even assuming that four of the flats are one bedroomed and
therefore only require one space) and the proposal is potentially likely to rely on a
degree of on-street parking.
At this location and with consideration of the occasional parking occurring as a result
of the previous use of the site I do not consider this to be a highway safety concern
and I therefore have no reason to object to the application. Recommends standard
highway conditions on any permission.
Head of Coastal Strategy - Express the view that the site will be lost to coastal
erosion within the lifetime of the development and therefore should be refused (see
full comments in Appendix 2).
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
23
6 March 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 3: Large 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 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
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 HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to
increase coastal erosion).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Design and density of new building.
3. Highway safety/parking.
4. Coastal erosion.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the meeting on 15 November 2007 for further
consideration regarding the issue of coastal erosion.
The site is within the residential area defined in the adopted Local Plan and the
principle of redevelopment for residential purposes is therefore acceptable. The loss
of the existing toilets is not considered to be a material planning consideration. In any
event, it is expected to be a short term issue only until a replacement is constructed
on the nearby car park 50m to the west of the current site. There are other toilet
facilities available in the village off the High Street.
The scale of the proposed building is comparable with the three-storey building to the
east on Beach Road and on the Marina Road frontage, where the site adjoins twostorey dwellings. The building would step down to two-storey height over an archway
access to the rear car park. The detailed design and materials are considered to be
acceptable, reflecting many of the detailed design features characteristic of the
Edwardian buildings found in the village such as exposed timber in the gables,
balconies, projecting bays and a mixture of brick and render in the walls.
Parking is provided in a rear parking court for five cars. This one-for-one provision is
acceptable for the one bedroom units but the Council's standards would normally
require a minimum of two spaces for the larger three bedroom unit. The minor
Development Control Committee (East)
24
6 March 2008
shortfall is not considered to give rise to any highway safety issues here, where onstreet parking is available and where there is a public car park within 50m of the site;
the Committee will note that the Highway Authority does not raise an objection on
this issue.
The site lies outside the coastal erosion zone indicated in the Local Plan which was
based on a 60-year prediction (base date 1993). However, it does lie within the 100year erosion line identified in the Kelling to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan
(SMP). Policy EN11 of the Core Strategy (Submission Document) is worded similarly
to Local Plan Policy 48 and specifically relates to the 100 year erosion line.
The Committee will note above and be aware from previous discussions on this
proposal of the concerns raised by the Council's Head of Costal Strategy, on the
basis that the site would be threatened by coastal erosion within a period of 100
years. He has since provided further advice on the probable life of the site. The
anticipated loss of the seaward edge of the site is 80 years and of the whole site 77
years. Unless alternative drainage measures are provided these could be lost in 50
years and the access in 60 years.
Advice has however now been provided by the Legal Services Manager on whether
the Local Plan or the SMP should be used in the determination of this application.
This is as follows:"The Local Plan is currently the adopted development document and the Council has
set out its policy at Policy 50, giving a 60-year notional line with a caveat that
development will not normally be permitted if the development would be likely to lead
to an increase in the number of people at risk or a significant increase of risk to
property.
The LDF is not adopted by the Council for development control purposes at the
current time. The SMP forms part of the suite of documents that comprise the LDF
and contains a notional 100-year line. The SMP is not yet adopted by the Council.
PPG25 refers to the importance of the "integration" of the SMP and other associated
flood risk documents into the LDF presumably in order to deliver a holistic framework
for development.
I am concerned that the Local Planning Authority should not "pick and choose"
elements of the LDF that it finds attractive and try to apply them prematurely, in
particular the SMP. This in my view would render a decision potentially unlawful and
definitely subject to an appeal. Premature adoption of the LDF policies will leave the
Council in an unfortunate "no man's land" when trying to evaluate the development.
The Local Plan is the current adopted planning framework and until the LDF is
adopted will remain so. Consequently my view is that the Council needs to give a
high degree of significance to the policy contained in the Local Plan and significantly
less (if any) to the unadopted LDF/SMP."
In the light of this advice and the fact that the site is beyond risk of erosion within the
60-year period indicated in the Local Plan and current calculations by the Head of
Coastal Strategy, it is not considered appropriate to refuse permission on coastal
erosion grounds.
The proposal would comply with adopted Development Plan policy.
Development Control Committee (East)
25
6 March 2008
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council
residential access construction specification for the first 5m into the site as measured
back from the near edge of the adjacent carriageway.
3) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a 2.5m wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent
highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site's roadside
frontage with both Marina Road and Beach Road. The parallel visibility splay shall
thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 1.05 m above the level
of the adjacent highway carriageway.
4) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed onsite parking and turning area shall be laid out, levelled and surfaced and drained in
accordance with the approved plan. It shall be retained thereafter for those specific
uses.
5) Prior to the commencement of development full details of the provision for refuse
storage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The
facilities as approved shall be installed prior to occupation of any of the flats and shall
thereafter be so retained.
6) No development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be
used in the construction of the external walls and roof of the building have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
REASONS:2) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy 147 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety.
5) To protect nearby residents from smell and airborne pollution in accordance with
Policy 16 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan as amplified by paragraphs 5.215.26 of the explanatory text.
6) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings,
in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
11.
MUNDESLEY - 20071338 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and stables and
erection of eight two-storey dwellings; 17 Marina Road for Mrs P Smith
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :23 Oct 2007
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Coastal Erosion Risk
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19770436 - Residential bungalow
Refused, 12 Jul 1977
Development Control Committee (East)
26
6 March 2008
19790050 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two dwellings Approved, 06
Aug 1979
19860561 - Demolition of existing stables and hay store and erection of new
Approved, 13 Jun 1986
THE APPLICATION
For the erection of eight two-storey dwellings in the form of a terrace and two pairs of
semi-detached properties, with means of access and siting included for determination
at this stage.
Indicative plans illustrate two-storey dwellings with linked by boundary walls and
garaging.
Amended plans have been submitted revising the access and visibility splay.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection as the larger entrance and exit splay should allow easy access and
better visibility.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters have been received from local residents objecting on the following
grounds:1. The access to Marina Road should be closed.
2. The development would dominate the skyline.
3. Overlooking.
4. Dangerous access.
5. Inadequate garden depth.
6. Overdevelopment.
7. Disturbance from vehicles day and night.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to access, parking, surface water
drainage and visibility splay conditions.
Head of Coastal Strategy - This site falls outside the 60 year erosion line as shown in
the 1998 Local Plan. The frontage is presently defended with a concrete wall, which
is over 120 years old with a life expectancy of between 3 and 20 years.
The Kelling to Cromer Shoreline Management Plan indicates that in the short term
(20 years) the policy is "to hold the line, where this can be economically justified."
The long term (100 years) aspiration for this length of coast is for managed
realignment. However the Council's view is that such a policy should not be
implemented without mitigating measures, in the absence of those measures the
stated policy is to 'hold the line'. The Council recognises that it is unlikely that it would
be able to secure funds to maintain the defences into the long term or those suitable
mitigating measures would be put in place to enable the realignment policy.
