OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 22 JANUARY 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 – Tree Preservation Order (North Walsham) 2008 No. 11 Former
HL Foods Factory, Norwich Road, North Walsham.
To consider whether or not to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
The Order covers two mature fastigiate Hornbeam trees (T1 and T2), situated just
inside the pedestrian entrance to the Offices of the former HL Foods Factory on
Norwich Road. In addition the Order also covers one veteran Mulberry tree (T3),
located just inside the vehicle entrance to the factory site off Norwich Road.
A Tree Preservation Order was first served on these three trees on 27 March 2003.
The Order was made with a Section 201 Direction, meaning that the Order took
immediate effect, protecting the trees for an interim period of six months. The Order
was made at the request of local residents and former factory workers, who were
concerned that the trees would be removed as part of the redevelopment of the site.
A planning application was received by the District Council for redevelopment of the
site in April 2003 (20030646); this application was later refused by the Committee in
July 2003. The 2003 Tree Preservation Order was not confirmed following the
refusal of the planning application. In January 2008 a further planning application
was received by the District Council to redevelop the site (20080134); this application
was refused by the Committee in July 2008. In October 2008 an appeal was lodged
against the decision.
In view of the length of time since the non-confirmation of the 2003 Tree Preservation
Order, the significant threat of removal of the trees through redevelopment and the
appeal it was considered appropriate to serve a new Tree Preservation Order.
The Order was served on 5 November 2008, under delegated powers.
Representations
Objections to the Order
One letter has been received objecting to the Order, from the owner of the land,
Hopkins Homes Limited, (dated 2 December 2008 – see Appendix 1).
The owner has objected and made representations on five grounds
1. Procedural.
The owners question the validity of the Order and whether the Council’s delegated
authority has been exercised properly. They cannot find any reference in the
Council’s Constitution and Scheme of Delegation to the ability of the Strategic
Directors to serve an Order without reference to the Council, or to the delegated
authority of the Landscape Officer in relation to signing the letter accompanying the
Order.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
22 January 2009
In addition the owners have pointed out that the key and symbols on the Order Map
do not tie up and accord with normal protocol.
2. Advice to Development Control Committee regarding 20080134.
The owners have expressed concern that the advice given to the Development
Control Committee in relation to planning application 20080134 indicated that the
trees in question were covered by a Tree Preservation Order, but note that the Order
was never confirmed.
3. Historical relationship with the factory and District Council Policy.
The owners question the Council’s decisions on allocating a site for “employment
generating [development] proposals” (Policy SS5 of the Core Strategy) yet prohibiting
development because the Highway Authority has stated that the trees need to be
removed to allow any sort of development to proceed. Furthermore, that the trees
have been historically connected to a factory which may have to be demolished to
facilitate development.
4. Visual amenity.
The owners believe that the removal of the trees would not have a significant impact
on the visual amenity of the site or the local environment and its enjoyment by the
public.
5. Public interest and expediency.
The owners believe that it is not in the public interest or expedient to serve a Tree
Preservation Order on trees that the Council’s Landscape Officer did not object to the
removal of in relation to the 2008 planning application for homes, affordable housing,
care accommodation and jobs with suitable replacement planting.
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.
Appraisal
In response to the representations the following comments are made:
1. Procedural.
The Order has been lawfully made under delegated powers. The decision to
make the Order was taken by the Head of Planning and Building Control as a
“trees and hedges” matter for which he has full delegated powers under the
Council’s Scheme of Delegation. The letter enclosing the Order was signed by
the Landscape Officer to whom the Head of Planning and Building Control has
delegated the administration of Tree Preservation Orders.
The Order was sealed in the presence of two of the Council’s Strategic Directors.
The sealing of the Order gives legal effect to the document; this is not the same
decision as the making of the Order which was, as stated above, an action of the
Head of Planning and Building Control taken under delegated powers. Where
the sealing of a document is urgently necessary, the sealing may be attested by
any two Chief Officers (Corporate Directors) of the Council.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
22 January 2009
With regard to Order Map legend and symbols, the symbols on the Order Map
clearly identify the position of the trees protected by the Order (see Appendix 1).
There is no provision in the legislation concerning Tree Preservation Orders, i.e.
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the Town and Country Planning
(Trees) Regulations 1999 as amended, which governs the type of symbols to be
used when making a Tree Preservation Order. Therefore it is considered that the
Council has made the Order lawfully.
2. Advice to the Committee regarding application 20080134.
The 2003 Tree Preservation Order was made with a Section 201 Direction which
protects the trees on a provisional basis for up to six months from the date of
making the Order. Government guidance indicates that Councils should look to
confirm the Order within this six month period, but if Councils fail to make this
decision before the six month period expires they are not prevented from
confirming the Order afterwards. However, after the six months has lapsed the
protection afforded to the trees through the section 201 direction is lost until the
Order is confirmed.
The decision by the Committee relating to planning application 20080134 is
subject to an appeal by Hopkins Homes Limited. Therefore any matters relating
to that decision will be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate.
3. Historical relationship with the factory and District Council Policy.
With regard to the Council’s policy and the redevelopment of the site, the owners
are incorrect in their assumption that the Highway Authority has stipulated that for
any redevelopment of the site a ghost island on Norwich Road would be required
thus resulting in the loss of the trees. The Highway Authority did stipulate that a
ghost island would be necessary in the case of the redevelopment of the site as
detailed in application 20080134, but this cannot be extrapolated to a
requirement in all redevelopment cases as each planning application would have
specific individual details.
Therefore the Council is still supporting the
redevelopment of the site as detailed in Policy SS5 of the Core Strategy and is
not placing any irresolvable restrictions in relation to the protected trees on the
site.
The historical connection of the trees and the former factory was detailed in the
justification of the Order because of the public requests for the initial 2003 Tree
Preservation Order. Former workers at the factory had expressed concerns that
the trees, which have been previously enjoyed by the factory workers, would be
removed as a result of the redevelopment of the factory site. If the trees which
have strong links to the former factory could be retained, the public and former
workers of the factory would have a pleasant visible reminder of the site’s
industrial past.
4. Visual amenity.
As part of the assessment process for initiating a TPO, the Landscape Officer
considered the relative public visibility and amenity of the trees and suitability for
a TPO. The trees were visually assessed from the roads and pavements in the
vicinity of the site. The two hornbeam trees are highly visible on Norwich Road
and have good form with considerable visual amenity value. The mulberry is
visible from Norwich Road and also has public amenity value particularly due to
its significant age.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
22 January 2009
5. Public interest and expediency.
Prior to serving the Order a TEMPO (Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation
Orders) assessment was carried out on the trees. This evaluation method not
only assesses the amenity value of the trees but it also incorporates an
expediency assessment. The trees scored highly in the TEMPO evaluation with
the conclusion that the trees merited protection through a Tree Preservation
Order.
The remarks made by the Landscape Officer regarding a previous planning
application on the site are relevant only to that particular application. The
decision to make a Tree Preservation Order was made by the Head of Planning
and Building Control and the previous comments of the Landscape Officer were
not relevant in the decision to make this Order. Furthermore a Tree Preservation
Order does not prevent development, but is made in order to preserve amenity.
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 making the
Order.
2. Whether or not it was expedient and in the interests of amenity to serve a Tree
Preservation Order on the trees in question.
Officers consider that it was expedient to serve a Tree Preservation Order on the
trees identified, as they have considerable public amenity value and make a
noteworthy contribution to the setting and character of the site and the
surrounding area.
Recommendation:That the North Walsham – Tree Preservation Order (North Walsham) 2008 No.
