OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 16 APRIL 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.
North Walsham – 20081129 - County Council reference sp/c/1/2007/1011 –
Conversion of former waste water treatment plant to liquid waste transfer
station; Site at The Old Works, Marshgate for HFS Liquid Waste
Report regarding an appeal against refusal of planning permission by Norfolk
County Council on a planning application on which the District Council was
consulted and which was previously reported to this Committee
Background and Purpose of Report
In July 2008 a planning application was submitted to Norfolk County Council for the
conversion of a former waste water treatment plant at Marshgate, North Walsham to
a liquid waste transfer station. The County Council sought the views of the District
Council in relation to the planning application.
A report concerning the proposal was considered by this Committee on 25
September 2008. Copies of the Committee report and minutes are attached
(Appendix 1). The application generated a good deal of public interest and the
County Council received a large number of letters of objection to the proposal. Many
of the concerns raised related to matters of vehicular access and traffic. At the time of
the September meeting the formal views of the Highway Authority were unknown and
for this reason Members deferred consideration of the application.
Prior to the application being reconsidered at the following meeting Norfolk County
Council as the determining, authority refused planning permission. The application
was refused for the following reasons:
1) The proposal does not have adequate access to and is remote from a Local
Access Route as classified in Highway Authority’s Route Hierarchy published by
Norfolk County Council. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to
conditions detrimental to safe sustainable development in transport terms,
contrary to Development Plan policies T2 and WAS16
2) The roads serving the site are considered to be inadequate to serve the
development proposed, by reason of their poor alignment, restricted width, lack
of passing provision, substandard construction and restricted visibility at adjacent
road junctions. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to
conditions detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Development Plan policies
T2 and WAS16.
An appeal against the refusal of planning permission has now been lodged with the
Planning Inspectorate. This Council has been notified of the appeal and given the
opportunity to comment by 19 April 2009. The County Council refusal of planning
permission was on highway safety grounds and in line with the objections raised by
Development Control Committee (East)
1
16 April 2009
the Highway Authority to the proposal. Marshgate is a narrow single track road, with
limited passing and restricted visibility with adjacent road. Given the highway
constraints and the proposed use of the site, it is recommended that this Council
endorses the position the County Council has taken on this application and supports
the decision of refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the District Council has severe
reservations over any increase in traffic associated with the operation of this
site and the impact it would have on highway safety and the amenities of local
residents.
Source: (Tracy Armitage, Extn 6158– File Reference: 20081129)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
North Walsham - Tree Preservation Order (North Walsham East Ward) 2008
No.15 Appledor, Anchor Road, Spa Common North, Walsham.
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
This Order was served in response to a proposal to fell an oak tree. Planning
permission has been granted for a two-storey house on the site and the applicant has
requested permission to remove the tree to prevent perceived future problems
associated with it. Planning permission was granted on the basis of information
provided on the application form which indicated that no trees were to be felled in
association with the development.
The oak scored highly on the assessment in terms of amenity value, public visibility
and expediency. It was, therefore, deemed appropriate to serve an Order
immediately to protect the tree.
The Order was served on 19 December 2008.
Representations
Objections to the Order
Two letters have been received objecting to the Order, one from a neighbour at 2
Spa Cottage Anchor Road (dated 9 January 2009 – see Appendix 2) and one from
the owner (dated 13 January 2009 – see Appendix 2).
The neighbour objected on three grounds:
1. The tree will eventually damage the footings of the planned property at Appledor.
2. The tree will cast excessive shade over the planned property at Appledor and
possibly the garden of 2 Spa Cottage opposite.
3. The tree is of no particular scenic value and has merely grown out of a neglected
hedge.
The owner objected on five grounds:
1. The position of the tree is such that the roots will interfere with the services
(electricity and water already enter the site close to the tree) and the footings of
the house and eventually get into the drains / downpipes.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
16 April 2009
2. The tree is on the south sunny side of the house and will shade the house.
3. The tree is not an exceptional tree, being a hedgerow Oak and has no public
amenity value. This is not the only tree on the site. Would be prepared to replace
with other Oak trees in the hedge in a position that would not affect the house.
4. The tree leaves and twigs will fill the gutters causing considerable work up a
ladder to clean them.