This site falls within the 100 year predicted erosion zone so in the long term the site
is at a real risk from erosion. Adopting a precautionary principle it can therefore be
expected that the site will be at risk from erosion well within the period 50 to 100
years and that the access may be lost sooner.
Therefore, the application should be refused on the grounds that the site will be lost
to erosion within the expected life of the development.
Development Control Committee (East)
27
6 March 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):
Policy 3: Large 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 48: Coastal Erosion Risk Areas (development which would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property, not permitted).
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 HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to
increase coastal erosion).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Siting and impact on Conservation Area.
3. Coastal erosion.
4. Access safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the meeting on 15 November 2007 for further
consideration regarding the issue of coastal erosion.
The application site currently comprises a bungalow and stable block, which would
be demolished to make way for the new houses. The site is within the development
boundary for Mundesley where in principle new residential development is
acceptable.
Development Control Committee (East)
28
6 March 2008
The proposed dwellings, comprising two pairs of semi-detached cottages and a
terrace of four dwellings, would be laid out in a row along the south-eastern edge of
the site overlooking the area of the village known as The Dell, which includes the
River Mun and the Mill Pond. There is a mixture of residential housing styles in the
area, but characteristically development is of a higher density where traditional brick
and flint vernacular cottages prevail.
The proposal would result in a housing density of 32 dwellings per hectare, which
represents an efficient use of land, compliant with the guidance in PPS3 (Housing).
Some rear garden areas would have less than the Design Guide minimum depth.
Whilst the site lies close to the boundary with the Mundesley Conservation Area and
is prominently visible from it, it is considered that the proposal, subject to the final
approval of the detailed designs, would enhance the setting of the Conservation
Area.
The existing site entrance provides the only feasible access to the site and this would
be altered to provide improved visibility splays. The amended plans include further
changes to the visibility splays and a turning head within the site. The Highway
Authority now raises no objection to the application subject to certain conditions.
The site lies outside the coastal erosion zone indicated in the Local Plan which was
based on a 60-year prediction (base date 1993). However, it does lie is within the
100-year erosion line identified in the Kelling to Lowestoft Shoreline Management
Plan (SMP). Policy EN11 of the Core Strategy (Submission Document) is worded
similarly to Local Plan Policy 48 and specifically relates to the 100-year erosion line.
The Committee will note above and be aware from previous discussions on this
proposal, of the concerns raised by the Council's Head of Coastal Strategy, on the
basis that the site would be threatened by coastal erosion within a period of 100
years. He has since provided further advice on the probable life of the site. The
anticipated loss of the seaward edge of the site is 70 years and the whole site 97
years. Unless alternative drainage measures are provided these could be lost in 50
years and the access in 60 years.
Advice has, however, now been provided by the Legal Services Manager on whether
the Local Plan or the SMP should be used in the determination of this application.
This is as follows:"The Local Plan is currently the adopted development document and the Council has
set out its policy at Policy 50, giving a 60-year notional line with a caveat that
development will not normally be permitted if the development would be likely to lead
to an increase in the number of people at risk or a significant increase of risk to
property.
The LDF is not adopted by the Council for development control purposes at the
current time. The SMP forms part of the suite of documents that comprise the LDF
and contains a notional 100-year line. The SMP is jot yet adopted by the Council.
PPG25 refers to the importance of the "integration" of the SMP and other associated
flood risk documents into the LDF presumably in order to deliver a holistic framework
for development.
I am concerned that the Local Planning Authority should not "pick and choose"
elements of the LDF that it finds attractive and try to apply them prematurely, in
particular the SMP. This in my view would render a decision potentially unlawful and
definitely subject to an appeal. Premature adoption of the LDF policies will leave the
Development Control Committee (East)
29
6 March 2008
Council in an unfortunate "no man's land" when trying to evaluate the development.
The Local Plan is the current adopted planning framework and until the LDF is
adopted will remain so. Consequently my view is that the Council needs to give a
high degree of significance to the policy contained in the Local Plan and significantly
less (if any) to the unadopted LDF/SMP."
In the light of this advice and the fact that the site is beyond risk of erosion within the
60-year period indicated in the Local Plan and current calculations provided by the
Head of Coastal Strategy, it is not considered appropriate to refuse permission on
coastal erosion grounds.
The proposal would comply with adopted Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
12.
MUNDESLEY - 20071869 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage; 40
Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs F V Cousins
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :24 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
THE APPLICATION
Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage. Proposal is in outline form, but with all
matters other than landscaping included for consideration. The submitted details
show a flint-faced house with pantile roof orientated to face the main road.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control because of the status of the
policies applying to coastal erosion.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, as plenty of room on site. Trust the site will be lowered to original
ground level to accommodate new dwelling and entrance.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter from neighbour to north concerned about height of proposed building and its
relationship to existing houses and property boundaries, with regard to
overlooking/dominating existing houses.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Has some reservations about further points of access
on this poorly aligned section of Cromer Road, but as acceptable visibility splays can
be provided, no objections subject to standard conditions.
Head of Coastal Strategy - Site is within the 50-100 year erosion zone shown in the
SMP and is therefore at risk of erosion. Recommends that if despite this permission
is to be granted it should be time limited with a demolition and after use requirement,
and with controls on hard surfacing and discharge of surface water.
Development Control Committee (East)
30
6 March 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 3: Large 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 48: Coastal Erosion Risk Areas (development which would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property, not permitted).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Coastal erosion.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the defined settlement boundary so that residential development
would normally be acceptable in principle. The site is of adequate size to contain a
dwelling and comply with the basic amenity criteria in the Design Guide. The
proposed design reflects the general character of houses in the vicinity and is
considered to be acceptable.
Access has been designed to comply with the County Council's requirements.
The site lies outside the coastal erosion zone indicated in the Local Plan which was
based on a 60-year prediction (base date 1993). However, it does lie within the 100year erosion line identified in the Kelling to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan
(SMP). Policy EN11 of the Core Strategy (Submission Document) is worded similarly
to Local Plan Policy 48 and specifically relates to the 100 year erosion line.
The Committee will note above and be aware from previous discussions regarding
other similar developments nearby, of the concerns raised by the Council's Head of
Costal Strategy, on grounds that the site is threatened by coastal erosion within a
period of 100 years. He has since provided further advice on the probable life of the
site. The anticipated loss of the seaward edge of the site is 80 years and the whole
site 90 years. Unless alternative measures are provided mains services and access
could be lost in 90 years.
Advice has, however, now been provided by the Legal Services Manager on whether
the Local Plan or the SMP should be used in the determination of this application.
This is as follows:"The Local Plan is currently the adopted development document and the Council has
set out its policy at Policy 50, giving a 60-year notional line with a caveat that
development will not normally be permitted if the development would be likely to lead
to an increase in the number of people at risk or a significant increase of risk to
property.
Development Control Committee (East)
31
6 March 2008
The LDF is not adopted by the Council for development control purposes at the
current time. The SMP forms part of the suite of documents that comprise the LDF
and contains a notional 100-year line. The SMP is not yet adopted by the Council.
PPG25 refers to the importance of the "integration" of the SMP and other associated
flood risk documents into the LDF presumably in order to deliver a holistic framework
for development.
