OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 19 MARCH 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.
MUNDESLEY - 01/071/DEV6/07/005 – 32 High Street
Report requesting authority to prosecute for non-compliance with Enforcement
Notice requiring the removal of an unauthorised flue within 6 months of the effective
date of the Notice.
Relevant Planning History
2007/0891 – Installation of External Flue – Refused 20 July 2007.
Background
Planning permission was refused for the installation of an external flue at 32 High
Street, Mundesley in 2007. As the flue had already been installed, enforcement
action for its removal was commenced under delegated powers with the agreement
of the Local Member and the Committee Chair.
In order to secure the names and addresses of any other person with an interest in
the land, a Planning Contravention Notice was served on the occupier of the
premises on 28 September 2007. No formal response to this was received. On 22
October 2007 a letter requesting that the Council rethink its intention to serve an
Enforcement Notice was received from the owner of the premises. In response, a
letter advising the owner of the circumstances that led to the decision to serve the
Enforcement Notice and advising about the right of appeal against such a Notice was
sent.
The Enforcement Notice, requiring the removal of the flue within six months of the
effective date of the Notice, was served on 29 October 2007.
On 26 November 2007 the owner of the property asked for help with completing his
appeal forms against the Enforcement Notice. At the same time he was advised to
complete appeal forms against the refusal of Planning Application 20070891 and to
ask the Inspectorate to link the two appeals, but no appeal against the refusal of
planning application reference: 20070891 was submitted.
The Enforcement appeal was dismissed on 16 June 2008 and a letter was sent to the
owner advising him that the six months within which the removal of the flue should be
completed would now run from the date of the appeal decision. The date by which
the flue should be removed was then 16 December 2008.
A site visit was conducted on 18 December 2008 and it was found that the flue had
not been removed. In view of that, a letter, advising the owner that a report
requesting authority to prosecute for non-compliance with an Enforcement Notice
would be submitted to the Committee, was sent to the owner.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
19 March 2009
Conclusion
By failing to remove the flue by 16 December 2008, the occupier has not complied
with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice served on him on 29 October 2007.
Human Rights
It is considered that the commencement of legal proceedings as recommended may
have an impact on the individual Human Rights of the person who has contravened
planning control. However, having considered the likely impact and the general
interests of the public, legal action is considered to be justified, proportionate and in
accordance with planning law.
RECOMMENDATION:That authority be given to initiate legal proceedings against the occupier of 32
High Street, Mundesley, under Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, for failure
to comply with the enforcement notice.
(Source: Debs Struthers, Ext 6228 File Reference: 071dev607005)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as
Condition No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
CROMER - 20081650 - Erection of replacement hospital buildings; Cromer and
District Hospital Mill Road for NNUH NHS Foundation Trust
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :24 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Health Care Campus
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20050798 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions to provide radiology
unit and dining/cafe area, renal clinic and formation of additional car parking area
Temporarily Approved, 28 Jun 2005
THE APPLICATION
To demolish the existing hospital buildings in a phased manner and erect a one and
two-storey hospital building on the southern side of the site. The proposed building
would comprise a linear structure of rendered block work with bands of cedar
boarding and glazing, under a curved preformed metal roof. The building would be
predominantly two storeys in height, (8.6m to the eaves, 12m total height) with
sections at the front single storey with a flat roof (allowing for future upward
extension) and with the section at the rear (east) being higher (maximum height
13.7m) to accommodate plant within the roofspace. The remainder of the site would
be laid out with car parking, areas for vehicle manoeuvring, pedestrian forecourts and
a centrally placed landscaped garden area.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
19 March 2009
The application is accompanied by a full range of accompanying statements. These
are available on the Council's website or on the public register copy of the
application. They include the following:
Supporting Planning Statement.
Biodiversity site assessment for protected species.
Economic statement.
Flood risk assessment and drainage strategy.
Foul sewage and utility assessment.
Heritage assessment.
Site investigation report.
Hard and soft landscaping proposals to be detailed.