5. Planning permission was granted to build a house on the site which has no
requirement to retain the tree. If it was not important then, why is it important
now?
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
1. The house should be built in line with current NHBC building standards which will
ensure that the footings are constructed to a standard that avoids future direct or
indirect damage caused by tree roots. Services can be installed to accommodate
tree roots without damage to either the tree or the services.
2. The planned house at Appledor will be shaded by the tree in the afternoon and
this would mainly affect the gable end of the house containing one small ground
floor window. The impact of shading on the main lounge of the house will be
minimal. It is thought highly unlikely that the garden of 2 Spa Cottage would be
affected by the shading of this tree being approximately 25 meters to the south of
the oak.
3. This oak is highly visible from the road and has high amenity value. Growing from
within a hedge this native tree has high wildlife potential.
4. Although the fall of twigs and leaves will lead to annual maintenance works this is
not considered sufficient justification for removing a significant tree.
5. Planning permission was granted on the basis of the information provided on the
planning application. This clearly indicated that no trees would be felled and the
application was assessed on this basis.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order 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, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on a tree of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the tree identified in the Order has considerable public amenity
value and makes a noteworthy contribution to the setting and character of the site
and the surrounding area. Further the tree will benefit the wider landscape in
softening the Western elevation of the planned dwelling.
3. Whether the house for which planning permission has been granted can be built
with the tree remaining.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
16 April 2009
Officers consider that the house and tree can coexist provided that good practice is
followed in laying the foundations and connecting services.
Recommendation:That the North Walsham - Tree Preservation Order (North Walsham East Ward)
2008 No.15 Appledor, Anchor Road, Spa Common North, Walsham be
confirmed.
Source: Tom Russell Grant, Extn 6287 – file ref TPO /74/783)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
WEST RUNTON – Tree Preservation Order 82/784 Renwick Park West
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
This Order was served following a telephone call received from a concerned member
of the public regarding the felling of trees at Renwick Park West, West Runton. A
Landscape Officer visited the site and discovered a contractor clearing the site for a
possible development. Two large trees and a block of woodland were identified as
having amenity value and therefore an Order was served to protect these trees. The
Landscape Officer considered the smaller trees in the area to the north of the estate
road not to be significant with regard to amenity and agreed with the contractor that
these could be removed.
The Order was served on 26 January 2009
Representations
Objections to the Order:The agent of A G Brown (Builders Ltd), the owners of the land, object to the Order on
the following grounds:
Outline planning permission was granted for the whole of Renwick Park on 16 August
1955 and they have consulted Counsel who confirmed that it is an extant permission.
Copies of the correspondence are appended to this report (Appendix 3).
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:The objector is correct that permission planning permission was granted on the site
in 1955. The outline permission was for the construction of estate roads and erection
of approximately 60 dwellings subject to the following conditions:
1 The initial permission herby granted under regulation 5(2) of The Town & Country
Planning General Development Order 1950, relates only to the outline application.
2 No development whatsoever shall take place until plans and descriptions of the
proposed development, including plans and descriptions of layout and drainage shall
have been submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority, and the
development shall conform to such plans and descriptions as approved.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
16 April 2009
Approximately 70 dwellings have been constructed to date and the Council has
received no plans for dwellings in the areas covered by the TPO.
The granting of outline permission (and in particular with all matters reserved), where
the trees have not been shown on the plans, does not override a TPO nor does it
mean that a further Order cannot be made.
A TPO is not served to prevent appropriate development of the site but is served to
protect amenity. There have been no objections raised in respect of the condition or
health of the trees, or for any other arboricultural reason. The trees are considered to
be in good health, are significant trees in the local landscape and have a reasonably
long life expectancy.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order 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, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
It is considered that proper procedures were followed when serving the Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
It is considered that the trees have a significant impact on the local amenity and
contribute to the enjoyment of local people.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case, Extn 6142 - File Reference: TPO 82/784)
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.
SKEYTON - 20081047 - Erection of 4 semi-detached two-storey dwellings and 2
single-storey semi-detached dwellings; land adjacent Highview Felmingham
Road for Broadland Housing Association
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Development Control Committee (East)
5
16 April 2009
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings (2 x 3 bedroom
houses, 2 x 2 bedroom houses, 2 x 2 bedroom bungalows) on agricultural land to
east of existing dwellings at High View, Skeyton.