I am concerned that the Local Planning Authority should not "pick and choose"
elements of the LDF that it finds attractive and try to apply them prematurely, in
particular the SMP. This in my view would render a decision potentially unlawful and
definitely subject to an appeal. Premature adoption of the LDF policies will leave the
Council in an unfortunate "no man's land" when trying to evaluate the development.
The Local Plan is the current adopted planning framework and until the LDF is
adopted will remain so. Consequently my view is that the Council needs to give a
high degree of significance to the policy contained in the Local Plan and significantly
less (if any) to the unadopted LDF/SMP."
In the light of this advice and the fact that the site is beyond risk of erosion within the
60-year period indicated in the Local Plan and current calculations provided by the
Head of Coastal Plan and current calculations provided by the Head of Coastal
Strategy, it is not considered appropriate to refuse permission on coast erosion
grounds.
On this basis, granting planning permission would accord with the provisions of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to appropriate conditions.
13.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071764 - Erection of seventeen flats and one singlestorey dwelling; 48-50 Bacton Road for P and N Developments Limited
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :11 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20060870 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of two dwellings and outbuildings
and erection of one single-storey dwelling and twelve flats
Approved, 31 Jul 2006
THE APPLICATION
The erection of seventeen flats (originally submitted for eighteen) in two detached
blocks and a single-storey dwelling to the rear.
The two blocks predominantly provide accommodation on three floors, with the top
floor being incorporated into the roof space (eaves height approximately 7m, ridge
height approximately 9.25m). A contemporary design approach is proposed, external
materials including timber boarding, exposed steelwork and rendered panels.
Development Control Committee (East)
32
6 March 2008
A new vehicular access is proposed, centrally located on the Bacton Road frontage.
Amended plans have been submitted revising the footprint and scale of one of the
blocks and the internal layout of some of the flats.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application; consider the 2006 approval to be preferable.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection:1. Inadequate size of living accommodation.
2. Design and materials out of keeping with area.
3. Lack of parking.
4. Highway safety.
5. Increase in traffic.
6. Overdevelopment.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Elements of the new
build are within the root protection zone of existing mature trees on the adjacent
cemetery site. Without a full and proper assessment of the trees adjacent to the
proposed development, as outlined in BS5837:2005, would strongly recommend that
this application be refused due to the adverse impact it would have on the trees in
the cemetery. As submitted an Arboricultural Assessment would be required
addressing this proximity. In addition the proposed proximity raises issues of
'liveability' and light levels to proposed living rooms.
County Council (Highways) - No objection to the development and position of the
new access. I am aware that the position of the new access has been designed in
conjunction with the design for the proposed pedestrian crossing. Highway conditions
are recommended in addiction to Traffic Regulation Order to secure 'No Waiting',
lining and signage.
Environmental Health - A satisfactory contamination report already submitted in
relation to this site. No further comments.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Recommend the imposition of a condition
regarding the need for archaeological assessment of 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.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
33
6 March 2008
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 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and form of development.
2. Impact on amenities.
3. Impact on trees.
4. Access and parking.
APPRAISAL
This application was considered at the last meeting and deferred for a site visit.
The site is situated on the eastern side of Bacton Road, adjacent to North Walsham
cemetery. It is currently occupied by two residential properties and a number of
related outbuildings. To the south of the site is a detached residential dwelling,
"Ashmane", and to the east it backs on to allotment land. The site is located just
outside the town centre within a designated residential area.
The site has permission for redevelopment for a scheme comprising twelve flats and
a single bungalow (20060870). When this application was assessed there was a
highway objection to a vehicular access being created to serve more than the
existing two dwellings, in view of the difficulty in achieving visibility standards which
were at the time required. Given the proximity of the site to the town centre, the
nature of the accommodation being proposed and advice in PPS3 and PPS13, the
Highway Authority had no objection to the bulk of the development not having any
on-site parking provision. A private drive access, running adjacent to the southern
boundary of the site, was agreed solely in association with the approved bungalow.
Since this planning decision, national guidance on visibility requirements in towns
has been relaxed under "Manual for Streets 2007". The current application therefore
seeks a revised form of development with access being provided as well as on-site
parking facilities. A contemporary approach is proposed indicating the
accommodation within two blocks. The two blocks are primarily three-storey in scale
with the top floor of accommodation being within the roof space (ridge height 9.3m).
A mixture of materials is proposed including timber boarding, exposed steel and
rendered panels. The proposed roof structure would comprise a profiled raised seam
aluminium system. The building form aims to minimise eaves height and respect the
general scale of development along this section of Bacton Road. Existing
development along Bacton Road has no distinctive character although in general
building materials are traditional incorporating brick and tile. Although the proposed
development does not conform to this style, it is considered that the building form
and scale would relate to development in the vicinity and that the materials and
method of construction would have positive benefits in terms of sustainability.
The southern block is proposed approximately 4m off the boundary with the adjacent
property Ashmane. The side elevation of this property would be north-facing and
would have a small number of ancillary windows. The proposed layout of the flats
would as submitted indicate primary windows orientated towards this property, which
although not resulting in significant overlooking would not provide a satisfactory
Development Control Committee (East)
34
6 March 2008
outlook from the proposed accommodation. There is scope to reorganise the internal
layout of these flats and this is being discussed with the architects and amended
plans have now been received. The rear element of this southern block is a storey
lower (eaves height approximately 4.3m, ridge 6.3m) than the road frontage element
in order to reduce the dominance of the development when viewed from the adjacent
dwelling.
The northern block would be located 2.5m away from the cemetery boundary. There
are a number of mature trees within the cemetery in the vicinity of this boundary. The
submitted plans do not accurately indicate the extent of the canopy spread of these
trees and further clarification has been sought. The agents have confirmed that in
their opinion the building could be sited without harming the trees and but that some
maintenance of these would probably be necessary in consultation with the Town
Council. However, the Council's Landscape Officer has raised concerns over the
proximity of the development to the trees particularly in the absence of an
Arboricultural Assessment addressing the issue. The applicant has commissioned
such an assessment to be carried out.
The single bungalow to the rear would be sited in the same position as approved
previously 20060870 and would have a satisfactory relationship with the adjacent
properties.
Parking is indicated in accordance with Council policy at one space for each of the
units plus an additional visitor space. The density of development equates to 110
dwellings/ha, well above the minimum set out on PPS3. This high figure reflects the
three-storey form of development and space would be available on site for parking, a
small drying area, bin storage and cycle parking.
County Highways have confirmed that they have no objection in principle to the
development subject to imposition of conditions.
Subject to resolution of the outstanding issue regarding the relationship of the
northern block with adjacent trees, the scheme is considered to comply with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the resolution of the layout in
relation to adjacent trees, the submission of satisfactory amended plans (if
required) and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
14.
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)
See also 20071818 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071150 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of six terraced houses
Refused, 13 Sep 2007
Development Control Committee (East)
35
6 March 2008
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 the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects over concerns about over-development of the site as a whole and highways
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.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Recognises the advantages of gathering the various
accesses to Norwich Road to a single point. Amended plans incorporate required
improvements to junction.
