OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 11 JUNE 2009
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Chief Officer responsible, the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
This report outlines the need to establish judging panel for this year’s Graham Allen
Award for Conservation and Design and to agree the proposed dates for the judging
and presentation of the awards.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design the Award was inaugurated in
1982 as a memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk
District Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the
scheme considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment
within the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of
historic properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make
innovative use of traditional building forms and detailing.
It is necessary for a panel of Members to be established to consider, evaluate and
judge submissions under the award scheme, and make awards accordingly.
Membership has historically been drawn equally from the East and West Committees
with the addition of a Chairman (who may be a member of either Committee) agreed
between them. Membership has generally comprised nine Members, the relevant
Portfolio Member, and a permanent representative from the Allen family. It is
proposed that this structure be repeated again with Graham Allen’s son, Mr Edward
Allen, once again agreeing to be the permanent member. The closing date for entries
is 30 June 2009.
It is suggested that the panel convenes on 31 July 2009 at the Council Offices to
consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will commence with a
short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by a tour of those
short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the Council Chamber
on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with Members voting on the
entries. The awards will then be presented at a ceremony in October – suggested
date 15 October 2009 after the West Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:1.
That Members nominate a total of nine Councillors from West and East
Development Control Committees to form a judging panel for the
Graham Allen Award, one of whom will be elected Chairman.
2.
That the dates for judging of entries and presentation of the awards be
accepted.
(Source: Chris Young, Extn: 6138 – File Reference: GA Award)
Development Control Committee (East)
1
11 June 2009
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
Development Control Action Plan: Practice Note on Pre- and Post-Decision
Amendments to Planning Applications
Questioning of Public Speakers
This report seeks endorsement from the Development Control Committees of a
Practice Note on pre- and post-decision amendments to planning applications and
an amendment to public speaking arrangements at Committee for a trial period to
enable questions to be asked of public speakers.
Pre- and Post-Decision Amendments
Members will be aware that following the intervention of Overview and Scrutiny
Committee a Development Control Action Plan was adopted by the Council in
December 2008. One matter remains outstanding from the Action Plan. This
involves the adoption of a Practice Note incorporating a number of principles in order
to reduce the number of applications deferred at Committee meetings. These
include concentration of negotiations and amendment at pre-application stage, full
consideration of input for consultees and the local community, as required by the
Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement, and adherence to a strict
timetable for the receipt of amended plans in the event of an amendment being
allowed within the timescale for an application.
As a result of this a draft Practice Note was prepared and was the subject of
discussion with the Planning Agents Group at its meeting in January 2008 and with
Members at the Planning Refresher Training Event in March. A copy of the Practice
Note is attached at Appendix 1. No substantive comments were made either by
agents or by Members and it is therefore for the Development Control Committees to
decide whether or not they wish to adopt it.
Members will see that the key elements of the Practice Note involve the adoption by
Officers of a “triage” system distinguishing between applications for which the policy
basis is clear and can be determined accordingly and those where it is considered
that negotiation could deliver a significant result. For the first category applications
will be determined as quickly as possible without negotiation, whilst for the second
category two principles will be applied both by Officers and by Committees, these
being:1. Major changes will only be considered if they are determined being in the wider
public interest, there is a high prospect of negotiation succeeding and significant
benefits would be secured for the community which would be lost if an early
refusal were given.
2. For minor amendments there must be agreement from the applicants that a strict
timetable is adhered to, having regard to re-consultation processes and that if the
amendments are not received within the prescribed timescale then the application
will be determined without waiting for them.
The Practice Note also refreshes long-established practice concerning post-decision
amendments and sets out criteria which should be met and adds a note concerning
listed building consent.
Through the adoption of this Practice Note it is hoped that more consistent practice
will be adopted and that the recent progress concerning performance will be
maintained in accordance with the wishes of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and
the Council as a whole.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
11 June 2009
Questioning of Public Speakers at Committee
The Council’s public speaking arrangements have been in place for several years
now and appear generally to be working well. Occasionally, however, applications
are delayed because it is necessary to seek clarification from applicants or other
parties since the public speaking rules do not allow for any sort of dialogue with
public speakers and the matter has to be deferred to a subsequent meeting.
This process could be speeded up on some occasions if Members were able to ask
questions of public speakers and elicit a response which may enable an application
to be determined immediately.
In order to enable proper supervision of the process it is suggested that this should
always be done through the Committee Chair and should be limited to questions
which in the Chair’s opinion will assist the Committee in reaching a prompt decision.