Lighting assessment.
Noise statement.
Design and access statement.
Statement of community involvement.
Transport statement.
Tree condition survey.
Ventilation/extraction statement.
Energy consumption/building regulations Part L compliance.
Sustainable construction checklist.
Security and crime prevention policy.
Site waste management plan.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
In the opinion of the Head of Planning and Building Control this is a major
development which raises significant planning issues.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection raising issues of scale and impact on amenities, design and
effect on wildlife including existing bat roosts.
One letter supporting principle of redevelopment but seeking changes to lighting on
northern boundary.
The architect's planning statement is appended to this report (Appendix 1).
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Confirms that the development can be accommodated by the public
sewer network.
Community Safety Manager/Police Architectural Liaison Officer - Has submitted
detailed comments direct to architects. These relate to lighting, landscaping,
boundary treatment, access and car parking, building and site layout and the need
for CCTV coverage of the site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Considers that in terms of its overall scale, height and massing the building would
seem appropriate. However, raises particular concerns regarding the position of the
building in relation to the southern and eastern site boundaries and considers the
design to be utilitarian and functional lacking any local reference or distinctiveness
(see full comments in Appendix 2).
Development Control Committee (East)
3
19 March 2009
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - States that the existing
trees on the site are indicative of the type of tree cover in Cromer and make a
significant contribution to the amenity value of the area. It is proposed to remove 32
trees to accommodate the new building and some remaining trees would have to be
pruned back. Those to be removed are primarily in the south-eastern part of the site.
Thirty-eight trees are proposed as mitigation to those lost. Considers the principle of
the landscaping proposals to be acceptable, but the quantity of replanting is
inadequate. More could be done to improve the front of the site on Mill Road to
create an attractive entrance.
Refers in detail to the findings of the initial protected species report undertaken on
behalf of the applicants in October 2008 and the subsequent bat survey prepared in
January this year. In the light of the survey recommendations that further internal
inspections should be undertaken on all roof voids to fully establish their status or
potential as bat roosts, it would be inappropriate and contrary to Core Strategy Policy
EN 9, to determine the application without the recommended further survey work
having been carried out at the appropriate time of year (see full comments in
Appendix 3).
County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to conditions including a
Construction Traffic Management and Routing Plan, the completion of an interim
Travel Plan plus various off-site works, including waiting restrictions and signage that
would be achieved by a Traffic Regulation Order.
Economic And Tourism Development Manager - Awaiting comments.
Environment Agency - No objections subject to conditions ensuring compliance with
the FRA.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Pleased to see that the application is accompanied by an
assessment for protected species and that the landscape strategy includes wildlife
enhancement proposals. Draw attention to the recommendations within the species
assessment that further bat surveys are required. These should take place before
any planning decision is made. Local people have also drawn attention to the
presence of grassland wild flowers such as bee orchid and primrose on the site.
Owing to the time of year that the assessment took place there should be a further
survey in Spring, which would enable mitigation and enhancement plans to take
account of these and other species that were not apparent at the time of the previous
survey. As the presence of these species is not likely to change the outcome of any
planning decision but rather the detail of mitigation and enhancement, this could be
accommodated via a planning condition.
Natural England - Objects and recommends that planning permission is refused on
grounds that the application currently contains insufficient survey information to
demonstrate whether or not the development would have an adverse effect on legally
protected species (for full response see Appendix 4).
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No known below ground archaeological
implications. Although the buildings are not listed they do have some local
archaeological significance. It would be desirable if some aspects of theses
structures could be retained and incorporated into the new hospital buildings. If this is
not possible would request a programme of historic building recording prior to
demolition.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Confirms that the application complies with requirements
of Policy EN 6.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
19 March 2009
Environmental Health - No objections subject to conditions including need for further
contamination land survey, noise and lighting details.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
Refer to the Community Safety Manager's comments above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
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. Principle of the development.