Environmental Health - Recommends advisory note re 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.
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).
Development Control Committee (East)
36
6 March 2008
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).
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 the last Committee to enable Members to visit the
site.
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 an existing terrace of red brick and tile houses, and on the
east side is adjoined by a detached bungalow set in large plot, with a substantial
evergreen hedge approximately 2m high on the joint boundary.
The proposed new 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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has defined a hazard zone 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. Clarification of the implications of this
result is being sought from the HSE. Provided that the Council is satisfied that the
proposal does not represent a significant increase in risk to life or property, granting
planning permission would comply with the relevant saved policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to detailed comments of the Health and
Safety Executive and to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (East)
37
6 March 2008
15.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071818 - Erection of replacement B2 tyre and mot
centre; 7 Norwich Road for Stapletons (Tyre Services) Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :17 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20071817 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071202 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of replacement B2, tyre and MOT
centre and four flats
Refused, 27 Sep 2007
THE APPLICATION
To construct a new tyre fitting and MOT centre to replace the former building on the
site. The proposed building would be smaller than the previous building covering a
ground area of approximately 240sq.m and including an upper floor over the roadside
part of the building. The building is designed to be constructed of brick plinth and
corners with profiled steel cladding on the west wall and with a brick gable end to
Grammar School Road. The corner of the building would be formed as a circular
tower 7.5m high.
Amended plans show the realignment of Avenue Road and its junction with Norwich
Road, and the reconstruction of the road to adoptable standard with a turning head at
the point where the rear access to the adjacent business premises emerges.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter from adjacent business premises concerned about disturbance during work on
party wall, and about future access for maintenance. Letter received from nearby
resident querying whether the road will be adopted.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Recognises the advantages of gathering the various
accesses to Norwich Road to a single point.
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions relating to contaminated land,
external lighting and hours of use.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (East)
38
6 March 2008
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 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Visual impact in street scene.
2. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last Committee meeting to enable Members to
visit the site.
Although within a residential area defined in the Local Plan, the site has been in
commercial use as a tyre fitting depot until recently and is part of a small group of
commercial uses on this side of the road, including a computer shop, bathroom
centre and restaurant. There is therefore no objection in principle to the proposed
use.
The proposed building is smaller in scale than the building which formerly occupied
the site, having a frontage of 13m to the road whereas the former building occupied
18m of site frontage. The roadside elevation has been revised to incorporate a brick
gable to reflect the nearby properties. The side elevation is more utilitarian, reflecting
the nature of the proposed use, but with a tower feature on the corner to mark the
entrance both to the site and the town centre. Colours of the cladding materials are
not specified at this stage, but could be controlled by condition on any permission.
Subject to suitable colours it is considered that the design of the proposed building 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 tyre depot off the new access road
rather than direct from Norwich Road. Amended plans address concerns about the
detailed design of the junction and the level of car parking provision.
It is considered that granting planning permission would comply with the relevant
saved policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to appropriate conditions (to include those suggested by the
Environmental Health Officer).
Development Control Committee (East)
39
6 March 2008
16.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071843 - Variation of agricultural occupancy restriction
(condition 2 of planning permission reference 940830); Mokes End Skeyton
Road for Mr T Culling
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :22 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19871397 - (Full Planning Permission) - House
Refused, 08 Oct 1987
19911659 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Dwelling adjacent to existing stabling of
donkeys and fodder store
Refused, 30 Jun 1992
Appeal Dismissed, 31 Mar 1993
19940830 - (Full Planning Permission) - Agricultural dwelling
Approved, 22 Sep 1994
20050909 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of equipment store to annexe
Refused, 01 Jul 2005
20051763 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of equipment store to annexe
Approved, 13 Jan 2006
20070478 - (Full Planning Permission) - Removal of agricultural occupancy
restriction (condition 2 of planning permission reference 940830)
Refused, 30 Aug 2007
THE APPLICATION
Variation of condition 2 (agricultural occupancy restriction) of planning permission
19940830. The existing condition reads as follows:
'The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working,
or last working, in the locality in agriculture or forestry, or a widow or widower of such
a person, and to any resident dependents.'
The proposed variation is to allow the dwelling to be occupied alternatively by two
named individuals, as follows:
'The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working,
or last working, in the locality in agriculture or forestry, or a widow or widower of such
a person, and to any resident dependents, or Mr Grahame Cann and Mrs Jaqueline
Cann.'
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object.
REPRESENTATION
Supporting letter attached as Appendix 3.
Development Control Committee (East)
40
6 March 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.
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 66: Agricultural and Forestry Workers' Dwelling in the Countryside (must be
essential for proper functioning of farm, acceptable in landscape terms and no other
suitable accommodation available).
Policy 67: Removal of Agricultural Occupancy Conditions (need to demonstrate that
there is no long-term need on holding or surrounding area. Marketing exercise
required).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy HO 6: Removal of agricultural, forestry and essential worker occupancy
conditions (specifies the criteria that must be met for the removal of agricultural,
forestry and essential worker occupancy conditions).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Need for agricultural or forestry worker's dwelling in the surrounding area.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to explore with the applicant on a
‘without prejudice’ basis a possible Section 106 Agreement which would allow Mr and
Mrs Cann to remain in the dwelling in the event of the death of the applicant.
The application site comprises a detached dwelling located in an isolated area of
countryside, approximately 1km south-west of North Walsham. Planning permission
was granted in 1994 for the dwelling in association with an established donkey
breeding use on adjacent land. The proposal was accepted as an exception to the
normal policy of resisting new housing in the countryside, and, in accordance with
Development Plan policy, an agricultural occupancy condition was imposed.
The applicant has now ceased his donkey enterprise owing to problems with
securing public liability insurance for his related donkey derby business. Although the
planning condition would allow him to remain legitimately in the property in his
retirement, and this is evidently his intention, the application appears to have been
made for personal financial reasons.
An earlier application this year (20070478) sought the removal of the agricultural
occupancy condition. That application was supported by marketing information and a
letter setting out the personal circumstances of the applicant. At the time the
Council's Valuation Surveyor considered that the marketing exercise undertaken was
inadequate since the asking price of £565k had not properly taken into account the
Development Control Committee (East)
41
6 March 2008
existing occupancy condition. The application was subsequently refused on the
grounds of failure to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for agricultural or
forestry workers dwellings on this holding or the surrounding area, in accordance with
Policy 67 of the Development Plan.
A supporting statement has been submitted in conjunction with this subsequent
application (Appendix 3). This clarifies that the applicant is no longer seeking to sell
the property but wishes to share his home with his elderly cousin (Mrs Jacqueline
Cann) and her husband (Mr Graham Cann). This arrangement would allow mutual
care and support to be offered. Since neither Mr nor Mrs Cann were last employed in
agricultural nor are dependents of Mr Culling, an amendment is sought to the
wording of the original agricultural occupancy restriction to facilitate this arrangement.