11 at the former HL Foods Factory, Norwich Road, North Walsham, be
confirmed.
(Source: Kerys Witton, Extn 6323 – File Reference: TPO (North Walsham) 2008 No. 11)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
01/074/DEV6/05/011 – 1 Fairview Road, North Walsham
Report requesting authority to prosecute for non-compliance with an Enforcement
Notice requiring the demolition of an unauthorised garage and the removal of all
materials from site within six months of the effective date of the Notice.
Relevant Planning History
2005/1611 Retention of Double Garage.
Refused 17 November 2005
Appeal received 18 April 2006
Dismissed 9 January 2007 but compliance period extended.
2007/1674
Erection of Attached Garage
Approved 10 March 2008
Development Control Committee (East)
4
22 January 2009
Background
On 14 September 2005, complaints were received that a garage had been erected at
1 Fairview Road, North Walsham, without the benefit of planning permission. As a
result of a meeting between the Enforcement Officer and the occupier of the
premises, a retrospective planning application (reference 20051611) for the retention
of the garage was submitted on 7 October 2005. This application was refused by the
Committee on 17 November 2005 and authority to serve an Enforcement Notice,
requiring the demolition of the unauthorised garage and removal of all materials from
the site within six months of the effective date of the Notice, was given.
As the applicant claimed that he had had a visit from a Planning Officer (whose name
he had forgotten) who had advised him that planning permission was not necessary,
enquiries as to who that Officer may have been were instigated. These were
inconclusive, but delayed the service of the Enforcement Notice until 2 February
2006. An appeal against the Enforcement Notice was received on 3 March 2006 and
although the appeal was dismissed on 9 January 2007 the Inspectorate extended the
time limit for compliance from 6 months to 9 months. The new date for compliance
was, accordingly, 9 October 2007.
A site visit was carried out on 25 October 2007, at which it was determined that the
garage had not been demolished; however, there was still a fortnight to go before the
compliance date. On the same day, an application (reference 20071674) for the
erection of an attached garage at the premises was registered. Further enforcement
action was held in abeyance until the determination of that application.
The application was approved on 10 March 2008 and the applicant was given an
additional nine months for compliance with the Enforcement Notice. A further site
visit conducted on 18 December 2008 showed that the necessary work had not been
completed.
Conclusion
By failing to demolish the garage and remove all materials from the site, the occupier
has not complied with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice served on him on
2 February 2006.
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 1
Fairview Road, North Walsham under Section 179 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991,
for failing to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice served
on him on 2 February 2006.
(Source: Debs Struthers, Ext 6228 File Reference: 074dev605011)
Development Control Committee (East)
5
22 January 2009
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
CROMER - 20081671 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
20011800 to permit sale of pets and pet supplies; Unit C North Norfolk Retail
Park Holt Road for Crown Properties Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :26 Jan 2009
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Areas
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20011800 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two retail warehouse units and
one shop
Approved, 11 Feb 2002
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to vary the condition on the original permission for this 900sq.m retail unit (the
former MFI unit) to permit the sale of pets and pet supplies. Condition 3 on this
permission states that:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order, 1987, (or any provision equivalent to that Class in any other statutory
instrument revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order), unless otherwise agreed in
writing, neither Unit C nor Unit D shall be used other than for the sale of bulky goods
which fall within the following retail categories:
(i) carpets
(ii) 'electrical white goods'
(iii) DIY
(iv) furniture
(v) car accessories and cycles."
The application seeks to vary this condition by the addition of a further category to
the list of permitted goods - "Pets and pet supplies" in relation to Unit C only.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Johnson having regard to the following planning issue:
Potential impact on the vitality of Cromer Town Centre.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters from existing pet shops in Cromer, Sheringham and Holt town centre
which dispute need for additional out of centre provision when existing shops offer a
comprehensive range of bulky pet products, plus approximately 200 other letters on
similar grounds.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
22 January 2009
Cromer Preservation Society - Objects:
1. Negative effect on existing town centre shop.
2. Encouraging out of town shopping.
Supporting letter from agent attached as Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Requests attention be drawn to the condition restricting
delivery times, and the need for a pet shop licence.
Planning Policy Manager - New retail proposals should comply in terms of size and
location with Policy EC5. This policy requires that retail units above 750sq.m should
be 'within the development boundary on the best sequentially available site'. The
applicant has justified the proposal by stating that the required size cannot be
accommodated in the town centre, thereby suggesting that this is the best
sequentially available site. Subsequent to the application a unit (Woolworths) has
become vacant within the town centre. PPS 6 (paragraph 3.19) states that 'where
such sites become available unexpectedly after receipt of the application the local
planning authority should take this into account in their assessment of the
application'. It may therefore be necessary for the applicant to investigate the change
in circumstances within the town in order to demonstrate that its proposal remains
the best sequentially available site.
In relation to the planning condition which restricts the types of goods which can be
sold from Unit D, PPS 6 (paragraph 3.31) states that 'when appropriate, conditions
should be used to ... ensure that ancillary elements remain ancillary to the main
development ... and [to] limit the range of goods sold, and to control the mix of
convenience and comparison goods.' The main issue in this case is whether the type
of goods proposed to be sold are 'bulky goods'. The major retailers trading in pet
products have been widely accepted as requiring extensive display areas and
adjacent car parking and are usually found on edge of centre or out of town retail
parks. It could therefore be acceptable in this instance (subject to the sequential site
test) to consider the type of pet food and some of the pet related products intended to
be traded from the unit as 'bulky goods'.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Compliance with retail policy.
2. Impact on vitality of town centre.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
22 January 2009
APPRAISAL
The application relates to a retail unit on Holt Road formerly occupied by MFI. This is
one of a small group of retail units permitted in February 2002. Under Policy 85 of the
North Norfolk Local Plan, which allocated the site for a small scale retail warehouse
facility subject to a planning condition being used to control the main range of goods
sold, the shopping study which supported this policy suggested that the range of
goods should be restricted to DIY, furniture, carpets, electrical, sports and leisure or
motor related outlets only. The site is outside the town centre as defined in the
adopted Core Strategy and is allocated for employment purposes. The permission for
the existing retail units is subject to a condition that two of them - Unit C (former MFI
store) and Unit D (Carpetright) - be not used "other than for the sale of bulky goods
which fall within the following retail categories: carpets; electrical white goods; DIY;
furniture; car accessories and cycles."
The current application seeks to vary this condition to permit in addition the sale of
"pets and pet supplies".
In line with Government guidance in PPS6, Policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy requires
that for retail units with a net sales area above 750sq.m (this unit is 900sq.m) outside
the primary shopping area it should be demonstrated that:
a) a need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed,
b) no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable,
c) the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the
vitality and viability of existing town centres, and
d) it would be accessible by a choice of means of transport.
This application is accompanied by a sequential analysis to ascertain whether there
are any sites available within or closer to the town centre which would meet the
operator's requirements. This analysis undertaken before the closure of Woolworths
in Cromer and Sheringham concludes that there are no sequentially preferable sites
available in Cromer, nor in Sheringham nor Holt which would also be part of the
catchment for the proposed store. The applicants have been asked to update this
assessment to take account of the changed circumstances.
In addition it is likely that allowing the additional range of bulky goods would enable
expenditure which currently leaks out of the area to other centres, including Norwich,
to be retained in the town.