2. Loss of existing buildings.
3. Layout and design.
4. Impact on nearby residential properties.
5. Highway/parking issues.
6. Landscaping.
7. Ecological issues.
8. Lighting.
APPRAISAL
Introduction
The principle of a new hospital in Cromer is to be welcomed, representing a major
investment in the town and an endorsement of the town's role as a focus of health
service provision in North Norfolk. The site is designated in the North Norfolk Core
Strategy as a Health Care Campus. Policy CT 3 aims to retain such facilities and
restricts the redevelopment of such sites for other purposes. Policy SS 7 supports the
principle of redeveloping the District Hospital on the existing site. Accordingly the
principle of redeveloping the site for a new hospital fully complies with Development
Plan policy. The following sections of the report consider detailed issues relating to
the scheme.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
19 March 2009
Loss of Existing Buildings
The existing hospital complex consists of a range of low, predominantly single-storey
buildings located mainly on the front half of the site. The hospital comprises a mix of
pitched roofed buildings, some with distinctive 'Dutch' gables, and others with flat
roofs. The predominant finish is white render. The original buildings date from the
1930's and were designed by Edward Boardman in the Dutch colonial style.
Subsequent extensions of comparable scale but no significant architectural merit
have taken place to the north and east of the original buildings.
The possibility of listing these buildings was considered by English Heritage in 2007,
but the conclusion was reached that as they were so altered and extended and that
so much of the original fabric had been lost they were not of listable quality.
Nevertheless the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers
that if the buildings were to have been retained they would probably have featured on
a 'local list' of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The design of the
buildings and their position on the site provide little opportunity to incorporate any
elements of them into the new redevelopment and the application therefore proposes
their complete removal. It is however proposed to retain some key features of the
original building - including the stone door surround incorporating the carved name,
memorial wall panels and plaques, and possibly some decorative tiles.
Layout and Design
The approach taken in the layout and design of the new hospital has been dictated
by two principal factors - firstly the need to retain the hospital in operation during the
redevelopment, and secondly the need to retain the existing renal unit located to the
rear of the existing complex. Hence the proposal is for a phased redevelopment
beginning with the construction of the rear part of the new building on the only
available open area of land at the south-eastern part of the site. Once this first phase
is completed (and in service) certain of the existing buildings would be demolished to
make way to construct the remainder of the new building. Finally the remaining
buildings would be demolished to provide the on-site car parking facilities.
The existing renal unit is a modular building which was granted a ten year temporary
planning permission in 2005. The agent has written to explain that Renal Services
within the region are currently being reviewed. It is intended that the new strategy
and supporting infrastructure would be in place from 2015 onwards. "The Cromer
facility provides an essential service to dialysis patients and therefore cannot be
disrupted. To relocate the Cromer facility at this stage would cause an unacceptable
disruption to renal provision. The priority is to provide a long term and sustainable
dialysis services that best serve the people of Norfolk".
These requirements result in a linear building form which would start with the first
phase in the south-east corner of the site and which would run roughly parallel with
and within approximately 3m of the southern site boundary. The final phase of the
building would extend towards the Mill Road frontage as a two-storey building, with
single-storey projections either side. The remainder of the Mill Road frontage of the
site would be taken up by a car park (68 spaces and site accesses).
In terms of building mass the most substantial element would be at the rear of the
site where the two floors of accommodation would be surmounted by an additional
roof area enclosing plant and equipment. This would have the effect of creating a
third storey at this end of the building, producing a total height of 13.7m. The rear
face of the building would at its closest point be only approximately 10m from the
garden boundary of adjacent residential properties.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
19 March 2009
In terms of the new building's impact on the frontage of the site this would not be
significantly different from the impact of the existing buildings. The proposed building
would occupy a similar footprint and would be comparable in scale with the existing
building. It would also be partially screened by the group of Holm Oaks which would
be retained in the south-west corner of the site.
In terms of its detailed appearance the building is proposed to be constructed with
light buff coloured rendered walls, with glazing (powder coated metal frames) set in a
band of cedar boarding. The roof is formed as shallow curved barrel form with
standing seam zinc metal cladding, with wide oversailing eaves.