The suggested wording of the condition would potentially allow the sole occupation of
the property by persons unconnected with agricultural or forestry. Policy 67 of the
Local Plan relates to applications for the removal of agricultural conditions and sets
out the criteria which would need to be met in assessing such proposals. To remove
occupancy conditions where such criteria are not met would undermine rural restraint
policies and create pressure elsewhere for new dwellings in the countryside for
agricultural workers. This application does not attempt to address the criteria set out
in Policy 67. Furthermore, if the proposed variation were to be allowed there would
be no justification in restricting a further application to remove the condition entirely to
allow other persons unconnected with agriculture to occupy the dwelling. Therefore it
is considered the suggested variation would be contrary to Development Plan policy.
The application was accordingly recommended for refusal at the last meeting.
However, Members resolved to defer consideration of the application to allow officers
to explore with the applicant, on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, a possible Section 106
Agreement which would allow Mr and Mrs Cann to remain in the dwelling in the event
of the applicant's death. A letter setting out a possible approach was subsequently
sent to the applicant, and Members are referred to its contents in Appendix 3. A
letter from applicant's agent agreeing these terms has been received (Appendix 3).
As referred to above the application was deferred on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. The
Committee is reminded that new occupational dwellings in the countryside are
allowed on the basis of agricultural need, not on the basis of the requirements of
individuals. Once approved they contribute to the stock of dwellings available to
serve the agricultural needs of the locality, not just the holding and therefore carry
with them onerous restrictions. The above scenario would give Mr and Mrs Cann
(both unconnected with agriculture) a greater benefit than that normally given to
dependent children. Members may wish to consider approval on the basis that
referred to in Appendix 3, but the view of Officers remains that the proposal is
contrary to policy and refusal is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse, on grounds relating to the non-compliance of the proposal with
adopted Local Plan Policy 67.
Development Control Committee (East)
42
6 March 2008
17.
SOUTHREPPS - 20071894 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling; adjacent
The Rodings Sandy Lane for Mrs P L Green and Mrs A J Ng
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a three bedroom cottage style dwelling within the garden of an
existing property which involves the demolition of an existing precast concrete flat
roof double garage.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strongly objects on the grounds of highways, overdevelopment of village, out of
character with the existing bungalows and would tower above them, and
overdevelopment of plot.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter signed by twenty households objecting on grounds of:
1. Highway safety.
2. Two-storey dwelling being out of character with nearby bungalows.
3. Damaging impact on character of the village.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to conditions.
Environmental Health - No comment.
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).
Development Control Committee (East)
43
6 March 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on character of area.
2. Design.
3. Scale and nature of development.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last Committee meeting to enable Members to
visit the site.
The application site lies within the development boundary for Southrepps where the
principle of new residential development is acceptable provided that it is suitable in
terms of design, scale, relationship with neighbouring properties and highway safety.
New residential development is also expected to enhance the character of the
village.
The Rodings comprises a detached, 1960's style bungalow with a large flat roofed
double garage. The plot is roughly triangular in shape, formed by the junction with
Sandy Lane and Thorpe Market Road and is screened from the highway boundaries
by leylandii trees and hedging. The access to the site is gained from Sandy Lane to
the north of the plot and away from the existing junction. The site is outside but close
to the Southrepps Conservation Area.
The proposal is to subdivide the plot and construct a two-storey, cottage-style
dwelling. A precast concrete double garage is to be removed and a new single
garage would be linked to the main dwelling by a single-storey kitchen extension.
Both the existing and new dwelling would be served from the existing access.
In terms of appearance, the proposal is of cottage-style, utilising the roof space by
the inclusion of dormer windows and constructed of brick, flint and clay pantiles
together with white finish joinery. The dwelling would be orientated to avoid potential
for overlooking, with the only first floor windows facing the existing bungalows
relating to a bathroom, en-suite bathroom and a landing.
The proposed subdivision would maintain of plot sizes for the existing and proposed
dwellings comparable to other plots in the area and would provide adequate amenity
space and vehicle provision compliant with Design Guide and Local Plan standards.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would enhance the form
and character of the village and there are no highway safety reasons to object to the
development, which would comply with the requirements of the policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order
revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gate shall be erected across the
approved access unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a visibility splay
measuring 43m x 4.2m shall be provided to the south-eastern side of the access
where it meets the highway. The splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any
obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Development Control Committee (East)
44
6 March 2008
4) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access and on-site parking and turning areas shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled
and surfaced in accordance with the approved plan. They shall be retained thereafter
for those specific uses.
5) 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.
REASONS:2) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
5) 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.
18.
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080124 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at The
Conifers Cross Road for Mr R G J Wallace
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :19 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070015 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling and double
garage and double garage
Approved, 28 Feb 2007
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a single-storey dwelling.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilkins having regard to the following planning issue:
Overdevelopment of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:1. Overload of drainage.
2. Overdevelopment of the village.
3. Problems with access.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection received on the following grounds:1. Overdevelopment.
2. Poor road access.
3. Poor visibility.
Development Control Committee (East)
45
6 March 2008
4. Loss of privacy.
5. Visual impact.
6. Drainage.
7. Eroding the quality of our environment.
8. Impact on residential amenity.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Given that the vehicular movements engendered by the
application will be substantially less than previous proposals for the site I find refusal
on highway grounds difficult to substantiate. Should the application be approved
standard highways conditions are recommended.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, 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) (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 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Siting and design.
3. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application site comprises part of the garden area to the side and rear of
'Conifers', a single-storey dwelling. The property lies within the settlement boundary
of Swanton Abbott, identified as a selected village in the North Norfolk Local Plan. In
such locations the principle of small scale development is acceptable subject to
proposals enhancing the character of the village and complying with more detailed
assessment criteria.
The proposed dwelling would be situated to the rear of the existing bungalow
accessed via an existing driveway which would be shared by both properties. The
driveway is indicated as being a minimum of 2.8m from the boundary with the
adjacent property 'Corofin', a two-storey house. Vehicles associated with the
proposed dwelling would pass between the 'Conifers' and 'Corofin', but given the
spacing and the opportunity for landscaping it is not considered that there would be
any significant detriment to the amenities of either dwelling.
Development Control Committee (East)
46
6 March 2008
The proposed dwelling would be single-storey and comparable in scale to the
existing bungalow. This part of the village is characterised by a mix of property types
and as such in this respect the proposal would not appear out of place. Development
along Cross Road predominantly has a road frontage and in this instance the
proposed dwelling would be set back to the rear of the property behind the
established building line. However, this is a substantial garden plot and the proposed
dwelling would not detract from the character of the area.
The garden boundaries are currently dominated by a mix of close-board fencing and
shrub planting. The proposed dwelling has been designed with the proximity of these
boundaries in mind with windows predominantly orientated to the west with outlook
across the proposed private garden to the property. Given this and the single-storey
scale of the property issues of loss of privacy/overlooking would be largely mitigated.
Both the existing property and the proposed dwelling meet Design Guide standards
in relation to garden spaces and parking.
Cross Road is a narrow village lane with limited visibility where it meets The Street
and Long Common Lane. The Highway Authority has previously expressed concerns
over a more comprehensive redevelopment of this site given these constraints.
However, on the basis of the proposed scale of this application for one dwelling the
Authority considers a refusal on highway safety grounds would be difficult to sustain.