Amended plans submitted include revised dwelling designs and incorporate a 90m
visibility splay in a northerly direction at the adjacent road junction. A landscaping
scheme has also been submitted.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application but asks for 30m.p.h. speed limit because of the dangerous
cross roads to the west; amendments to the site layout; addition of chimneys;
clarification of sewage disposal arrangements (no main sewer is available); some
shared ownership housing; and residents to have strong local connection. Full
comments are at Appendix 4.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. Contrary to planning policy.
2. Considerable distance to local amenities.
3. Impact on character of the area.
4. Increase in traffic.
5. Better sites available.
6. Loss of agricultural land.
7. Poor highway network.
Supporting letter from agent explaining the improvements made since the application
was first considered (Appendix 4).
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments that the
local landscape has an open character with long, interrupted views. The overall
character is predominantly rural, and is on the whole either flat or very gently
undulating. The site is in an area where the Local Development Framework
Landscape Character Assessment identifies that significant numbers of new
dwellings either within or outside existing settlements would not contribute to or
maintain landscape character, and that new development should not stand out but
should be unnoticeable within the existing development structure. No attempt has
been made to soften the impact of new buildings in the landscape and the current
proposals would have a detrimental effect on the landscape.
Comments on submitted landscaping proposals awaited.
County Council (Highways) - Recommended refusal of the originally submitted
application for two principal reasons. Firstly, the unclassified road serving the site is
considered inadequate because of its poor alignment, restricted width and severely
restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions. Secondly the site is not in a sustainable
location, being remote from public services (schools, healthcare etc) and local
facilities, with very limited levels of public transport available. (Full comments
attached at Appendix 4).
Development Control Committee (East)
6
16 April 2009
Comments on the amended plans (specifically the visibility splay now proposed) are
awaited. However, it has been confirmed that the objection relating to unsustainable
location of the site remains.
Strategic Housing - Supports. Proposal meets identified housing need in the Parish
and is the preferred site identified by the Parish Council. (Full comments attached at
Appendix 4).
In respect of the amended proposals (provision of 90 metres visibility splay)
comments that this will significantly improve traffic safety at the existing road junction
and that any increased splay would take an excessive amount of land from
residential gardens and the village hall. Any additional highway works (i.e. provision
of passing places would simply make the scheme unaffordable to develop.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, 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 Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of affordable housing in the countryside.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Design.
4. Highway safety.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
16 April 2009
APPRAISAL
The application was first considered by the Committee in August last year when it
was deferred for a site visit. At the following meeting in September Members
resolved that they were minded to approve the application in principle but deferred a
decision to enable the applicants to liaise with the Highway Authority to explore
measures to overcome the traffic safety concerns. The amended proposal now
incorporates improvements to visibility at the nearby road junction.
The site adjoins a group of nine dwellings and the village hall, but otherwise is in a
relatively isolated position in open countryside. Policy HO 3 of the Core Strategy
would permit affordable housing in isolated rural locations such as this, provided that
the proposal adjoins an existing group of ten or more dwellings. In this case the site
adjoins a slightly smaller group and is therefore in conflict with Policy HO 3.
This location would not normally be regarded as a sustainable location for new
housing as access to services would be almost entirely reliant on the private car.
Policy SS 4 of the Core Strategy requires that all development proposals be located
and designed so as to reduce carbon emissions. The isolated location of this
proposal brings it into conflict with this policy.
The site is in an elevated and exposed position in an open rural landscape and the
proposed dwellings would be visible over a wide area, particularly from existing roads
to the south east and south west of the site. The amended proposals include hedge
planting around the road, rear and side field boundaries. Whilst in time this will
provide some softening to the appearance of the development it is unlikely to
assimilate the development into the landscape to any significant degree. The
proposal is therefore likely to be intrusive and prominent in the landscape, and
arguably in conflict with Policy EN 2 of the Core Strategy.
The proposed dwellings are two pairs of houses and one pair of bungalows. The
Parish Council raised concerns about the lack of chimneys and the need to protect
the privacy of existing dwellings by siting the proposed bungalows rather than the
houses next to the existing houses. The amended designs incorporate chimney and
some flint to the roadside elevations. Given that the proposed houses would have
blank gable ends it is not considered that there is any need to change the position of
the houses to ensure privacy, and the appearance of the group as a whole is best
achieved by retaining the proposed houses next to the existing houses.