Prior to the application being submitted Officers recommended, given the importance
of such a prestigious new public building in Cromer, that CABE (Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment) should be asked to review the design
proposals. Subsequently following agreement between CABE and the applicants the
task was referred to the NHS Design Review Panel who undertook an assessment at
the site on 28 January. A copy of the Design Review Panel's (draft) report is attached
at Appendix 5.
Whilst recognising the constraints affecting the project (phasing and retention of the
renal unit) the Review Panel comment that this "has resulted in a building pushed
uncomfortably tight to the southern boundary with little evidence of urban design
analysis or integration with the surrounding development". Members are referred in
particular to paragraph 2.4 of the report which implies that more evidence should
have been provided to justify that the phasing strategy is the only possible option.
The point is made that when completed the location of the final building "may lack
logic". There are also comments that landscaping treatment to the site frontage could
be more 'engaging'.
The Review Panel avoid any direct critique of the external appearance of the building
itself, but the report (para. 3.6) does consider that the functional planning of the
interior of the building has taken precedence "with insufficient attention being paid to
the quality of the design of the building as a whole ..."
Members are referred to the full comments of the Council's Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager in Appendix 2. The views reached mirror certain of the
comments by the NHS Review Panel, in that the constraints imposed upon the
designers have resulted in a building too close to site boundaries and the emphasis
given to the functionality of the building has prevented sufficient attention from being
paid to the appearance of the building and the quality of its external spaces. In
conclusion the proposals are a disappointment for what should ideally be a
prestigious landmark local building.
Impact on Nearby Residents
As referred to above, the first phase of the proposed building would be in the south
east corner of the site. It is here that the proposed building would be both at its
highest and at its closest to the boundaries of the site and neighbouring residential
properties. To the east there are several small bungalows on Ellenhill which directly
adjoin the site. These bungalows have very short rear gardens (as little as 4m in
places). The proposed building would be only approximately 20m from the rear
windows of these properties. Accordingly the impact of the proposed development on
the outlook of these properties and in terms of shading of windows and gardens
would be quite considerable.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
19 March 2009
In addition the building would be within 3m of the boundary of a dwelling on the
southern side of the site. The potential for overlooking and loss of privacy towards
this property has been largely addressed by revised plans that specify obscure
glazing and high level windows. Moreover, the two buildings would be 24m apart.
Nevertheless the proximity of a building of this mass, so close to a residential garden
boundary, is far from ideal. The proximity of the building to the boundary at this point
also means that the trees on the southern boundary which currently provide some
screening would have to be removed.
Highway/Parking Issues
The main access routes into the site are proposed to remain largely unchanged. The
northern access from Mill Road is to be retained as the main service access and
access to both the rear car park (39 spaces) and the main front car park (68 spaces).
The existing central access from Mill Road is also to be retained to provide a
dropping off area and to serve a further small parking area (7 spaces) at the southwestern corner of the site. A former access to Clare Road on the southern boundary
would be re-opened as an emergency access only.
As a replacement of an existing facility, the proposed hospital is not likely to generate
a significantly greater volume of traffic than occurs presently. Accordingly the
Highway Authority has raised no objections to the application, subject to a number of
conditions. The requirements of one of these suggested conditions relating to
submission and approval of an interim Travel Plan is currently being addressed. A
significant element of the Travel Plan will relate to the situation during the
construction period. It is understood that the applicants are negotiating to provide a
temporary parking facility on part of the football ground on the opposite side of Mill
Road. A separate planning application for this temporary provision is anticipated
shortly.