On the basis of the above it is considered the proposal complies with the relevant
policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to appropriate conditions including standard highway
conditions.
19.
THORPE MARKET - 20080049 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Sandpit
Lane for Mr and Mrs A Armstrong
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :06 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19900861 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of detached single storey
dwelling and garage
Refused, 20 Sep 1990
Appeal Dismissed, 15 May 1991
19930478 - (Outline Planning Permission) - One 'cottage style' dwelling
Refused, 04 Jun 1993
19940663 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of one cottage style dwelling
Refused, 27 Jun 1994
19980473 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of cottage style dwelling
Refused, 22 May 1998
19990770 - (Full Planning Permission) - Temporary use of land for standing of
residential caravan with car parking area and hardstanding
Refused, 23 Jul 1999
Development Control Committee (East)
47
6 March 2008
20020927 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two single-storey units of
affordable housing
Refused, 07 Aug 2002
20021528 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of a pair of semi-detached
single-storey dwellings
Refused, 28 Nov 2002
20070796 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused, 09 Jul 2007
20071163 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn, 01 Aug 2007
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling with attached single garage.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Highway safety.
2. Design.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter from a local resident not raising objections of principle but commenting on
the poor condition of the private track serving the site, and the need for a hedge or
fence on the east boundary to protect the privacy of the new and existing dwellings.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects - plot too small for size of proposed building. Difficult access with restricted
width on the unsurfaced road. Access onto the A149 road has restricted visibility at
junction for additional traffic.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Comments as follows:
Sandpit Lane, an unadopted track of poor construction, single track width and with no
vehicular passing or turning provision adjoins the North Walsham Road (A149) at two
junctions. Whilst the southerly access point is reasonably positioned to enable
satisfactory use the northern access has severely restricted visibility in the traffic
(critical) direction at its junction with the A149. As this access is closer to the
proposal site it is reasonable to assume that this junction will be more likely to be
used to serve the dwelling proposed and, in any case, the potential exists for it to be
the main, or sole, means of access to the proposed dwelling.
The visibility at this northern junction is presently approximately 38m at the required
2.4m setback. The visibility requirement as North Walsham Road is subject to a
30mph speed limit is 90m x 2.4m x 90m (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
DoT).. The actual visibility available therefore amounts to only some 42% of the
requirement onto the extremely busy North Walsham Road which is designated a
Principal Route in the County Council Route Hierarchy.
Were Government guidance given in Manual for Streets (DfT and CLG 2007)
considered appropriate to this locality then the access visibility requirement would be
2.4m x 59m. However, the visibility available again falls well short of requirements,
amounting to only 64%, of what would be considered acceptable.
It should also be noted that visibility given above is believed to be across third-party
land; the positioning of Norfolk County Council Highway boundary markers in the
grass verge indicating that the visibility that can be controlled in perpetuity is actually
significantly less than the 38m detailed.
Sandpit Lane is unsuitable for any further intensification of vehicular use whatsoever.
Recommends refusal on the following grounds:
Development Control Committee (East)
48
6 March 2008
Sandpit Lane a private unsurfaced track serving the site is considered to be
inadequate to cater for any further development whatsoever, by reason of its
restricted width, lack of passing and turning provision, substandard construction and
particularly it's severely restricted visibility onto a section of the busy and important
North Walsham Road (A149 Principal Route).The proposal, if permitted, would be
likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety, contrary to North
Norfolk District Council Local Plan Policy 147.
Comments further that any permission granted to this application would create an
undesirable precedent for a potential number of similar applications which are
adjacent to
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 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. Highway safety.
2. Residential amenity.
3. Impact on Conservation Area.
4. Layout and design.
APPRAISAL
The application site is one of two small, adjoining, overgrown plots of land within the
development boundary of Thorpe Market. Both plots have had several planning
refusals for new housing, primarily because of poor visibility of the access of Sandpit
Lane onto A149 Cromer Road. The site also lies within the Thorpe Market
Conservation Area. In principle new housing is acceptable within the development
boundary of the village, subject to an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring
properties, enhancement of the form and character of the village and no adverse
highway safety issues.
The Highway Authority has consistently raised strong objections to development
proposals served by Sandpit Lane because of the very poor visibility of its junction
onto the Cromer Road being unsuitable to any intensification of vehicular traffic. The
Committee will note the very clear objection raised by the Highway Authority to the
current application.
Development Control Committee (East)
49
6 March 2008
In terms of appearance, the dwelling would have a traditional vernacular cottagestyle, similar to the older dwellings found to the east of the site and elsewhere in the
village. This design would help to enhance the character of the village.
In view of the highway objection, refusal is recommended.
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 policy as listed in the Direction issued by
Government Office for the East of England of the 14 September 2007 is considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy 147: New Accesses
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would be
contrary to the above Development Plan policies for the following reasons:
Sandpit Lane is a private unsurfaced track serving the site is considered inadequate
to cater for any further development whatsoever, by reason of its restricted width,
lack of passing and turning provision, substandard construction and its severely
restricted visibility onto a section of the busy and strategically important North
Walsham Road (A149). Consequently, the development, if built, would give rise to
conditions detrimental to highway safety.
20.
TUNSTEAD - 20080015 - Erection of fourteen dwellings; land at Market Street
for Circle Anglia
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :03 Apr 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
To construct a group of 14 houses on land on the west side of Market Street
immediately opposite the former Horse and Groom public house. The proposal is for
affordable housing and takes the form of 1 four bedroom house, 4 two bedroom flats
and 9 two bedroom houses.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the objections
received and need for affordable housing.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects:1. Grave concerns about the drainage and sewerage systems which have been a
problem for years; the Parish Council feels that no development should take place
until these problems are solved.
2. Would like to arrange a meeting with all parties to look at the problems and solve
them before development takes place.
Development Control Committee (East)
50
6 March 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received from four local residents concerned about the following:1. Impact on street scene and the character of the countryside.
2. Drainage.
3. Traffic.
4. Lack of facilities and public transport in the village.
5. Additional disturbance.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments.
Community Safety Manager - Awaiting comments
County Council (Highways) - Requires minor modifications to the junction design and
parking layout.
Strategic Housing - Supports. The scheme is proposed to meet the housing need
identified by the Council's Housing Register information. The 14 dwellings proposed
will meet approximately one third of this identified need. (Full comments at Appendix
4)
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
Further consideration to this issue will be given at the meeting.
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 57: Affordable Housing in the Countryside (specifies criteria for 'exception'
cases in the Countryside policy area. Sites have to immediately adjoin village
boundaries).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design and layout.
3. Highway issues.
4. Drainage issues.
APPRAISAL
The application site immediately adjoins the settlement boundary for Tunstead as
defined in the Local Plan. The proposal therefore meets criterion (b) of Policy 57 and
the site is considered to be appropriate in principle for affordable housing. The
proposed site forms the roadside portion of a large arable field of no distinctive
Development Control Committee (East)
51
6 March 2008
landscape quality, and the proposed development would have no adverse impact on
the character of the area. Discussions are taking place with the agents in respect of
the retention of the two trees on the road frontage although the proposal involves
new tree and hedge planting both within the site and on the site boundaries.