It is also suggested that this be operated for a trial period of, say, three months for
the two Committees in order to see whether there are any significant benefits from
this change and also whether there are any practical or operational difficulties which
would need to be addressed. In order to enable adequate publicity to be given for
this change it is suggested that the trial commences from September 2009.
RECOMMENDATIONS:That the Committee (i) adopts the Practice Note on pre- and post-decision
amendments to planning applications with effect from 1 July 2009 and (ii)
agrees to allow strictly controlled questioning of public speakers at meetings
for a trial period of three months with effect from 1 September 2009.
Source: (Steve Oxenham, Extn 6135 - File Reference: Amendments 1)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
CROMER – Unauthorised Use of Building as Single Dwellinghouse; The Bath
House, The Promenade for Dr and Mrs B C Connell
To consider the possibility of enforcement action following the refusal of an
application for a Certificate of Lawfulness.
Background
At the meeting on 14 May 2009 the Committee considered an application for a
Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use as a single dwellinghouse in respect of the
Bath House. The application was refused since on the balance of probabilities it was
not considered that the building had been used as a dwellinghouse for a continuous
period of four years before the submission date of the application.
Following the decision to refuse the application discussion took place regarding the
possibility of taking enforcement action in respect of the acknowledged present use
of the building as a dwellinghouse, which is unauthorised.
Members resolved to defer consideration of any enforcement action for one
Committee cycle and in the meantime invited the applicants, without prejudice, to
submit a planning application.
At the time of preparing this report no planning application had been submitted.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
11 June 2009
The Question of Enforcement
In cases where a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) is refused, it does not
necessarily follow that enforcement action should be undertaken. Planning merits
are not relevant to the consideration of an LDC application, but in serving a Planning
Enforcement Notice the Local Planning Authority has to give a reason as to why the
use or development is not acceptable on planning grounds.
In the case of the Bath House the most an enforcement notice could require is that
the use of parts of the building for residential purposes should cease. The notice
would also have to specify a time period for compliance. The notice could not require
the use of the building as a hotel/public house to be resumed.
In considering whether there are any justifiable planning reasons to serve an
Enforcement Notice regard needs to be had to relevant current adopted planning
policy.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 specifies that any
determination under the Planning Act must be made in accordance with the
Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This applies
equally to the serving of an Enforcement Notice as it does to the determination of
planning applications.
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG18) – Enforcing Planning Control (December 1991)
states as follows:
“While it is clearly unsatisfactory for anyone to carry out development without first
obtaining the required planning permission, an enforcement notice should not
normally be issued solely to “regularise” development which is acceptable on its
planning merits, but for which permission has not been sought.”
Planning Policy Considerations
The current Development Plan for North Norfolk comprises the East of England Plan
(adopted May 2008) and the North Norfolk Core Strategy (adopted September 2008).
The Core Strategy contains the local planning policies relevant to the consideration
of this case.
The Bath House is shown to be within the settlement boundary of Cromer which is
defined as a Principal Settlement in the Core Strategy. On the Proposals Map for
Cromer the Bath House lies within the Town Centre designation (but is outside the
defined Primary Shopping Area). It is also within the Public Realm designation and
the Conservation Area.
The following policies relate to the Bath House:
SS 5 – Economy
EC 8 – Retaining an Adequate supply and Mix of Tourist Accommodation
EN 5 – Public Realm
EN 8 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
Policy SS 5 ‘Economy’ makes the following reference to town centre designations:
“The role of town centres as a focus for a broad range of shopping, commercial,
cultural and other uses will be supported. Other than on identified Retail Opportunity
Sites, residential proposals will be permitted where they do not result in the loss of
shops or other main town centres uses located within a defined Primary Shopping
Area ….”
Development Control Committee (East)
4
11 June 2009
As the Bath House is not in a Retail Opportunity Site nor is it within the Primary
Shopping Area, its use as a dwellinghouse does not conflict with this policy.
Policy EC 8 “Retaining an Adequate Supply and Mix of Tourist Accommodation’,
states as follows:
“Development proposals that would result in the loss of sites or premises currently, or
last used for, tourist accommodation will be permitted provided that:
• alternative provision of equivalent or better quality and scale is available in
the area or will be provided and made available prior to commencement of
redevelopment; and,
• the facility does not provide an important local facility or service to the
community; or
• it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and that an independent viability test has demonstrated that the
use is not longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell
or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months.”
For the purposes of this policy ‘tourist accommodation’ is defined as including hotels
and other serviced accommodation which provides five or more bedrooms. The Bath
House closed in 1998. Plans submitted with the LDC application indicate that at the
time of closure there were seven guest bedrooms on the first floor. Plans also
provided illustrate the existing internal layout to include five bedrooms. Accordingly it
can reasonably be assumed that for the purposes of considering Policy EC 8, the
building’s last authorised use meets the definition of ‘tourist accommodation’.