Whilst the former use of the building (kitchens, bathrooms, furniture and white goods)
did not have any direct impact on existing town centre outlets, other permitted uses
could; for example, the "DIY" and "car accessories and cycles" categories are both
represented within the existing town centre. The proposed additional category of pets
and pet supplies is also represented within the town centre, so that potentially the
proposal could have an impact on an individual business within the town. However,
PPS6 makes clear (paragraph 1.7) that it is not the role of the planning system to
restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interests or to prevent innovation.
Any impact is not likely to be any more severe than the potential impact of one of the
other permitted uses on existing outlets, and is not likely to have any significant
impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. Any such limited impact is likely
to be outweighed by the retention of additional expenditure in the town which
currently leaks out to other centres.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
22 January 2009
In principle, therefore the addition of pets and pet supplies to the range of bulky
goods permitted complies with Government advice in PPS 6 and with LDF Core
Strategy Policy EC 5. However, the sequential test needs to address the availability
of the former Woolworths stores in the town centres. An amended assessment will be
available by the date of the meeting.
Recommendation:Members will be updated at the meeting in the light of an amended sequential
assessment.
4.
SCOTTOW
1) 20081568 - Conversion of former RAF buildings to Category C prison and
erection of buildings to provide ancillary accommodation; RAF Coltishall
Tunstead Road for National Offender Management Service
2) 20081556 (Broadland District Council reference) - Conversion of existing
buildings to provide accommodation for a Category C prison (Class C2A); the
construction of new buildings to provide ancillary accommodation for a prison;
the erection of a 5.2m high security perimeter fence; the erection of internal
security fences; security lighting columns and CCTV poles; the demolition of
existing buildings; the construction of a new access road onto Hautbois Road;
landscaping and various minor works
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :10 Feb 2009
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
DUPLICATE APPLICATIONS
This report relates to two identical planning applications for a single development,
one submitted to North Norfolk District Council (NNDC), the other to Broadland
District Council (BDC). The reason for this is that the application site straddles the
boundary of the two authorities. The majority of the application site is within North
Norfolk, including the whole of the prison grounds, associated buildings and car
parking areas. That part of the site within Broadland District comprises land to
accommodate road access to the site.
Broadland District Council at its Council meeting on 2 December 2008 resolved as
follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by Section 101(1)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972 to delegate to North Norfolk District Council all the power of
Broadland District Council under Section 58(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 to determine any application for planning permission for the construction of
a prison (Class C2A) and associated works at former RAF Coltishall site and impose
both necessary and effective conditions thereon; and if required Broadland District
Council be part to any Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (but not subject to obligations)."
Consequently this Council is required not only to determine the planning application
submitted to NNDC but also the duplicate application submitted to BDC (under their
reference 20081556), applying the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to that application. The Development Plans for the
two local authorities differ; therefore Members will need to determine each of the
applications in accordance with the relevant applicable Development Plans.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
22 January 2009
For this reason, in addition to the policies of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, relevant
policies of the Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006 are also referred to
in the policy section of this report as forming part of the Development Plan for the
application made to BDC. The comments of BDC are also contained in this report.
The consultations referred to in the report apply to both applications.
Whilst this single report applies to both applications, it will be necessary for the
Committee to make separate resolutions in respect of each application.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Airbase Technical Areas
Contaminated Land
Section 106
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080705 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of former RAF buildings to
category C prison and erection of buildings to provide ancillary accommodation
Approved, 13 Aug 2008
20080655 (Broadland District Council reference) - Proposed prison (Class C2A) and
associated works.
No decision issued.
THE APPLICATIONS
The applicant is the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), part of the
Ministry of Justice. The applications certify that notice has been served on the
Ministry of Defence which owns the site.
The proposal is to utilise part of the 'technical area' of the former RAF Coltishall
airbase as a 500 place Category C prison. The application site covers an area of
approximately 11.7ha. The proposed use falls within Class C2A of the Town and
Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. A Category C prison is defined as one
for prisoners who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who do not have the
resources and will to make a determined escape attempt.
The proposal involves a combination of the conversion of existing buildings,
demolition/partial demolition of existing buildings and new build. The site comprises
two distinct areas, the secure prison area itself and ancillary/operational areas
outside it.
The secure area (4.5ha) would be enclosed by a 5.2m high security fence with a
solid sheet steel panel for the lower 2.4m of its height. Six existing two-storey 'H
block' buildings would be converted for prisoner accommodation. The main external
alterations to these buildings would involve changing the window construction
(incorporating metal grilles) and constructing pitched roofs on two existing flat roofed
blocks. A further two-storey 'H block' building (to the rear of the nearby Douglas
Bader Centre) would be used as an education and learning resource centre. Similar
changes are proposed to the windows of this building with the additional alterations
to have only high level windows at first floor level facing towards the adjacent
Douglas Bader Centre (education facility).
Development Control Committee (East)
10
22 January 2009
Other buildings proposed within the secure area include the conversion/alteration of
the former junior ranks mess to a world faith, prisoner development unit and gym,
and four new buildings comprising a segregation unit, kitchen, reception/health
care/store and entry/visits/administration block. In addition five small new buildings
are proposed comprising plant rooms and an energy centre.
Additional security fencing is proposed within the secure area which would mean that
the external movement of inmates would be contained within this inner zone.
All the converted buildings would retain their existing external materials with the
introduction of white metal windows and grilles. The new buildings would be
constructed of a matching brick with grey profiled metal roofs. The lower 2.4m sheet
metal part of the security fence would be painted dark green.
All existing trees and soft vegetation are proposed to be removed within the secure
area.
Outside the secure area existing buildings would be converted to staff facilities, a
store and a visitor centre. Separate staff and visitor car parking areas are proposed
(185 spaces and 95 spaces respectively), together with covered cycle shelters.
It is proposed to remove all trees within a 7.5m perimeter outside the secure area
fence. Elsewhere outside the secure area the only trees to be removed would be
three diseased/poison berry trees and a row of Cherry trees affected by the widening
of the access road (from Hautbois Road).
To mitigate against the loss of trees on the site three areas of new landscaping are
proposed. These comprise a 12ha community woodland on the northern part of the
airfield, an area south of the proposed access road from Hautbois Road (within
Broadland District) and land on the northern side of Filby Road to be laid out as a
memorial garden. The landscaping scheme for the memorial garden includes the
planting of six flowering cherry trees to replace those planted as a memorial in 1983
and which are proposed to be removed as part of the prison development.
In terms of other security measures a total of 87 lights (column, wall and fence
mounted) are proposed around the security fence. These lights would be directed at
the bottom 2m of the fence. Lamp standards would light the car park area. CCTV
cameras would be installed on 5m columns and buildings.
Vehicular access is proposed via what is presently a gated entrance onto Hautbois
Road to the west of the main site. An existing unadopted road would be widened to
6m. This access has a junction with Filby Road (a residential street), but vehicles
would be prevented from using this route by a locked barrier.
The application is supported by the following documentation which has been made
publicly available: All these documents are available for Members' inspection either
on the Council's website or by contacting the case officer.
Supporting letter from NOMS (Appendix 3).
Planning Supporting Statement (Executive Summary Appendix 3).
Design and Access Statement.
Transport Assessment.
Framework Travel Plan.
Noise Statement.
Arboriculture Statement.
Electrical Statement (lighting).
Statement of Economic Benefits.
Statement of Public Consultation.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
22 January 2009
Sustainability Statement.
Flood Risk Assessment.
Ecology Statement.
Ecology Mitigation Strategy.
Ecological Management Plan.
Foul Sewerage and Utilities Statement.
Ventilation and Extraction Statement.
Heritage Statement.
A draft Section 106 Obligation has also been submitted by the applicants.