The existing hospital site contains parking spaces for 82 cars, and it is evident that
despite this the hospital creates pressure for parking on Mill Road and adjoining
streets. The proposed layout incorporates parking spaces for a total of 123 cars, plus
44 bicycles and 6 motorbikes. The increased provision is likely to improve the
situation in the medium to long term in respect of the adjoining streets provided that
there is no intention to charge for on site parking. Whilst it is important that sufficient
parking is available at the site, an over-provision needs to be avoided, particularly as
there is a noticeable lack of landscaping incorporated within the main car park at the
front of the site. The applicant has been requested to reconsider the level of parking
currently proposed.
Landscaping
The application is accompanied by a detailed tree survey. As referred to in the
comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (above), the
proposal involves the removal of 32 trees but as mitigation for this 38 new trees are
proposed. The majority of trees to be removed or pruned back are along the southern
side of the site. Trees along the frontage with Mill Road would be retained. In terms
of new landscaping it is considered that the scheme lacks adequate treatment to the
front of the site, in particular to break up the expanse of the main car park. Further
plans are awaited, including a Tree Protection Plan that will take into account the
protection of the trees to be retained during construction.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
19 March 2009
Lighting
The proposal includes a detailed lighting layout plan showing the position of lighting
columns and the levels of illumination on the ground. Comments have been received
from a nearby resident concerned about light spill into the adjoining property and
more detail is being sought from the agents on this issue.
Ecological Issues
When originally submitted the application was accompanied by a protected species
report. This concluded that some of the buildings and trees on the site hold potential
for roosting bats. As a result a subsequent bat survey has now been undertaken.
This survey confirms the presence of a bat roost in one of the buildings and
concludes the need for further surveys to ascertain fully roost size and status.
Evidence was also found in one of the trees on site. Members are referred to the full
comments of the Council's Landscape Officer in Appendix 3 and Natural England in
Appendix 4. The implications of this in relation to advice contained in Circular
06/2005 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations' is that
these further surveys and the extent to which protected species may be affected by
the proposed development should be established before any planning permission is
granted. Legal advice is being sought as to whether this matter could be dealt with by
planning condition. It is hoped that Members will be updated on a response at the
meeting.
Conclusions
The prospect of a redeveloped hospital in Cromer is to be welcomed and is one
which in principle accords with Development Plan policy.
However, this report raises a number of serious misgivings with regard to the
positioning of the building on the site, its resultant impact on adjacent residential
properties, the building's rather bland and utilitarian appearance, together with what
is considered to be a lack of proper landscaping treatment to the site's public
frontage.
There is no doubt if it were not for the fact that the hospital needs to continue
functioning during the redevelopment of the site then the position and shape of the
building would not be as proposed. Neither would it be as proposed if the renal unit
were not required to remain. However, because of these factors the building layout
has been presented as a fait accompli. The issue for the Committee to consider is
whether these constraints are sufficient justification for the Council as Local Planning
Authority to put aside the areas of concern identified in connection with the
proposals.
The view of Officers is that there should be further dialogue with the applicants to
explore further the possibilities of amending the scheme to address these concerns,
and in particular whether the retention of the renal unit, a factor which is severely
constraining the potential improvement of the scheme, can be reviewed. If Members
agree to this approach, other issues relating to the appearance of the building,
landscaping treatment and protected species surveys can be pursued.
RECOMMENDATION:That consideration of the application is deferred and that the applicants be
requested to undertake the following:
Address issues raised in the NHS Design Panel report.
Reconsider the retention of the renal unit.
Reconsider the layout, design and landscaping of the proposal.
Undertake necessary further protected species surveys at the site.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
19 March 2009
3.
WICKMERE - 20090052 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation
and erection of timber garage block; Park Farm House Wolterton Park
Wolterton for Michael MacNamara
Target Date :17 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Historic Parks and Gardens
Countryside Policy Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20001632 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of agricultural buildings into two
holiday units with cart shed garages
Approved, 06 Dec 2001
20021926 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barns to two residential units
with cart shed garages
Refused, 29 July 2002
20031416 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barns to two residential
dwellings
Refused, 07 Jul 2004
Appeal Dismissed, 15 Dec 2005
20081386 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of garage to habitable
accommodation and erection of detached garage
Refused, 24 Nov 2008
THE APPLICATION
To convert an integral garage to a study and the construction of a detached threebay car port/store building with vertical timber boarding and reclaimed pantiles.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilcox having regard to the following planning issue:
Compliance with Development Plan policy.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
19 March 2009
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
North Norfolk Local Plan (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
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. Impact on the character of the countryside and Conservation Area.