The layout of the proposed development involves the two northernmost houses
having a separate access to the road, with the remainder being accessed by a new
roadway at the centre of the site frontage. Houses in the main group would face each
other across a central space. Parking would be provided at the ratio of two spaces
per dwelling. The design of the proposed units reflects the character of the local
architecture, with steep pitched pantile roofs, chimneys, gabled dormers and
porches.
The proposed access road and the driveway to the northern plots both involve
bridging over the roadside ditch. The County Council is seeking minor alterations to
the radii of the junctions, the width and detailing of the footway and the location of
parking spaces, and subject to resolving these details there is not considered to be a
highway objection to the proposal. The site is within the 30mph limit on a section of
road with good visibility.
Foul drainage is intended to discharge to the main sewer and Anglian Water has
confirmed as correct the statement in the applicant's drainage report that the foul
drainage from this development can be accommodated within the existing sewerage
system without the need for any off-site reinforcements.
The existing surface water drainage ditches along the north and east (roadside)
boundaries of the site would not be altered significantly although the roadside one
would be moved slightly to accommodate a wider footway and would be culverted for
the two access points. The proposed new road would drain to this existing ditch,
whilst parking areas would be permeable self draining surfaces and roof water would
discharge to soakaways. The landscaped area in the north west corner of the site is
intended to act as an attenuation area at times of extreme rainfall.
Granting planning permission in this case would comply with the relevant policies of
the adopted Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to resolving the outstanding highway
and landscape details and to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
21.
WORSTEAD - 20080029 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land rear of 30 and
32 Honing Row for Worstead Farms Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :03 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071755 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn, 13 Dec 2007
Development Control Committee (East)
52
6 March 2008
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a detached two bedroom dwelling, including a single-storey element,
on land to the rear of two dwellings which front Honing Row.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:1. Not sympathetic to the area and fails to enhance.
2. Inappropriate design, mass of development and height.
3. Infill, loss of open spaces.
4. Problems with access in a narrow lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter received from a local resident objecting on grounds of:1. Loss of light.
2. Overlooking.
3. Out of keeping with the village and Conservation Area.
4. Restricts access to other properties.
5. Too much infill in Worstead.
6. Inadequate turning space for vehicles.
7. West boundary treatment needs clarification.
8. Concern that the development could reduce the width of the access lane to
prevent fire engine access.
9. Poor highway access.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Comments that the visibility of the private access track
and the public highway accords with the 'Manual for Streets' visibility requirements at
the junction of the private access track with Honing Row. The revised parking
arrangements for 30 and 32 Honing Row would use the private access which has
greater levels of access visibility than their existing access to the east.
Accordingly raises no objection subject to a condition on the provision of on-site
parking and turning facilities.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No comment.
Worstead Amenity Society - Acknowledges that small dwellings of this type are
needed in Worstead and across North Norfolk and that this application is better than
the previous one. Although it still represents the infilling of yet another cottage
garden. The position of the house on the site makes better use of the plot and
interferes less with its neighbours. The design is an improvement.
Set against these improvements the footprint is larger and the ridge height is too high
for its neighbours.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
53
6 March 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 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. Principle of development of this plot.
2. Highway safety.
3. Residential amenity.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
The application site is formed from the subdivision of garden land belonging to
dwellings on Honing Row. It lies within the development boundary for Worstead and
also Worstead Conservation Area where in principle a new dwelling may be
acceptable provided that it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area and has no adverse impact on residential amenity or highway
safety.
It is proposed to use an existing private drive between 30 and 32 Honing Row for
access to the site. Both of these properties are within the same ownership and the
proposal includes the partial demolition of an outbuilding on 32 Honing Row to
reorganise the parking arrangements for the existing dwellings. Parking for the
existing cottages is currently accessed from the back lane which has substandard
visibility at its junction with Honing Row.
The siting of the new dwelling would follow the local pattern of development and
would help to enhance the form and character of this part of the Conservation Area.
In terms of design, with a ridge height of 7m and a gable width less than 6m wide,
this would be a traditionally proportioned, modest cottage which would complement
the historic development on Honing Row. This proposal would bridge the gap
between the traditional village dwellings on Honing Row with the newer dwellings on
St Andrews Close, adding cohesion to the form and character of the village. The
windows would be positioned to avoid overlooking those properties which are closest
to the new dwelling. The proposal would also fulfil the criteria for minimum garden
depth as required by the basic residential amenity criteria.
It is considered that the proposal accords with Development Plan policy.
Development Control Committee (East)
54
6 March 2008
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) No development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be
used in the construction of the external walls and roof of the building have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
3) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the
boundary treatment to the western boundary and hedging to the south and east
boundary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The hedging details shall include the height, species and spacing
distances and be carried out no later than the first available planting season following
the commencement of development.
4) Any new hedging plant which within a period of five years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during
the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the Local
Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written agreement is given to any
variation.
5) The development and any associated landscaping shall be undertaken so as to
ensure a minimum track width of 3.7m around the southern and eastern boundaries
of the site.
6) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed onsite parking and turning area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and
drained in accordance with the approved plan. It shall be retained thereafter for those
specific uses.
REASONS:2) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings,
in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area and ensure permanent
closure of the existing vehicular access, in accordance with Policy 13 and Policy 147
of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy
13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) To ensure that adequate vehicle access is available to the track around the south
and eastern boundaries of the site in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
6) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
22.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at the next meeting.
As this application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make their representations at the next meeting of the Committee when the
application is discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by the officers at
the meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
Development Control Committee (East)
55
6 March 2008
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080134 - Erection of 163 dwellings including sheltered
housing, 60-bed care home, 6 employment units and a convenience store;
Land at Norwich Road for Hopkins Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
An early site visit by the Committee is considered necessary by the Head of Planning
and Building Control in view of the policy issues involved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake a site visit in the above case.