Following a written request from the agents a Screening Opinion has been
undertaken by the District Council pursuant to Regulation 5(1) of the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1999. The Screening Opinion (issued 24 November 2008) concluded
that the proposed development is unlikely to result in significant effects upon the
environment, sufficient to warrant the requirement for an Environmental Impact
Assessment. Broadland District Council received a similar request. Broadland District
Council issued their own screening opinion on 24 November 2008, which also
concluded that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required in this case.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the fact that the
Committee also considered a previous similar application in August 2008.
PARISH COUNCIL
No comments received.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received from local residents raising the following areas of
concern:
1. Unsuitability of access to and from prison via Hautbois Road.
2. Adverse impact upon nearby housing caused by noise, light pollution and traffic
movements.
3. Highway safety.
5. Problems associated with construction phase (noise/traffic/localised flooding).
6. Unsuitable location for prison, with lack of public transport links.
7. Adverse impact on wildlife.
8. Adverse impact on neighbouring Douglas Bader Centre.
9. Lack of local facilities.
10. Unsuitability of buildings for conversion to prison.
Letter received from the Chair of the Douglas Bader Centre (Pupil Referral Unit)
questioning the suitability of locating a prison so close to referral unit and the
psychological implications this could have on the vulnerable young people who
attend the centre.
CONSULTATIONS
Broadland District Council - Following consideration of a report to the BDC Planning
Committee on 10 December 2008, no objections are raised subject to NNDC having
due regard to the comments set out in the report and that regard be had to the
setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The report refers to the relevant
policies of the Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006 which relate to that
part of the site within BDC area. These policies relate to issues of General Strategy,
Environment and Transport. The report concludes that the proposed development
Development Control Committee (East)
12
22 January 2009
does not conflict with these policies subject to the inclusion of conditions to secure
landscaping and traffic signage to and from the site via Hautbois Road, Scottow
Road and the B1150. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix 3.
Buxton with Lamas Parish Council - Supports.
Coltishall Parish Council - No objection.
Swanton Abbott Parish Council - No objection.
Skeyton Parish Council - Continues to oppose these applications. Whilst there is no
doubt that there is a national need for more prison places, this demand is certainly
not in North Norfolk and, in any case, ex-RAF Coltishall is an inappropriate location.
Prisons should be situated near the homes of their inmates which will assist in their
rehabilitation. The fact that a dedicated bus service is proposed from Norwich Station
underlines the point that such visits are important. It also underlines the point that the
road and rail links are inadequate. There will be other highway issues. As well, in
spite of the fact that existing traffic from the base is currently being directed to
Norwich via the Scottow Road, a considerable volume is managing to find its way
through Little Hautbois.
The overriding problem of this site is the proposed destruction of the iconic layout of
a Battle of Britain airfield together with its tree planting. The North Norfolk District
Council Planning Committee has seen fit to impose preservation orders on the 154
trees which are to be cut down. Whilst the new proposal has suggested a Section
106 Obligation for a community woodland and a memorial garden with other planting
as a replacement, this is to miss the point.
In balancing the benefits of this proposal, which are mainly economic, against the
harm that would be caused, the Parish Council remains firmly of the view that to
irrevocably destroy such an important part of our history would be a grave mistake.
Sloley Parish Council - Supports. Comments that it would welcome an assurance
that the prison will remain as a Category C (or less) and not be upgraded, and
information regarding the remainder of the site's future would be appreciated.
Tunstead Parish Council - No objection.
Westwick Parish Council - No comments received.
Anglian Water - No comments received.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Considers the loss of
trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order as significant; however the landscaping
plans submitted are acceptable mitigation for the loss of these trees. Trees to remain
on the site should be protected during construction as per the submitted
Arboricultural Method Statement.
With regard to ecological issues relating to the site, does not consider that the
development would have a significant impact on protected species and
compensation measures identified in the Ecology Statement and Ecology Mitigation
Strategy are carried out as part of the development. To assist in the implementation
of the mitigation measures it is proposed that a five year management plan detailing
the work is written. In order to comply with the Conservation (Natural Habitat &c)
Regulations 1994 as amended, PPS9 and Core Strategy Policy EN 9, conditions are
recommended to require the proposed mitigation measures to be undertaken prior to
the first prisoner being accommodated at the prison together with restrictions on the
timing of certain works so as not to disturb bats and breeding birds.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
22 January 2009
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions in relation to the
access construction and visibility; provision of car and cycle parking facilities;
drainage measures; off-site highway improvements (junction of Scottow Road and
Hautbois Road); Travel Plan details; construction traffic measures; and directional
signage.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager – Awaiting comments.
Environment Agency - Considers the proposed development only acceptable if
surface water measures, as detailed in the (revised) Flood Risk Assessment are
secured by way of a planning condition. Also recommends a further condition
requiring an assessment of any potential land contamination. Fully supports the
recommendations contained in the Ecological Assessment and Mitigation Strategy.
Environmental Health - Raises concerns regarding the information provided in
relation to foul and surface water drainage from the site. Requests the imposition of
conditions requiring further details in relation to these aspects.
Proposed lighting details considered acceptable.
Recommends conditions in respect of noise limit from all fixed plant, restriction on
delivery hours, use of car parking during night-time hours, and odour control from
kitchen building.
Natural England - Awaiting comments.
English Heritage - No objection. Initially advised that the impact of the development
on the setting of the Church of All Saints (Grade I Listed) and on the World War II
fighter pen, Cold War blast walls and associated remains (Schedule Ancient
Monuments) should be assessed. The submitted Heritage Assessment is welcomed.
Do no consider that there would be an adverse impact on the setting of the
scheduled ancient monument.
The analysis of the impact of the development on the setting of the church considers
the inter visibility of the sites and the impact of associated new structures such as the
perimeter fence, CCTV and lighting as requested by English Heritage. It is noted that
the existing planting to the churchyard boundary and at Lamas Covert and the
existing buildings restrict views between the church and development. Although
landscaping can change seasonally and over time, the Covert provides a reasonably
substantial barrier between the two sites, restricting the visibility of the development
from the church to the south-east part of the site. The bulk of the new development is
located outside of this area, in the technical part of the site. The perimeter fencing,
CCTV and lighting columns would all be lower than the existing eaves level of the Hblocks. The report does not discuss the impact of the change of roofing material to a
metal covering and whether this material may be more visible, particularly if the metal
reflects the light. We note that the blocks lie outside the current zones of visibility but
the Local Planning Authority may wish to consider this when requesting details of the
new materials.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Considers that the proposed measures referred to in the
submitted Sustainability Statement would ensure that the proposed development
complies with Core Strategy Policy EN 6 (Sustainable Construction and Energy
Efficiency) in terms of the measures proposed to minimise energy and resource
consumption, adapt to future climate change and to provide renewable energy.
Recommends that a condition is imposed to required a post construction BREEAM
assessment and that the renewable energy proposals are secured by a Section 106
Obligation.
Development Control Committee (East)
14
22 January 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
There are no significant crime and disorder issues related to the determination of this
planning application.
RELEVANT POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
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 EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
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).
Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006:
Policy GS1: Restriction on development outside the settlement limits of the Norwich
fringe parishes, market towns and villages.
Policy GS3: General considerations relating to new developments.
Policy ENV1: Protection and enhancement of environmental assets.
Policy ENV2: Layout and design of development.
Policy ENV3: Landscaping of development.
Policy ENV4: Protection of habitats and species.
Policy ENV5: Management of natural features and provision of compensating for
those lost through development.
Policy TRA2: Transport assessments for planning applications.