2. Impact on the setting of the existing buildings.
APPRAISAL
The application relates to one of a pair of holiday units which have been created by
the conversion of a former agricultural building. The site has a lengthy planning
history. Permission has previously been refused for the conversion of the building to
two permanent dwellings on policy grounds. A subsequent appeal following a public
inquiry was dismissed in 2005.
In accordance with normal practice the planning permission to convert the building to
holiday accommodation included a condition removing permitted development rights
for any extensions, alterations on buildings within the curtilage.
The site itself is in an isolated area of countryside and forms part of the Mannington
and Wolterton Conservation Area.
The conversion of the garage into residential accommodation would have a minor
impact on the character of the building, although it would involve the introduction of
additional domestic windows, as opposed to the plain timber doors which better
reflect the agricultural character of the building.
The erection of a free-standing building at the rear of the converted barn, however,
would result in the introduction of an alien feature that has no historical relevance to
the form of the farmyard, and which would be of a size where it would have an
adverse impact on the setting of the group of buildings. Although located at the rear
of the main barn and partly concealed from open land to the north by the boundary
hedge, the proposed building would be damaging to the setting and traditional layout
of this farmyard group, contrary to policies of the adopted Core Strategy and the
North Norfolk Design Guide.
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
Development Control Committee (East)
11
19 March 2009
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the erection of a large additional freestanding building in the prominent open position proposed would be damaging to the
character and setting of this group of historic barns. Furthermore, the proposed
building would involve substantial additional development associated with a scheme
of conversion which would be contrary to a criterion of Policy EC 2 and to paragraph
7.7 of the North Norfolk Design Guide. The fact that the approved conversion
scheme as built provides a garaging facility within the original building adds weight to
the Local Planning Authority's objection to this additional development.
4.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - 20090037 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Glebe Farm
Holt Road for Mr Youngman
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - 20090006 - Construction of rear dormer window and
installation of replacement windows; Hayletts Cottage Staithe Road for Mr B
Greenwood
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CATFIELD - 20090009 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; plot at, Forge
Cottage The Street for Mr T Jewell
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
CROMER - 20081722 - Demolition of section of wall to provide vehicular access
and erection of gates; Old Bracondale, 10 Overstrand Road for Mr P Taylor
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CROMER - 20081745 - Installation of glazed doors; Tides Restaurant
Promenade for Openwide Coastal Ltd
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CROMER - 20081746 - Display of double-sided hanging sign; 10 Canada Road
for Mr G Barber
(Illuminated Advertisement)
CROMER - 20090045 - Conversion of ground floor and basement to form
additional residential unit; Brunswick House The Gangway for Mr Moreham
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20090046 - Internal alterations to facilitate conversion of ground
floor and basement to two dwellings; Brunswick House The Gangway for Mr
Moreham
(Alteration to Listed Building)
DILHAM - 20090026 - Erection of replacement garden room; The Old Rectory
Vicarage Road for Mr Warner
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - 20081702 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached cartshed garage; adjacent to Rosebank Eagle Road for Bronzewell Management Co
Ltd
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
Development Control Committee (East)
12
19 March 2009
HANWORTH - 20090021 - Alterations to conservatory and installation of
partition wall and 3 rooflights; 2 Ivy Cottages Gunton Park White Post Road for
Spurdown Ltd
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HICKLING - 20081732 - Erection of single-storey front extensions; Sunset
Stubb Road for Mr Terrett
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - 20090027 - Use of land for siting mobile classroom for playgroup;
Hickling Infants School The Street for Hickling Hunnies Playgroup
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - 20090028 - Erection of car port; Martins Nest The Green for Mr
Ward
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - 20081729 - Removal of "messenger" glasshouse and
restoration of "repton" glasshouse; Hoveton Hall Stalham Road Hoveton for Mr
Buxton
(Alteration to Listed Building)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081695 - Erection of garage; 67 Happisburgh Road for
Mr Anderson
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081730 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
pitched roof to garage to provide first floor accommodation; High Hedges
Lyngate Road for Mr Oakley
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090007 - Change of use from residential to A3
(restaurant)/ residential; 6 New Road for Mr R Scammell
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090014 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements;
Sainsburys Bacton Road for Sainsbury Supermarket
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081700 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; St.