The Highway Authority originally objected to the proposal, firstly on general
sustainability grounds arising from the isolated location of the site, and secondly on
specific grounds arising from the substandard highway network in the vicinity of the
site. The Authority maintains its objection on the first issue with reference to Policy
T1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, pointing out that Skeyton is remote from
schooling, shopping and health provision and has restricted employment
opportunities and limited scope for improving access by public transport. It concludes
that the location of the development is unsustainable and will not encourage a
broader travel choice.
In relation to the second issue it refers to the limited road width of only 3m - 3.5m, in
the vicinity of the site where 4.1m is needed to allow two cars to pass safely, together
with the substandard visibility available at the nearby road junction in the critical
northerly direction. The amended proposal now incorporates a visibility splay of 90m
in a northerly direction, achieved by setting back the front boundaries of the adjacent
four houses and the village hall. Because of the curve of the road the splay is up to
7m deep, and will provide a marked improvement in visibility for all users of this part
of the road network. The views of the Highway Authority on the adequacy of the
visibility splay are currently awaited.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
16 April 2009
This is a difficult decision in view of the pressing need for affordable housing in the
area and the Committee's previously expressed support in principle for the
development is well-understood. Moreover, the applicants have secured an
improvement in visibility at the nearby crossroads which would benefit all road users.
On the other land, the development is not located in an area well-served by local
amenities or public transport, it would have a detrimental impact on the landscape
and the Highway Authority still objects on highway safety grounds and it would not
meet the requirements of Core Strategy policy for affordable housing in the
countryside. On balance, therefore, the Committee is recommended to refuse
permission.
RECOMMENDATION:Refusal subject to the further comments of the Highway Authority for the
following reasons:
The District Council received on 15 July 2008 the Inspector's binding report declaring
the North Norfolk Core Strategy to be sound. The following policies are considered
relevant to the proposed development.
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside
Policy SS 4: Environment
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Policy EN 4: Design
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the site is an unsustainable location for
new housing, being remote from schooling, healthcare and public services and local
facilities, with restricted employment opportunities and very limited levels of public
transport. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions
detrimental to safe sustainable development in planning and transport terms and
would conflict with Policies SS 4 and CT 5 of the Core Strategy and with Policy T1 of
the regional spatial strategy. The application site adjoins and existing group of less
than 10 dwellings and hence it is outside the scope of Core Strategy Policy HO 3
which sets criteria for affordable housing in the countryside. Approval of the
development would therefore conflict with the recently adopted policies of the Core
Strategy.
In addition the site is in an elevated and exposed position in an open rural area
where the location and scale of development proposed would not protect and
enhance the distinctive character of the local landscape or the sensitive skyline. The
proposal would therefore conflict with Policy EN 2 of the Core Strategy and with the
landscape character assessment which supports it, and would be visually damaging
to and intrusive in this open rural setting. In addition the house designs proposed
exhibit few references to the distinctive local architecture of North Norfolk and would
therefore conflict with Policy EN 4 of the Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
16 April 2009
5.
STALHAM - 20090206 - Erection of four terraced dwellings and two flats; The
Old Cinema site Brumstead Road for Mrs King
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :29 Apr 2009
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20030579 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from Class A1/B1 (retail and
workshop) to Class D1 (playgroup/local resource centre)
Approved, 29 May 2003
20081589 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of six terraced dwellings and one
flat
Withdrawn, 12 Jan 2009
20081638 - (Demolition in a Conservation Area) - Demolition of former cinema
Withdrawn, 26 Jan 2009
THE APPLICATION
Erection of six dwellings (four houses and two flats) following the demolition of the
existing building.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barran having regard to the following planning issue:
Stimulation of the area and the lack of attractiveness of the existing building (in
accordance with the Town Council's views).
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports:
1. The proposed development would stimulate the area.
2. The existing building is far from being attractive.
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicant's agent has submitted a Design and Access Statement that describes
the design concept behind the proposed (Appendix 5).