The policy is divided into two parts. It allows for the loss of premises currently or last
used for tourist accommodation provided that either the requirements of the first two
bullet points are met, namely;
• alternative provision of equivalent or better quality and scale is available in
the area or will be provided and made available prior to commencement of
redevelopment; and,
• the facility does not provide an important local facility or service to the
community.
or that the requirements of the last bullet point are met, namely;
• it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and that an independent viability test has demonstrated that the
use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell
or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months.”
In the case of the first bullet point Cromer has a wide selection of hotel and guest
house accommodation and, in the immediate vicinity, notably the Hotel de Paris and
the Red Lion Hotel. The availability of these hotels along with many others in Cromer
represent an equivalent (and from all accounts) a much better quality of
accommodation than was previously provided by the Bath House. In terms of scale
there are significantly larger hotels in the area.
The second bullet point of Policy EC 8 guards against the loss of an ‘important local
facility or service’. The definition given to such a facility or service includes a public
house “which is the last of its kind within a Principal or Secondary Settlement or
Service Village”. The Bath House previously included a public house facility, but
clearly there are a number of other public houses in Cromer, so its loss does not
conflict with this part of the policy.
The third bullet point of Policy EC 8 need only apply if the first two are not met.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
11 June 2009
Policy EN 5 relates to areas designated as Public Realm. In Cromer this area
includes the town centre and seafront. The policy expects proposals to enhance the
overall appearance and usability of the area. The Bath House occupies a prime
central position on the seafront. The building has been substantially renovated and
improved in the period since its closure as a hotel/public house. This has
represented an enhancement to the area in terms of appearance. The conversion to
wholly residential use does not enhance the building’s own public usability but does
not affect that of the overall seafront. Members are entitled to take into account the
loss of the building’s former use in relation to this policy, but should bear in mind that
the building was last in such use over 10 years ago. Since then the seafront has
undergone a considerable renaissance in terms of enhancements to the promenade,
pier and the development of the Rocket House.
Policy EN 8 states that proposals should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of Conservation Areas. Again it can be said that the work which has
been done to the Bath House has enhanced the appearance and physical character
of the seafront. In terms of Conservation Area policy ‘character’ can also refer to the
role of buildings and activity associated with them. As in the case of the Public
Realm policy the use of the Bath House for solely residential use does not assist in
the provision of public facilities on what is the prime visitor destination area of the
town. Members are entitled to take this consideration into account, but must weigh it
against those other policies which are permissive towards the use of the building for
wholly residential use. It should also be borne in mind that enforcement action could
not bring abut the reintroduction of the former use as a hotel.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the issue of the owner’s Human Rights is relevant to the question
of whether or not enforcement proceedings should be commenced in this case.
When the LDC application was first considered by this Committee on 31 July 2008, it
was resolved that consideration be deferred to seek Counsel’s opinion on the
evidence and also Human Rights issues.
The Rights considered to be directly relevant to the question of enforcement action
are
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.
As stated above, an Enforcement Notice cannot require the Bath House to re-open
as a hotel/public house. The applicants purchased the property in 1999 and the Bath
House had been closed as a hotel and public house prior to their acquisition of it.
The building has therefore not been used as a hotel/public house for at least 10
years. An Enforcement Notice requiring cessation of residential use of parts of the
building will clearly interfere with the owners’ use of their home and this is considered
to potentially breach their Human Rights. Such interference by a public body (the
Council as Local Planning Authority in this case) may be justified if proportionate and
in the public interest. However, given that hotel/public use ceased a number of years
ago and that the service of an Enforcement Notice will not result in the former use
being recommenced, it is considered that enforcement proceedings are not in the
public interest.
ouHou
Conclusions
The controversy which has arisen as a result of the LDC application has highlighted
local concern regarding the loss of the Bath House as a hotel/public house facility.
There is little argument against the attractiveness of such a facility being available in
this central promenade location. Following the purchase of the Bath House by the
Development Control Committee (East)
6
11 June 2009
present owners in 1999 and the granting of planning permission to refurbish and
extend the building into a guest house/restaurant/bar in 2000, there was
unsurprisingly a public expectation that the premises would be reopened. Equally
now that the LDC application has been refused there will be some expectation that
the Council will take some follow up action.
However, as indicated earlier, any enforcement action under planning legislation has
to be justified by sound and defensible planning reasons. Having assessed the
current use of the building against current Development Plan policy it is not
considered that there are sufficiently strong reasons to take enforcement action in
this case.