Policy TRA3: Travel plans.
Policy TRA14: Highway safety.
Development Control Committee (East)
15
22 January 2009
Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999 - saved policies):
Policy T.2: New Development (to be assessed against effect on traffic generation and
alternative modes of access. Adequate access necessary).
PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development.
PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.
PPS22 - Renewable Energy.
PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control.
PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk.
PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment.
PPG16 - Archaeology and Planning.
Circular 03/98 - Planning for Future Prison Development.
Circular 06/2005 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations
and their impact within the Planning System.
Habitats Directive.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. National need for prison places.
2. Suitability of site as prison.
3. Economic impacts.
4. Traffic impacts/highway safety.
5. Loss of trees.
6. Biodiversity.
7. Impacts on nearby residents' amenities.
8. Flood Risk.
9. Sustainability.
10. Heritage issues.
APPRAISAL
Background
Members will be aware that similar planning applications were submitted to this
Council and BDC in May 2008. In August 2008 this Committee considered and
resolved to approve the application submitted to NNDC. Planning permission was
duly issued on 13 August 2008. Prior to determining the application Members
undertook a visit to the site in May 2008. Previously Members and officers visited
Lindholm (Category C) Prison near Doncaster at the invitation of the Ministry of
Justice.
The proposal subject to these current applications is almost identical to that
previously approved. Since determining the previous application the North Norfolk
Core Strategy has been adopted, and accordingly the applications need to be
considered against the policies of the Core Strategy as well as relevant policies in the
Broadland District Local Plan (Replacement 2006).
Prison need
The background to this proposed development arises from an urgent identified need
for more prison places nationally, as outlined in submissions accompanying the
application (Appendix 3). This need for prison places is considered to be a material
consideration to be taken into account in determining these planning applications.
Representations received in response to the previous planning applications
questioned the Government's decision to propose a new prison in rural Norfolk.
However, it is not the role of this Council as Local Planning Authority either in its own
right or under delegated powers on behalf of BDC to make judgement upon the
Government's locational strategy for prisons, but rather, to determine the applications
on land use planning issues relating to this particular site.
Development Control Committee (East)
16
22 January 2009
Land Use Policy
This site lies within the Countryside policy area as designated in the Core Strategy
(Policy SS 2) so far as it relates to NNDC's administrative area. It is also shown on
the Proposals Map as an Airbase Technical Area (Policy EC 4). That part of the site
within Broadland District is also outside any settlement boundary as indicated in the
Broadland District Local Plan (where Policy GS1 applies). Clearly, however, this is
not undeveloped open countryside where normally issues relating to landscape
impact would be paramount. The site comprises previously developed (brownfield)
land of which both local and national planning policies seek to encourage appropriate
forms of redevelopment.
Core Strategy Policy SS 2 allows for the re-use and adaptation of buildings within the
Countryside for appropriate purposes. Policy EC 2 requires such re-use of buildings
for economic uses to be appropriate in scale and nature to the location; the buildings
to be soundly built; and proposals should protect the biodiversity, amenity and
character of the area. Policy EC 4 is particularly pertinent to this application as it is
permissive towards the re-use of existing buildings or development of replacement
buildings within the defined 'technical area' provided that there is no overall increase
in gross floor space of the existing permanent buildings. (BDC policies do not apply
in this context as all the built development of the proposal lies within NNDC's
administrative area).
The submitted Design and Access Statement confirms that whilst the new buildings
which are proposed represent an additional 2378sq.m floorspace, this is more than
offset by demolition comprising 2815sq.m of floorspace. Consequently it is
considered that the proposal would comply with Core Strategy Policy EC 4.
Economic Impact
The Statement of Economic Benefits submitted with the application includes a study
commissioned by the NOMS on the economic impact of prisons in England and
Wales. Case studies of four prisons were undertaken.
In the case of this proposal it is stated that the prison would provide 380 full time and
60 part time jobs of which it is estimated that around 200 would be taken by local
residents. An additional 35 full time jobs would be supported through the expenditure
of those employed at or visiting the prison, and by goods and services purchased by
the prison. In total it is estimated that the prison would inject £7.2 million per annum
into the local economy. This would help to offset the loss experienced following the
closure of the airbase.
The economic benefits which would accrue from the proposed development are
consistent with the objectives of Core Strategy Policy SS 5 (Economy) which makes
specific reference to 'appropriate re-use of the operational land at redundant defence
establishments'.
Transport and access
As referred to above, vehicular access to the proposed prison would be via an
existing entrance onto Hautbois Road. This would enable traffic serving the prison to
avoid passing through adjoining residential areas, apart from a number of properties
on the eastern side of Hautbois Road (within Broadland District).
The submitted Transport Assessment concludes that there are considered to be no
overriding highway capacity or access issues relating to the proposal to prevent the
granting of planning permission. The assessment demonstrates that predicted traffic
levels associated with the prison would be far below those which were present when
the base was operational (850 two-way trips, compared with 2,800 in 2005).
Development Control Committee (East)
17
22 January 2009
The Transport Assessment recommends a number of mitigation measures in order to
improve pedestrian access to the site; the provision of safe and secure cycle parking
facilities on site; discussion with the local bus service operator to review the position
of bus stops; consideration of a shuttle bus service to Norwich bus and railway
stations at peak hours; and as an essential measure, new highway signage to route
traffic along the most suitable routes to and from the site (i.e. to and from the B1150).
The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of
a number of conditions. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal complies with
Policies CT 5 (Core Strategy), TRA14 (Broadland Local Plan) and T2 (Norfolk
Structure Plan).
Impact on trees
One of the most controversial aspects of the proposal appears to be the proposed
removal of 154 trees within the secure prison area and within the 7.5m perimeter
zone outside the security fence. The reasons for the removal are threefold and are
demonstrated on a Tree Evaluation Plan submitted with the applications. These
reasons are that either the affected trees are in the position of a proposed building, or
they would restrict sight lines and obscure camera cover, or they would facilitate
access onto a roof or over a fence.
All of these trees and others within the base are protected by a Tree Preservation
Order (TPO) served by North Norfolk District Council in 2006. The grant of planning
permission as currently proposed would however override the Order. The TPO is a
'Group Order' served to protect the historic landscape value of the tree planting
scheme. (It should be noted that the TPO does not cover trees within BDC's part of
the site.)
As referred to above, as mitigation against the loss of these trees three areas of tree
planting and landscaping are proposed with the applications. Two of these areas are
within the application site and the third and most significant, a "community woodland"
is a 12ha area at the northern end of the airbase runway. The Council's Landscape
Officer has confirmed that he considers the three new areas of landscaping to
constitute satisfactory mitigation against the loss of the trees. He has also
recommended agreement to the planting details which have now been submitted.
These would need to be subject to planning conditions. The submitted draft Section
106 Obligation allows for the potential ownership transfer of these areas to the
District Council together with arrangements for future public access, following the
satisfactory implementation of the planting schemes.
It is therefore concluded that the proposed landscaping measures (which affect both
NNDC and BDC administrative areas) comply with Policies EN 2 and EV 4 (Core
Strategy) and ENV1, ENV2 and ENV3 (Broadland Local Plan).
Impacts on nearby residents' amenities
The built up area surrounding the application site includes some 337 former RAF
personnel houses which are currently being sold on the open market. Some of these
properties (within both NNDC and BDC administrative areas) lie close to the site.
There is no doubt that there would be a local awareness of the prison in such close
proximity and residents' attitudes towards this are likely to vary. In their various
submissions the applicants have attempted to consider the more tangible impacts of
the proposal and how these could be mitigated.