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - The site in
question occupies a prominent position on the northern boundary of the Stalham's
Conservation Area. It currently supports a former cinema building which is of rather
functional appearance and which sits hard up against Brumstead Road. Although of
local social interest, it has little real architectural merit. Certainly, it does not make a
positive contribution to the designated built environment. On this basis there is not
objection to its proposed demolition.
It terms of the proposed redevelopment, the latest set of plans share many
similarities with the earlier withdrawn scheme. As such, the majority of the original
concerns relating to form and design detailing still apply.
In addition, the comments of English Heritage are noted, particularly in respect of the
impact on the setting of the Grade II* listed church of St Mary the Virgin. This impact
Development Control Committee (East)
10
16 April 2009
was previously considered and not felt to be material due to the presence of the
existing building. Undoubtedly, however, the new build will be taller than the existing
building and would obscure more of the church tower. Whether this additional 2.5m
amounts to material harm is open to interpretation and a question of fact and degree.
It does, however, add to the general conclusion that the proposals are not acceptable
from a conservation and design viewpoint.
Recommends that permission is refused in that the proposed development would fail
to comply with Core Strategy Polices EN 4 and EN 8.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
English Heritage - Objects to the overall height of the proposal together with aspects
of its detailing, which it considers will result in development harmful to the setting of
the nearby Grade II star listed church and which will fail to preserve or enhance the
Conservation Area (Appendix 5).
Environmental Health - Awaiting Comments
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to a condition requiring Code Level
2 of the Code for Sustainable Homes being achieved.
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 Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
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).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and scale of proposal.
2. Impact on character of Conservation Area and setting of parish church.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
16 April 2009
APPRAISAL
The proposal is a resubmission of a similar scheme for seven units that was
withdrawn following concerns raised in respect of scale, design and parking.
The site is occupied by the former cinema building which is currently in commercial
use. It is situated at the eastern end of Brumstead Road opposite Stalham High
School and to the rear of residential properties which front onto Stalham High Street.
The site forms part of the designated town centre and is within the Conservation
Area. The parish church lies some 30m to the west and is separated from the site by
a pair of cottages.
The proposal is to demolish the existing building and its replacement with a terrace of
six dwellings comprising 1 x two-bedroom house, 2 x three-bedroom houses, 1 x twobedroom flat and 1 x one-bedroom flat, together with garden areas for the four
houses and a parking area that provides for two parking spaces per unit.
Core Strategy Policy SS 5 is permissive towards new residential developments in
town centres provided that they do not result in the loss of shops or other main town
centre uses located within a defined Primary Shopping Area. This site is outside of
the Primary Shopping Area and so the principle of re-developing it for new housing is
acceptable. The proposal also complies with Core Strategy HO 1 in that two of the
units would be less than 70sq.m floor area and have no more than two bedrooms.
The four houses would be provided with modest but adequate rear gardens. A
communal parking courtyard would be provided (12 spaces) which accords with the
Council's parking guidelines.
Consequently the main considerations relate to issues of design and scale. The
proposal is in the form of a terrace part two/part three storey. A rear parking
courtyard would be served by a single access which would pass underneath part of
one of the flats. The elevational treatments incorporate differing roof ridge heights,
projecting gables, a variety of window styles (including dormers) and a mix of
materials (brick, render and timber boarding).
English Heritage objected to the previous application because of the height of the
development and its consequent impact upon the nearby listed church, together with
certain design detailing. In addition the Council's Conservation and Design and
Landscape Manager raised concerns regarding the quality of the architecture. Whilst
the current scheme includes some changes to the elevational treatment, it is similar
in terms of scale and design to the original. The submitted Design and Access
Statement defends this approach and refutes much of the criticism given to the
earlier scheme. However, Members will note that English Heritage maintain an
objection to the revised scheme and similarly the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager recommends refusal on grounds relating to the detail of the
design.
In this regard Policy HO 7 of the Core Strategy seeks to optimise developments in a
manner that protects or enhances the character of the area, whilst Polices EN 4 and
EN 8 seek to achieve high standards of design and protect the setting of Listed
Buildings and the character of Conservation Areas. The conclusion is that the
submitted scheme fails to achieve an appropriate standard of design for this
particular site and in turn would fail to preserve or enhance the character of this part
of the Conservation Area and would be harmful to the setting of the Grade II* church,
contrary to the policies of the Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
16 April 2009
RECOMMENDATION:Refusal on grounds that the proposed development by virtue of its height,
scale and design detailing would be harmful to the setting of the nearby listed
church and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.