RECOMMENDATION :That no enforcement action is taken.
(Source: John Williams, Extn 6163 – File Reference: Bath House)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
MUNDESLEY - 20090309 - Retention of widened door and steel roller shutter
and surround; Mundesley Post Office 15 High Street for Mr Thiruchelvam
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :27 May 2009
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
To retain the widened door and external steel roller shutter and surround on the main
front door of the Post Office.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Northam having regard to the following planning issue:
Desirability of supporting a valuable community facility.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects. Conservation Area and should be in keeping with the surrounding area.
Would prefer to see wood instead of metal.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter of support from village resident explaining that Mundesley has an excellent
post office, and that the operator is required to make the building wheelchair
accessible and to make it secure.
Letter from applicant attached in Appendix 2.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
11 June 2009
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
post office has been proposed for local listing in the emerging Conservation Area
Appraisal and Management Plan. It is important that shops and retail areas remain
as attractive as possible if local shopping trade is to prosper. The need for security is
recognised but the Council has to balance this with the need to preserve the
character and amenity of the area.
In this case the shutters create a dead frontage which detracts from the street scene.
Its solid, imposing and intrusive nature seems to dominate the façade of the building.
The grilles and shutters proposed are just one of a number of different measures that
can be used to improve security.
The shutters are not acceptable in such a sensitive location and do not preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Community Safety Manager - This application is welcomed as this is an appropriate
and recommended way of reducing the likelihood of 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.
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
Refer to the comments received from the Community Safety Manager be above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and on crime and
safety.
APPRAISAL
The roller shutter door has been installed and its appearance and effect on the front
of the building can be clearly seen in the photographs which will be displayed at the
meeting. The building is an attractive brick and tile structure with its gable end facing
the road at the junction of Station Road and the High Street. It occupies a central
position in the village Conservation Area.
The need to provide security is an important consideration and assists in
safeguarding the continued presence of the Post Office. However, the galvanised
finish of the shutter and shutter box makes it appear particularly stark and industrial
in appearance, but even if it were to be painted in a dark colour the shutter would still
be a conspicuous and insensitive feature in a prominent position in the Conservation
Development Control Committee (East)
8
11 June 2009
Area. In particular it has not been established that this is the only effective means of
providing security. As the comments of the Conservation Design and Landscape
Manager make clear there are other ways of providing security which would be far
less damaging to the appearance of the premises. Members are referred to the letter
from the applicant in Appendix 2.
As it exists the proposal is clearly contrary to Policy EN 4 which requires
development to be designed to a high quality and to reinforce local distinctiveness,
and is also contrary to Policy EN 8 which requires development to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated areas such as Conservation
Areas.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy EN 4: Design
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the retention of the galvanised steel
roller shutter on the front of this attractive building in a prominent position in the
centre of the village would be damaging to the character and appearance of the
building and to the Conservation Area within which it stands, and the proposal would
therefore conflict with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted Core Strategy which
seek to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area and to promote high quality design. It is not considered that the need to provide
security for the premises is sufficient reason to depart from the policies and to allow
this particular from of security.
5.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY - 20090304 - Erection of detached single garage; Tollbar Thwaite
Common Erpingham for Mr Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
ALDBOROUGH - 20090250 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling;
Two Oaks Thurgarton Road for Mr and Mrs Wordingham
(Full Planning Permission)
ALDBOROUGH - 20090269 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and pitched
roof to existing flat-roofed extension; Meadow Farmhouse School Road
Thurgarton for Mrs McIlwraith
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - 20090293 - Alterations to barns to provide ancillary residential
accommodation; Park Wall Farm Park Road for Mr and Mrs Colman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BRUMSTEAD - 20090344 - Erection of general purpose agricultural building;
Brunstead House Ingham Road for HBS Farms (1995) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
9
11 June 2009
CROMER - 20090223 - Use of land for temporary car park, alterations to access
and boundary wall; Cromer Town Football Club Mill Road for NNUH NHS
Foundation Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - 20090331 - Conversion of barn to one unit of
accommodation; Grange Farm Barns Chapel Road for Rumford Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
holiday
HANWORTH - 20090242 - Conversion of redundant barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; The Old Pig Barn, Helsdon Farm Norwich Road for A J P and
C J and G Penrose
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20090328 - Change of use from B1 (spray shop) to a mixed use of
B1/A1 (maintenance workshop and showroom); Eric Bates and Sons Ltd
Horning Road West for Eric Bates and Sons Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - 20090336 - Erection of two-storey front extension and single -storey