Nicholas School 46 Yarmouth Road for Mr C Wardle
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20090024 - Erection of rear conservatory; 51 Cromer Road
for Mr R Harmer
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20081717 - Installation of flue; Barn 3, Primrose Farm Back Lane
for D and M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20090018 - Internal alterations to form additional guest bedroom;
Incleborough House Lower Common East Runton for Mr and Mrs Davies
(Alteration to Listed Building)
RUNTON - 20090059 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front porch;
Kimberley House The Common West Runton for Mr and Mrs McDonnell
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
13
19 March 2009
SEA PALLING - 20081535 - Erection of extension to poultry unit; Poplar Farm
Coast Road Waxham for Mr A Crawley
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - 20081708 - Conversion of part of coach house to annexe
accommodation; Sloley Old Hall Sloley Road for Mr Ambrose
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - 20081709 - Alterations to facilitate conversion to annexe; Sloley Old
Hall Sloley Road for Mr Ambrose
(Alteration to Listed Building)
SOUTHREPPS - 20081713 - Erection of single-storey
accommodation in roofspace; 14 Long Lane for Mr Jacobs
(Full Planning Permission)
dwelling
with
STALHAM - 20081740 - Conversion of retail unit to ancillary residential
accommodation; 128 High Street for Mr R Woolsey
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - 20081742 - Erection of side extension and formation of vehicular
access; Little Heath Bradfield Common Bradfield for Mr Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - 20081613 - Erection of one and a half storey extension;
Suffield Cottage Station Road for Mr Harris
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20081738 - Erection of extension to provide 2 care apartments and
detached garage/workshop; Heathers Bacton Road for Jeesal Residential Care
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
5.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HANWORTH - 20081685 - Conversion of buildings to 8 units of holiday
accommodation; Touchwood White Post Road for Hanworth Timber Company
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081682 - Conversion of workshop/store/office to one
unit of holiday accommodation; Cangate Lodge Yarmouth Road for Mr D East
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20081545 - Erection of one and half-storey dwelling; Widgeons
Home Close West Runton for Dr and Mrs Saunders
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20090013 - Demolition of redundant workshop and erection of
single-storey dwelling; land off Thorpe Road for Mrs Clarke
(Full Planning Permission)
SUFFIELD - 20081718 - Retention of opening door in place of approved screen;
7 Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D and M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
14
19 March 2009
APPEALS SECTION
6.
NEW APPEALS
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081534 - Erection of three single-storey dwellings; 47
Yarmouth Road for Mr Yaxley
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WALCOTT - 20081277 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling and garage
(renewal of 20051326); Marigold Poplar Drive for Dr M Goodliffe
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
7.
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
RUNTON - 20080193 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; land at
Widgeons Home Close West Runton for Dr and Mrs P Saunders
INFORMAL HEARING 04 Mar 2009
8.
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
WORSTEAD - 20080458 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide two
units of holiday accommodation; Church View Westwick Road for Mr D P
Gilligan
WORSTEAD - 20081167 - Conversion and extensions to the forge to provide a
residential dwelling; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D Gilligan
SITE VISIT :- 03 Mar 2009
9.
APPEAL DECISIONS
SEA PALLING - 20080258 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; land rear of
Old Cottage Church Road for Mr E Smith
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (East)
15
19 March 2009