THORPE MARKET - 20090166 - Continued use of land for siting of marquee;
Elderton Lodge Hotel Cromer Road for Mr P W Roofe
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :24 Apr 2009
Case Officer :Mrs R Partridge
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Historic Parks and Gardens (Grade II*)
Countryside Policy Area
Conservation Area
Enforcement Notice
Listed Building Grade 2
Tree Preservation Order
Principal Route
Class 'A' Road, within 60m
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20051387 - (Full Planning Permission) - Concrete base to accommodate marquee
Refused, 17 Oct 2005
THE APPLICATION
Continued use of land for siting of marquee between March and October each year in
association with hotel use. The marquee measures 21m x 9m (length x width).
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold having regard to the following planning issue:
Desirability to support local business
PARISH COUNCIL
Support.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection received from neighbouring residents raising the following
issues:
1. Adverse impact on the Listed Building and the historic landscape/environment.
2. Large, visible and unsightly white structure, out of scale with surroundings.
3. Detrimental to the character of the area.
4. Noise and disturbance.
5. Increased traffic/highway safety.
Letter received from Hanworth Parish Council commenting that both Elderton Lodge
and the Park lie within Gunton Park Conservation Area and the landscape is Grade
II*. While sympathetic to the use of a marquee in the Elderton gardens for a limited
number of events, the Parish is concerned that there is a possibility that it will
become a permanent feature with continuous activity. Amplified music and noise
from evening events late at night are already heard by some Gunton residents as
well as others living adjacent. Any permission should be for a limited use with a
temporary structure and subject to conditions to avoid excessive intrusion on the
Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
16 April 2009
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
marquee is clearly a temporary structure with no permanent base or fixings and as it
can be readily removed there are no direct long term implications to the listed
building. This said the marquee in its current position does not co-existing
harmoniously with the listed building given its size, strident white colour and close
proximity to the rear facade. A preference would be to site the marquee to the side of
the hotel, but the applicant is not willing to agree to this.
This kind of temporary structure is not usually acceptable in the setting of a listed
building, and in this case a temporary permission only (for two years) is
recommended with a more satisfactory structure/siting being found in the longer
term.
County Council (Highways) - Recommends refusal on grounds that the use of the
proposed marquee would intensify the use of a substandard access onto the A149
principal route. The recommendation of refusal is based on the guest information
provided with the application (up to 100 for sit-down meals/wedding breakfasts and
an assumed 150+ persons for buffet function/evening reception). Reference is also
made to the considerable accident record on this section of the A149; see full
response in Appendix 6.
English Heritage - Dose not wish to offer comments. The application should be
determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of
your specialist conservation advice.
Environmental Health - Advises of a history of noise complaints regarding the use of
the marquee dating back to June 2007. This resulted in concern about potential for
statutory nuisance. Following a recent visit to the site and noise readings taken from
a nearby residential property (whilst amplified music was played in the marquee)
concludes that a condition should be imposed, in the event of planning permission
being granted, to prevent amplified music being played inside the marquee until such
time as a sound level regulatory device (noise limiter) has been installed and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. Also recommends that any permission
should only be temporary for one year to allow the opportunity to monitor noise levels
should amplification be subsequently allowed.
Garden History Society - Awaiting comments.
Norfolk Gardens Trust - No objection.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
14
16 April 2009
POLICIES
Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999 - saved policies):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area and historic Park and Garden.
2. Noise and nuisance impact on the neighbouring residents.
3. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application relates to a marquee which is currently sited immediately to the rear
(west) of the Elderton Lodge Hotel.
In 2005 planning permission was refused for a concrete base to accommodate the
marquee on land to the front of the Hotel (east). In this location the prominent open
position, the size and stark appearance of the marquee was considered to have an
adverse impact on the listed building and on the character of this important
landscape. The current application differs in that the marquee is located to the rear of
Elderton Lodge, where the building and surrounding wooded area mainly screens it
from wider views.
Notwithstanding this the marquee, due to it size and appearance, is neither
compatible with its surroundings nor does it compliment the setting of the listed
building. Given however that its visual impact is relatively localised the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager is not opposed to a temporary permission being
granted in this case.