side extension; Popays Cottage Water Lane for Ms Beck
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - 20090329 - Erection of double garage; Shangrila Norwich Road for
Mr J Youngs
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20090259 - Installation of pitched roof and re-cladding of walls;
Staverton Lodge Heath Lane for C C Payne and Son
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090281 - Erection of replacement front porch; 26 Thirlby
Road for Mrs Ireland
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090248 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 23
Station Road for Mr Van Lawick
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090251 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 8
Station Road for Mr Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090271 - Erection of side extension and pitched roof to
garage; 76 Bradfield Road for Mr Gotts
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090320 - Installation of fascia and hanging signs; 17
Market Place for HBOS PLC
(Alteration to Listed Building)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090362 - Erection of front porch; 18 Fuller Road for Mr
and Mrs Sadler
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
10
11 June 2009
NORTHREPPS - 20090378 - Erection of conservatory and detached garage
(amended design including raised roof height to garage, to planning reference:
20060838); Kashingley Cottage 62 Crossdale Street for Mr G Palmer
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20090354 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 22 Danish
House Gardens for Mr Setchfield
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20090263 - Alterations to roof and erection of replacement singlestorey front extension; Valley Farm Top Common East Runton for Mr and Mrs
Hurt
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20090335 - Alterations to front elevation in association with
conversion of former restaurant to two ground floor flats; The Mirabelle, 7
Station Road West Runton for Knowles and Wright
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
SCOTTOW - 20090294 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden;
Aachen House 57/58 Tunstead Road for Mr Fuller
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - 20090319 - Change of use of former education block to office for
prison governor and staff; former Education Block, RAF Coltishall Tunstead
Road for National Offender Management Service
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20090330 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 4 Warren
Road for Mr and Mrs Brooks
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20090268 - Erection of rear conservatory; Too Doors Moor Road for
Mr Dunning
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20090289 - Retention of additional roof lights, windows and French
doors (amendment to planning permission ref:20071301 for single-storey
dwelling); New Bungalow, Landseer Poultry Rectory Road for J E and E M E
Ames
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20090204 - Erection of garden room extension, porch,
detached garage/store building and storage shelter; Swanton Hill Cottage The
Hill for Mr Maw
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20090239 - Variation of condition 3 of planning reference
20030094 to permit use of annexe for holiday accommodation; Emily Cottage
The Hill for Mr Wilde
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - 20090279 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (revised
design); adjacent to Italska Cromer Road for Mrs Hunter
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
11
11 June 2009
TRUNCH - 20061906 - Construction of sewage pumping station; land at Hall
Farm Mundesley Road for Anglian Water Services Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - 20090315 - Raising of roof to provide accommodation in roofspace;
14 Pyghtle Close for Mr Lines
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20090282 - Erection of rear conservatory; Rose Cottage Holehouse
Road for Mr and Mrs Robinson
(Full Planning Permission)
6.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRUMSTEAD - 20090295 - Erection of single-storey front extensions; 1 -2
Sands Cottages Ingham Road for HBS Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - 20090308 - Raising of roof and construction of dormer
windows; Twee Cottage The Street for Mrs Huggins
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - 20090249 - Variation of condition 2 of planning reference:
19840922 to permit all year holiday occupancy; Windy Ridge Beach Road
Eccles-On-Sea for Mr Robarts
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090234 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 14
Morrison Close for Ms Spicer
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
7.
NEW APPEALS
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081382 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 3 Skeyton
Road for Mrs Fox
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
8.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
WALCOTT - 20081662 - Removal of condition 3 of planning application
reference: 20021117 to permit residential occupancy; White Farm Barn North
Walsham Road Happisburgh for Mr Kinsey
INFORMAL HEARING
9.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
AYLMERTON - 20080817 - Removal of occupancy restriction; Edgewood Holt
Road Aylmerton for Mr C Cudmore
Development Control Committee (East)
12
11 June 2009
10.
APPEAL DECISIONS
AYLMERTON - 20080300 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site adjoining Breck
Lodge Holt Road Aylmerton for Westcrome Properties Limited
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
MUNDESLEY - 20080808 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and stables and
erection of eight two-storey dwellings; 17 Marina Road Mundesley for Mrs P
Smith
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
NORTH WALSHAM (WEST WARD) - 20081534 - Erection of three single-storey
dwellings; 47 Yarmouth Road North Walsham for Mr Yaxley
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
WALCOTT - 20081277 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling and garage
(renewal of 20051326); Marigold Poplar Drive Walcott for Dr M Goodliffe
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
WORSTEAD - 20080458 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide two
units of holiday accommodation; Church View Westwick Road Worstead for Mr
D P Gilligan
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (East)
13
11 June 2009