23.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - 20071909 - Erection of replacement garage; 5 Old School
Cottages Thwaite Road for Mr T Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
ASHMANHAUGH - 20071896 - Erection of score hut and kit store; Pavilion
Church Road for Ashmanhaugh Cricket Club
(Full Planning Permission)
ASHMANHAUGH - 20071910 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Rowans
School Road for Mr and Mrs R Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - 20071925 - Erection of tennis court enclosure; Park Wall Farm
Park Road for Mr A Colman
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - 20071975 - Retention of replacement garage roof; Rosemede
The Street for Mrs G Wilks-Wiffen
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - 20071753 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to 4 units of holiday
accommodation; Heath Farm The Green Barchams Lane Edingthorpe for Mr
and Mrs Sidebotham
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - 20080012 - Erection of front and side extension and raising of
roof to provide first floor accommodation; Sheralon Smallburgh Road for Mr T
Jewell
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20071971 - Insertion of rooflights and construction of external
staircase to facilitate use of roofspace to snoezelen; Harbord House 129/131
Overstrand Road for Grego-Hann Associates
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080087 - Conversion to four flats; 8 Cliff Avenue for Mr B Huczek
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20071992 - Display of internally illuminated advertisement; Co-Op
Travel Store 12 High Street for CWS Retail Financial Services
(Illuminated Advertisement)
Development Control Committee (East)
56
6 March 2008
EAST RUSTON - 20080026 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Sunnyside Chapel Road for Ms H Fraser and Mr M Fraser
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - 20080025 - Erection of first floor extension, single-storey side
extension and front extension; 3 The Houses The Street Calthorpe for Mr and
Mrs R J W Goodliffe
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - 20071916 - Erection of rear conservatory; The Cottage
Aylsham Road for Mr and Mrs N Woolston
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - 20071942 - Erection of two-storey rear (road elevation)
extension, one-and-a-half-storey side elevation and a conservatory to the side;
Pittarrow Heath Lane for Mr A Cargill
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - 20080031 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and pitched
roofs to flat-roofed extensions; The Cottage Stubb Road for Mrs B Davison and
Mr C Watkins
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - 20080054 - Change of use from guest house to residential;
Maryland Cottage Stubb Road for Mr A G Woodman
(Full Planning Permission)
HONING - 20080032 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 1 The Glebe for
Ms M Addy
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - 20071996 - Erection of rear conservatory; 77 Leeds Way for Mr and
Mrs M Howard
(Full Planning Permission)
HORNING - 20080005 - Erection of two-storey attached dwelling; land adjacent
7 Kimberley Terrace Mill Hill for Mr D A Watts
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20071968 - Construction of mini golf course; Wroxham Barns
Tunstead Road for Wroxham Barns Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20080006 - Erection of canopy; Apple and Pear People Tunstead
Road for Tilia Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20080008 - Construction of pitched roof to conservatory and
erection of replacement garage; 138 Stalham Road for Mr and Mrs Jermy
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - 20071920 - Demolition of rear single-storey extension and
replacement two-storey extension; The Thatched Cottage Calthorpe Street for
Mr and Mrs Saunders
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
57
6 March 2008
INGHAM - 20080033 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Corner Cottage
The Loke for Mr P Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - 20080114 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
agricultural building; Old Hall Farm Hall Lane for Mr A M Cargill
(Prior Notification)
LUDHAM - 20071889 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; site rear
of Kingfishers Catfield Road for Mr G E Roll
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20071957 - Retention of residential caravan
warden/caretaker; Links Caravan Park Heath Lane for Mr C Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
for
site
MUNDESLEY - 20080038 - Construction of two dormer windows; 43 High Street
for Mr J Blanchard
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071991 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
attached garage; 27a Happisburgh Road for Mr C Maisner
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080016 - Erection of replacement single-storey
extension; 126 Mundesley Road for Mr D Marshall
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071882 - Erection of single-storey front and rear
extensions and alterations to fenestration; 17a Aylsham Road for Mr C A Crane
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071958 - Demolition of garage and erection of singlestorey front extension; 23 Norwich Road for Mr and Mrs Cameron
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071990 - Erection of first floor/single-storey rear
extension; 43 Station Road for Mr and Mrs Lince
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20071824 - Erection of dwelling; rear of Scole House 17
Mundesley Road for Mr and Mrs Kidd
(Outline Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20071988 - Conversion of redundant dairy to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Grove Farm Barn 1 Back Lane for Mr C Bedford
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20071922 - Conversion of barns to eight units of holiday
accommodation and erection of swimming pool building; Manor Farm Top
Common East Runton for Manor Farm East Runton Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
58
6 March 2008
RUNTON - 20071923 - Alterations to agricultural buildings to provide eight
units of holiday accommodation; Manor Farm Top Common East Runton for
Manor Farm East Runton Limited
(Alteration to Listed Building)
RUNTON - 20080043 - Erection of replacement single-storey extension;
Orchard House Mill Lane East Runton for Mr D Bywater
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20071935 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 1 Orchard
Cottages The Common West Runton for Mr and Mrs I Osborne
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - 20080011 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Coltishall
Houbois Barton Road Raf Coltishall for Annington Homes Limited
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
SEA PALLING - 20080004 - Erection of first floor and single-storey extensions;
Farm View Stalham Road for Mr and Mrs Dennis
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - 20080034 - Erection of rear conservatory; 4 St Margarets Place
for Mr G Deary
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20071927 - Erection of single-storey lean to extension and external
staircase; The Hayloft Church Farm Mews Ingham Road for Mr and Mrs
Maudsley
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20071928 - Alterations and extension to former agricultural
building to facilitate conversion to dwelling; The Hayloft Church Farm Mews
Ingham Road for Mr and Mrs Maudsley
(Alteration to Listed Building)
SUFFIELD - 20071924 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to seven units of
holiday accommodation; Hall Farm Rectory Road for Hall Farm Suffield Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20071906 - Extension and conversion of garage to provide annexe;
Ellon House Church Road for Mrs K Russell-Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20071948 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling and
detached garage; Wayside The Street for Mr and Mrs T Falgate
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
SUTTON - 20071993 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 5 Hastings Way
for Mr and Mrs W Porter
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - 20071926 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
adjacent High Winds Cromer Road for Mr R Cannell
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
Development Control Committee (East)
59
6 March 2008
24.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - 20071939 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling; 28 Hillside
for Mr J Carly
(Outline Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20071972 - Erection of detached building to provide art studio and
music room; Harbord House 129/131 Overstrand Road for Grego-Hann
Associates
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20071983 - Installation of satellite dish; 12 Jetty Street for Mrs A
Gowan
(Alteration to Listed Building)
OVERSTRAND - 20080132 - Retention of front boundary railings and gates; 5
Pauls Lane for Mr K P Rudman
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20071937 - Erection of seven single-storey elderly persons
dwellings; land off Bank Street for Terry Boddy Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20071903 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 7 Witton Heath
Cottages Witton Heath for Mr A Gilbert
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
25.
NEW APPEALS
KNAPTON - 20071727 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; The Spinney
Mundesley Road for Mr and Mrs Merrill
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
MUNDESLEY - 01/071/DEV6/07/005 - Authorised enforcement action for
removal of unauthorised flue; 32 High Street for Halit Kol
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
MUNDESLEY - 20070626 - Erection of dwelling; land adjacent to 35 Trunch
Road for Mr J Bonham
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071135 - Residential development; land at Cromer
Road and Bradfield Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071136 - Residential development; land at former
Marricks Wire Ropes Cromer Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Development Control Committee (East)
60
6 March 2008
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071509 - Erection of two-storey extension to provide
two apartments; Garden Court Aylsham Road for T H P D Properties Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20070243 - Erection of 4 terraced dwellings; land
adjacent former Weavers Arms Aylsham Road t for Horning Properties
INFORMAL HEARING
26.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No Items
27.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
CROMER - 20071364 - Erection of eighteen two-bed flats; site at Cambridge
Street for Taylor Patterson Trustees Limited
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
SEA PALLING - 20030910 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; land
adjacent to The Old Vicarage Church Road for Mr D Buckland
STALHAM - 20070336 - Erection of 4 dwellings; 142 High Street for Mr P Marko
28.
APPEAL DECISIONS
ROUGHTON - 20071000 - Conversion of building to one unit of holiday
accommodation; site adjacent 1 Hillside for Mr M Wilson
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (East)
61
6 March 2008