Information provided with the application indicates the marquee would be erected
between March and October each year for use of up to 30 functions (equivalent to 1
function per week). It is understood that the purpose of the marquee is to
accommodate wedding parties in one area, and whilst the hotel can in its own right
facilitate wedding guests of 100+ the layout and size of rooms is not conducive for
larger parties. The marquee is understood to have been used for this purpose for a
number of years and that initially it was erected and dismantled as and when
required. However, in recent years the marquee has remained erected in the current
location for longer periods of time.
The nearest residential property to the marquee is some 100m due east. As referred
to above the Council's Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has previously
investigated noise complaints (amplified music) from the marquee. As part of the
consideration of this planning application and a demonstration of music being played
in the marquee the EHO recommends that is planning permission is granted, it
should be temporary for one year and subject to a condition preventing amplified
music unless details of a sound regulatory device (noise regulator) are first agreed.
Development Control Committee (East)
15
16 April 2009
The existing access serving the hotel adjoins the A149 North Walsham Road. As
Members will see from the response from the Highway Authority (Appendix 6) the
point of access is not considered to be adequate in terms of its configuration, width,
radii and forward visibility. For this reason the Highway Authority consider the
additional volumes of traffic which would be generated by the marquee use to be
unacceptable consequently objects to the application.
In conclusion, because of the nature of the marquee and its relatively concealed
location, there is no objection to it being retained for a temporary period from a
visual/character perspective. There is an issue relating to potential noise nuisance
from its use and Members note the above recommendations of the EHO. Whilst in
determining this application account needs to be taken of the economic benefits the
retention of the marquee will provide to this local business, in view of the objection
raised by the Highway Authority on safety grounds, refusal is recommended.
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 statement is considered relevant
to the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
The proposed development would intensify the use of a substandard access on a
stretch of classified highway (North Walsham Road A149 – principle route/Corridor of
Movement) where the principal use is that of carrying traffic freely and safely
between centres of population.
The existence of an access in this location is a matter of fact and degree of conflict
and interference to the passage of through vehicles already occurs, but the
intensification of that interference which this proposal would engender would lead to
the deterioration in the efficiency of the through road as a traffic carrier and be
detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with Policy CT 5.
7.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - 20090043 - Installation of two satellite dishes and antenna;
Valley Woods Sandy Lane for Arqiva Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - 20090148 - Erection of front porch; Durian House 12a
Beechwood Avenue for Mr J Pitcher
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - 20090040 - Erection of two-storey extension and detached garage;
Osborne House Priory Road for Mr Acland
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - 20090108 - Installation of rooflight; The Rose House Limes Road
for Mr Filgate
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081442 - Erection of two-storey side extension and front porch;
Woodfalls 25 The Warren for Mr and Mrs Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
16
16 April 2009
CROMER - 20090070 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 26 Lynewood
Road for Mr Forrester
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20090072 - Display of illuminated advertisement; Unit 4b
Middlebrook Way for Mr D Smith
(Illuminated Advertisement)
CROMER - 20090095 - Partial demolition and rebuilding of rear extension; 57
Church Street for Cathedral Park Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - 20090175 - Erection of one and a half storey rear extension;
The Warren Chequers Street for Mr Snell
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - 20090133 - Erection of temporary station; Cart Gap Cart Gap
Road for Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20090056 - Extension of roof to provide additional first floor
living accommodation; 16 Beckmeadow Way for Mr and Mrs Rawlings
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - 20081706 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden
and erection of garage and store; Alderfen Cottage Sows Loke Neatishead
Threehammer Common for Mr Gibbons
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - 20090144 - Conversion of redundant agriculture buildings to
one unit of holiday accommodation; Beech Farm Common Road for Mr King
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081122 - Continued use of land for siting of storage
container; 13a Mundesley Road for Mr Choudury
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090001 - Erection of garage/car-port and erection of 2
metre front boundary wall; High Croft, 28 Happisburgh Road for Mr R Bell
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090022 - Erection of one and half storey replacement
dwelling; 14 Marshgate for Mr Vincent
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090041 - Erection of two-storey extension; 2 Valley
Gardens for Mr Napier
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090064 - Installation of roof-light; 32b Bradfield Road