Development Control Committee (East)
18
22 January 2009
As reported above, traffic would skirt the main residential area rather than pass
through it.
In terms of visual impact, the areas of the site beyond the outer security fence would
retain much of their present appearance apart from becoming active once more and
there being further landscaping around the boundaries. Any public views of the
secure area would be dominated by the outer 5.2m high security fence.
Neighbouring buildings closest to the secure area are private houses to the north on
Barton Road and the Douglas Bader Centre on Filby Road which provides specialist
teaching for children (both of which are within NNDC's administrative area). Views
from the houses on Barton Road would be softened by well established existing, and
proposed, trees and planting. Only two dwellings would have a direct aspect towards
the security fence and this relationship is considered acceptable. The submitted
plans indicate high level windows at first floor level of the education and learning
resource centre (a converted 'H' block) facing towards the Douglas Bader Centre. It
is considered that this, together with the substantial landscaping proposed along the
boundary, would make this relationship acceptable.
Security lighting is another aspect which would be evident from outside the site. The
submitted Electrical Statement provides data regarding light spillage. This
demonstrates that the proposed lighting would vary in intensity from 48/49 lux on the
inside of the perimeter fence to 7.1 lux within 5m of its outside and 0.1 lux within
20m. (A full moon on a cloudless night reaches approximately 2 lux and street
lighting is between 5 and 10 lux.) All lighting would be designed to cast its beam
downwards. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no concerns regarding this
aspect.
The submitted Noise Report concludes that neither operational nor traffic noise from
the site would have significant impact on the amenity of nearby residents. The
Environmental Health Officer has concurred with this view subject to certain
conditions. Those Members who visited HMP Lindholm will have gained an
impression of the level of noise generated outside the secure area of a similar type of
prison.
In conclusion it is considered that the development would not result in any significant
impacts on the amenities of local residents and in this respect the proposal complies
with Policies EN4 (Core Strategy) and GS3 (Broadland Local Plan).
Flood Risk
The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low risk area) as indicated on the flood maps
provided by the Environment Agency. As the area of the site is greater than 1.0ha a
flood risk assessment (FRA) was submitted with the application in accordance with
the requirements of PPS25. The Environment Agency has been consulted on the
FRA and following its initial response a revised version has subsequently been
submitted. The FRA establishes that the development itself is not at risk from
flooding but an increase in surface water run off is anticipated resulting from the
introduction of new buildings and hard surfaced areas. To mitigate against this a
rainwater harvesting system is proposed which would reduce run off to below the
pre-development rates. The Environment Agency has now confirmed that it has no
objection to the development subject to a condition being imposed to require
compliance with the measures referred to in the FRA. This aspect of the proposal
complies with the requirements of PPS25 and Core Strategy Policy EN 10.
Development Control Committee (East)
19
22 January 2009
Sustainability Issues
The application is accompanied by a Sustainability Statement. The comments of the
Council's Sustainability Officer (above) refer to and concur with the measures being
proposed as part of the development. The outstanding issue relates to the Core
Strategy requirement to provide 10% renewable energy. Because of the particular
constraints (physical and security related) associated with a prison the only possible
option to provide this would be the installation of a wind turbine. Practically this could
not be within the area of the application site. However, it could potentially be located
elsewhere on the former base. Such a proposal would need separate planning
permission. Nevertheless the applicants have confirmed a commitment to pursue this
option and this is to be secured through the Section 106 Obligation.
The Obligation would allow for a two year period following the commencement of
development to investigate the potential for a wind turbine within the former airbase
site. If it is established that a wind turbine could technically operate from the site
(taking into account wind data) then a planning application would be submitted within
a further period of six months. If planning permission is subsequently granted then
the turbine would be installed within three years. If planning permission is refused or
it is established a turbine would not effectively operate from the site, then the
developer would pay to the Council an equivalent sum in order for the Council to
procure a wind turbine elsewhere in the District. Subject to these measures being
secured through the completion of the Section 106 Obligation the proposal is
considered to comply with Policy EN 6 (Core Strategy).
Heritage Issues
Following advice from English Heritage, the applicants have submitted a Heritage
Statement. The Statement considers the impact of the proposed development on the
setting of listed buildings (Church of All Saints and Scottow Hall) and Scheduled
Ancient Monuments (World War II fighter pen and Cold War blast walls). None of
these is within the application site. The Church of All Saints is some 750m away from
the proposed prison site and Scottow Hall further still. The fighter pen is some 800m
from the prison site but adjoins the site of the proposed community woodland. The
submitted report concludes that the proposed development would have no significant
impact on these heritage assets.
Members will note (above) that English Heritage accept the conclusions of the report
and raise no objection. English Heritage does query the use of metal roofing
materials to some of the prison buildings in that they may reflect light. It is considered
that this would be mitigated to conditioning a matt finish to the grey roofing material
which is proposed.
In these respects it is considered that the proposals comply with Policy EN 8 of the
Core Strategy.
Biodiversity
An Ecology Statement and Ecology Mitigation Strategy have been submitted with the
application. The Ecology Statement refers to evidence of a number of bat roosts
being identified in existing buildings as wells as one possible maternity roost in a
building since demolished. Evidence of breeding birds and newts has been found in
and around the site. Amongst the mitigation measures proposed are around 100 bat
boxes provided in and around the site, suitable hedgerow planting and herpetile
exclusion fencing during the construction phase.
Development Control Committee (East)
20
22 January 2009
Members are referred to the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (above). It is concluded that the proposed development would not have any
significant impact on protected species subject to the mitigation measures being
secured by conditions. Accordingly it is considered the proposal is in compliance with
the Natural Habitats Regulations and policy requirements contained in PPS9 and
Core Strategy Policy EN 9. The Environment Agency also supports the mitigation
measures proposed. It should be noted that Natural England has also been
consulted on the applications. No response had been received at the time of
preparing this report. Members will be updated as to whether a response has been
received at the meeting.
Section 106 Obligation
A draft Section 106 Obligation has been submitted with the applications, reference to
which is made elsewhere in this report. The Obligation would cover three issues.
Firstly, the future provision of a wind turbine to meet the minimum 10% renewable
energy usage as required by Core Strategy Policy EN 6.
Secondly, that the prison is only used as one equivalent to the current definition of a
Category C prison.
Thirdly, that following completion of the approved landscaping schemes to the three
areas of land referred to earlier in this report, these areas be offered for transfer to
NNDC (including financial provision for future maintenance) for public use.
Parties to the Obligation would be NNDC, BDC, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of
Defence.
Conclusion
The proposal would assist in meeting the national need for additional prison places
and would help to provide a stimulus to the local economy. It accords with the
Council's Core Strategy policy in respect of the redevelopment of redundant defence
establishments and does not conflict with any of the other Development Plan policies
referred to in this report. The impacts of the development in terms of the general
environment, traffic, residential amenities and biodiversity interests would be
relatively small, particularly when taking into account the previous use of the site, and
are not considered to provide sufficient justification to refuse planning permission.
The loss of trees on the site is regrettable but an operational requirement for the
proposed use. This loss is only acceptable in view of the considerable amount of new
tree planting proposed elsewhere.
The applications are considered to comply with Development Plans applicable to
both NNDC and BDC administrative areas and are accordingly recommended for
approval.