for Mr and Mrs Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
17
16 April 2009
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090067 - Formation of vehicular access; 23 Aylsham
Road for Mrs Mansfield
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090090 - Erection of front porch; 23 Morris Road for
Miss A Cox
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090091 - Display of non-illuminated hanging sign; 26
Market Place for Nationwide Building Society
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090109 - Installation of air-conditioning unit; 20 Market
Place for Oasis Dentalcare Ltd
(Alteration to Listed Building)
NORTHREPPS - 20090085 - Conversion of workshops to six units of holiday
accommodation (renewal of planning reference: 20040146); A G Tool Hire
Crossdale Street for Mrs Kidd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - 20090096 - Use of land for siting of portable building;
Northrepps Aerodrome North Walsham Road for Mr and Mrs Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - 20090136 - Removal of condition 12 of 20041068 to permit
residential occupancy; Winspur Farm Barn North Walsham Road for Mr C G H
Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20090104 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4
Highfield Road for Mr and Mrs Mills
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20090150 - Variation of condition 3 of planning reference:
20000702 to enable manager's dwelling to be occupied as holiday
accommodation; The Coach House Ivy Farm High Street for W R Reynolds and
Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20090151 - Variation of condition 5 of planning reference:
20071838 to enable holiday unit to be occupied as manager's accommodation;
Building at Ivy Farm High Street for W R Reynolds and Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - 20090174 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Beechcroft
Frankfort for Mr and Mrs L Hartman
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20081701 - Erection of single-storey dwelling (revised design)
and four two-storey terraced dwellings; Greenways Thorpe Road for
Southrepps Development
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
18
16 April 2009
SOUTHREPPS - 20090121 - Erection of three dwellings; 14-16 Church Street for
A G Brown (Builders) Ltd
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
SUTTON - 20090044 - Erection of two-storey side extension; The Thatched
Cottage Church Road for Mr Grimes
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20090084 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Too Doors Moor
Road for Mr Dunning
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20090159 - Erection of rear extension; Broad Oak Barn Hickling
Road for Mr Wagstaff
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20090139 - Erection of two-storey side and rear
extensions, garden room and detached cartshed garage; Keepers Lodge Long
Common Road for Mr Read
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - 20090062 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Church Farmhouse
Church Street for Mr Turner
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - 20090082 - Conversion of outbuildings to annexe; St Crispin Chapel
Road for RGW Portugal Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - 20090165 - Erection of garden shed; Manor House Cottage Market
Street for Mr M Unsworth
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - 20090069 - Erection of extension to potato off-loading bay; Heinz
Frozen and Chilled Foods Station Road for Heinz Factory
(Full Planning Permission)
8.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HICKLING - 20090058 - Erection of dwelling; Martins Nest The Green for Broad
Oak Builders
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - 20090047 - Retention of replacement flue; Foundry Arms
Church Street for Mrs Burtonwood
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
9.
NEW APPEALS
AYLMERTON - 20080817 - Removal of occupancy restriction; Edgewood Holt
Road for Mr C Cudmore
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Control Committee (East)
19
16 April 2009
10.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
AYLMERTON - 20080300 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site adjoining Breck
Lodge Holt Road for Westcrome Properties Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 May 2009
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080134 - Erection of one hundred and forty-nine
dwellings, (forty of which are sheltered), sixty-bed care home, ten employment
units and convenience store; Hopkins Homes site Norwich Road for Hopkins
Homes Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 25 Mar 2009
11.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
MUNDESLEY - 20080808 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and stables and
erection of eight two-storey dwellings; 17 Marina Road for Mrs P Smith
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081534 - Erection of three single-storey dwellings; 47
Yarmouth Road for Mr Yaxley
WALCOTT - 20081277 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling and garage
(renewal of 20051326); Marigold Poplar Drive for Dr M Goodliffe
WORSTEAD - 20080458 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide two
units of holiday accommodation; Church View Westwick Road for Mr D P
Gilligan
SITE VISIT :- 31 Mar 2009
12.
APPEAL DECISIONS
RUNTON - 20080193 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; land at
Widgeons Home Close West Runton for Dr and Mrs P Saunders
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
WORSTEAD - 20081167 - Conversion and extensions to the forge to provide a
residential dwelling; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D Gilligan
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (East)
20
16 April 2009