FIRST RECOMMENDATION:That delegated authority be give to the Head of Planning and Building Control
to approve planning application reference 20081568 submitted to North Norfolk
District Council, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation and to
the imposition of the following conditions (including reasons):
2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, this permission
is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the application,
comprising the bound document entitled 'Planning Application Drawings' received by
Development Control Committee (East)
21
22 January 2009
the Local Planning Authority on 3 November 2008, as amended and supplemented
by the following plans:
Landscaping drawing numbers 882-00-A-TPA-39, 822-00-A-TPA-40, 882-000-ATPA-45, 882-000-A-TPA-51, received by the Local Planning Authority on 9
December 2008.
Energy Centre drawing number 882-001-A-TPA-57.
Modular plant rooms drawing number 882-000-A-TPA-56.
3) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, the vehicular access onto Hautbois Road
shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council Industrial Access
construction specification and additionally, in accordance with details to be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority, for the first 15m into the site as measured
back from the near edge of the adjacent carriageway.
4) The gradient of the vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 for the first 15m into the
site as measured from the near edge of the highway carriageway.
5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order
revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gate shall be erected across the
approved access onto Hautbois Road unless details have first been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, a visibility splay measuring 4.5m x 215m
shall be provided to each side of the access where it meets the highway at its
junction with Hautbois Road. Such splays shall thereafter be maintained free from
any obstruction exceeding 0.225m above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
7) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, the proposed access and on-site car and
cycle parking, servicing, loading, unloading, turning and waiting areas shall be laid
out and demarcated in accordance with the approved plans. They shall be retained
thereafter for those specific uses.
8) The access shall be constructed with drainage measures to prevent surface water
run-off onto the adjacent public highway(Hautbois Road), in accordance with a
detailed scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority.
9) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, offsite highway works to Scottow
Road/Hautbois Road,(by means of carriageway widening to 6.0m) and the
installation of direction signing to/from the development on Hautbois Road, Scottow
Road and the B1150 shall be completed in accordance with details previously
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation
with the Highway Authority.
10) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, details of an Interim Travel Plan shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented
in accordance with these approved details. During the first year following prisoner
occupation of the secure accommodation, an Approved Full Travel Plan based on the
Interim Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The Approved Full
Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets
contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the
development is occupied, subject to any approved modifications agreed by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority as part of the annual
review.
Development Control Committee (East)
22
22 January 2009
11) During the period of construction of the development hereby permitted, wheel
cleaning facilities shall be provided in full accordance with the details submitted with
the planning application.
12) For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
construction of the development shall comply with the traffic route details supplied
with the application by Wates Construction Limited and shall use no other local road
unless approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority.
13) The landscaping schemes as detailed on drawing numbers 882-000-A-TPA-39,
882-000-A-TPA-40, 882-000-A-TPA-45 and 882-000-A-TPA-51, received by the
Local Planning Authority on 9 December 2008 shall be carried out no later than the
next available planting season following the commencement of development or such
further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
14) Before the development hereby permitted is begun, all the existing trees on the
site other than those identified for removal in the submitted Aboricultural Statement
(Appendix 3) shall be protected from damage during the course of the development
by means of protective fencing in accordance with the details referred to in the
submitted Arboricultural Statement.
The protective fencing shall be maintained during the period of construction works on
the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Within the fenced areas no
soil, fuel, chemicals or materials shall be stored, temporary buildings erected plant or
vehicles parked or fires lit.
15) Any new tree or shrub which within a period of five years from the date of
planting dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced during the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to
the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written agreement is given to
any variation.
16) The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be
in full accordance with the 'Schedule of Proposed Materials' attached to the e-mail
from Lambert Smith Hampton dated 5 December 2008, subject to the profiled metal
roof cladding being in a matt finish, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
17) The rating level of any noise emitted by all fixed plant on the site shall not exceed
the background noise level by more than 5dB at any time. The noise levels shall be
determined at the nearest noise sensitive properties. The measurement and
assessment shall be according to BS 4142:1997.
18) No deliveries of goods or services, except in the case of emergency, shall be
taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 7am to 6pm during
Mondays to Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
19) Prior to the commencement of use of the kitchen building hereby permitted a
scheme for a kitchen extractor system shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme submitted shall include measures to
control noise and odour from the extractor system. The scheme as approved shall be
installed prior to the commencement of use of the kitchen and maintained thereafter
in accordance with the manufacturers specifications.
20) No movement of vehicles to or from car park F (as indicated on drawing number
882-000-A-TPA-07) shall take place except between the hours of 7.00am and
11.00pm on any day.
21) All external lighting shall be in full accordance with the details referred to in the
Electrical Statement and paragraphs 4.34 and 4.35 in the Design and Access
Statement submitted with the planning application, unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
22) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, full details of measures to prevent
vehicular access to and from the site via Filby Road shall firstly be submitted to and
Development Control Committee (East)
23
22 January 2009
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and secondly, installed in full
accordance with the approved details. The approved measures shall be retained
thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
23) Security fencing shall be installed in full accordance with that illustrated on the
approved plans and referred to in paragraphs 4-31 and 4-32 of the submitted Design
and Access Statement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
24) No existing building on the site shall be occupied until it has been converted in
full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plans, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
25) All converted existing buildings shall be adapted to meet the BREEAM 'Good'
standard and all new buildings shall be built to meet the 'Very Good' or 'Excellent'
standard. On completion of the development the applicants shall submit to the Local
Planning Authority an assessment carried out by a licensed BREEAM assessor to
demonstrate that these standards have been met.
26) The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the
following mitigation measures relating to protected species on the site:
a) The measures identified in the submitted Ecology Statement received by the Local
Planning Authority on 3 November 2008 and the Ecology Mitigation Strategy
received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 January 2009. These measures shall
be completed prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight
in secure conditions at the prison, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
b) The lower and middle rows of ventilation bricks in building numbers 27B, 27C,
27D, 27E and 28 as referred to in Section 4.1 of the Ecological Assessment shall not
be disturbed outside the period 1 November and 1 March in any year.
c) No building shall be refurbished or demolished, and no vegetation cleared during
the period 1 March to 1 August in any year (bird breeding season) unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
d) Prior to the commencement of development the amphibian exclusion fencing
referred to in Section 4.4 of the Ecological Assessment shall be installed in
accordance with the details specified and retained during the period of construction
works.
27) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in
development as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), the
following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with
contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority:
a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
- All previous uses.
- Potential contaminants associated with those uses.
- A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors.
- Potential unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
b) A site investigation scheme, based on (a) to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
c) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (b) and, based on
these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the
remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to
demonstrate that the works set out in (c) are complete and identifying any
requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and
arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Development Control Committee (East)
24
22 January 2009
28) Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application no development shall
be carried out until full details of surface water and sewage disposal from the
development hereby permitted have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies
GS3 and ENV2 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
3) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and TRA14 of the Broadland
Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
4) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local
Plan (Replacement) 2006.
5) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local
Plan (Replacement) 2006.
6) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local
Plan (Replacement) 2006.
7) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan
(Replacement) 2006.
8) To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway in accordance
with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and
ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
9) To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate
standard in the interests of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local
highway corridor, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement)
2006.
10) To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce
the impact of travel and transport on the environment in accordance with Policy CT 5
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
11) To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway in accordance
with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and
ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
12) In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14
of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
13) To protect and enhance the visual and residential amenities of the area, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies
GS3, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
14) In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of Policy
EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy and ENV5 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
15) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy and ENV5 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
16) To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to
retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the
Development Control Committee (East)
25
22 January 2009
approved development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide and Policy GS3 of the Broadland Local Plan
(Replacement) 2006.
17) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Policies GS3 and CS14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
18) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy
GS3 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
19) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Policies GS3 and CS14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
20) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy
GS3 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
21) In the interests of visual amenity and to avoid light pollution in accordance with
Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and CS14
of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
22) In the interests of the residential amenities of the area and in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy GS3 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
23) In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy EN 4
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV2 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
24) In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV2 of the Broadland
Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
25) In order that the development accords with the submitted Sustainability
Statement in accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
26) In the interests of wildlife protection in accordance with Policy EN 6 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy ENV4 of the Broadland Local Plan
(Replacement) 2006.
27) To ensure that the proposed development does not cause pollution of Controlled
Waters and that development complies with approved details in the interests of
protection of Controlled Water in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Structure Plan.
28) To ensure satisfactory methods of drainage in the interests of public amenity and
in accordance with paragraph F.4 of PPS25.
Note:
1) The proposal has been considered against Development Plan policy comprising
Policies SS 1, SS2, SS 4, SS 5, SS 6, EN 2, EN 4, EN 6, EN 8, EN 10, EN 13 EC 2,
EC 4 and CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS1, GS3,
ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, TRA2, TRA3 and TRA14 of the Broadland
District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006. The Local Planning Authority considers that
the proposed development complies with the objectives of these policies and is also
of the view that the national need for additional prison places is a material
consideration to be taken into account in determining the application. As such it is
considered that approval of the application is justified, proportionate and in
accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (East)
26
22 January 2009
SECOND RECOMMENDATION:That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Building Control
to approve the planning application first submitted to Broadland District
Council, but since delegated to North Norfolk District Council to determine
(Broadland District Council reference 20081556), subject to the completion of a
Section 106 Obligation and to the imposition of the following conditions
(including reasons):
2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, this permission
is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the application,
comprising the bound document entitled 'Planning Application Drawings' received by
the Local Planning Authority on 3 November 2008, as amended and supplemented
by the following plans:
Landscaping drawing numbers 882-00-A-TPA-39, 822-00-A-TPA-40, 882-000-ATPA-45, 882-000-A-TPA-51, received by the Local Planning Authority on 9
December 2008.
Energy Centre drawing number 882-001-A-TPA-57.
Modular plant rooms drawing number 882-000-A-TPA-56.
3) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, the vehicular access onto Hautbois Road
shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council Industrial Access
construction specification and additionally, in accordance with details to be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority, for the first 15m into the site as measured
back from the near edge of the adjacent carriageway.
4) The gradient of the vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 for the first 15m into the
site as measured from the near edge of the highway carriageway.
5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order
revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gate shall be erected across the
approved access onto Hautbois Road unless details have first been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, a visibility splay measuring 4.5m x 215m
shall be provided to each side of the access where it meets the highway at its
junction with Hautbois Road. Such splays shall thereafter be maintained free from
any obstruction exceeding 0.225m above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
7) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, the proposed access and on-site car and
cycle parking, servicing, loading, unloading, turning and waiting areas shall be laid
out and demarcated in accordance with the approved plans. They shall be retained
thereafter for those specific uses.
8) The access shall be constructed with drainage measures to prevent surface water
run-off onto the adjacent public highway(Hautbois Road), in accordance with a
detailed scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority.
9) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, offsite highway works to Scottow
Road/Hautbois Road,(by means of carriageway widening to 6.0m) and the
installation of direction signing to/from the development on Hautbois Road, Scottow
Road and the B1150 shall be completed in accordance with details previously
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation
with the Highway Authority.
Development Control Committee (East)
27
22 January 2009
10) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, details of an Interim Travel Plan shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented
in accordance with these approved details. During the first year following prisoner
occupation of the secure accommodation, an Approved Full Travel Plan based on the
Interim Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The Approved Full
Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets
contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the
development is occupied, subject to any approved modifications agreed by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority as part of the annual
review.
11) During the period of construction of the development hereby permitted, wheel
cleaning facilities shall be provided in full accordance with the details submitted with
the planning application.
12) For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
construction of the development shall comply with the traffic route details supplied
with the application by Wates Construction Limited and shall use no other local road
unless approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority.
13) The landscaping schemes as detailed on drawing numbers 882-000-A-TPA-39,
882-000-A-TPA-40, 882-000-A-TPA-45 and 882-000-A-TPA-51, received by the
Local Planning Authority on 9 December 2008 shall be carried out no later than the
next available planting season following the commencement of development or such
further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
14) Before the development hereby permitted is begun, all the existing trees on the
site other than those identified for removal in the submitted Arboricultural Statement
(Appendix 3) shall be protected from damage during the course of the development
by means of protective fencing in accordance with the details referred to in the
submitted Arboricultural Statement.
The protective fencing shall be maintained during the period of construction works on
the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Within the fenced areas no
soil, fuel, chemicals or materials shall be stored, temporary buildings erected plant or
vehicles parked or fires lit.
15) Any new tree or shrub which within a period of five years from the date of
planting dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced during the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to
the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written agreement is given to
any variation.
16) The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be
in full accordance with the 'Schedule of Proposed Materials' attached to the e-mail
from Lambert Smith Hampton dated 5 December 2008, subject to the profiled metal
roof cladding being in a matt finish, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
17) The rating level of any noise emitted by all fixed plant on the site shall not exceed
the background noise level by more than 5dB at any time. The noise levels shall be
determined at the nearest noise sensitive properties. The measurement and
assessment shall be according to BS 4142:1997.
18) No deliveries of goods or services, except in the case of emergency, shall be
taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 7am to 6pm during
Mondays to Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
19) Prior to the commencement of use of the kitchen building hereby permitted a
scheme for a kitchen extractor system shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme submitted shall include measures to
control noise and odour from the extractor system. The scheme as approved shall be
Development Control Committee (East)
28
22 January 2009
installed prior to the commencement of use of the kitchen and maintained thereafter
in accordance with the manufacturers specifications.
20) No movement of vehicles to or from car park F (as indicated on drawing number
882-000-A-TPA-07) shall take place except between the hours of 7.00am and
11.00pm on any day.
21) All external lighting shall be in full accordance with the details referred to in the
Electrical Statement and paragraphs 4.34 and 4.35 in the Design and Access
Statement submitted with the planning application, unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
22) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions at the prison hereby permitted, full details of measures to prevent
vehicular access to and from the site via Filby Road shall firstly be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and secondly, installed in full
accordance with the approved details. The approved measures shall be retained
thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
23) Security fencing shall be installed in full accordance with that illustrated on the
approved plans and referred to in paragraphs 4-31 and 4-32 of the submitted Design
and Access Statement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
24) No existing building on the site shall be occupied until it has been converted in
full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plans, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
25) All converted existing buildings shall be adapted to meet the BREEAM 'Good'
standard and all new buildings shall be built to meet the 'Very Good' or 'Excellent'
standard. On completion of the development the applicants shall submit to the Local
Planning Authority an assessment carried out by a licensed BREEAM assessor to
demonstrate that these standards have been met.
26) The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the
following mitigation measures relating to protected species on the site:
a) The measures identified in the submitted Ecology Statement received by the Local
Planning Authority on 3 November 2008 and the Ecology Mitigation Strategy
received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 January 2009. These measures shall
be completed prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight
in secure conditions at the prison, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
b) The lower and middle rows of ventilation bricks in building numbers 27B, 27C,
27D, 27E and 28 as referred to in Section 4.1 of the Ecological Assessment shall not
be disturbed outside the period 1 November and 1 March in any year.
c) No building shall be refurbished or demolished, and no vegetation cleared during
the period 1 March to 1 August in any year (bird breeding season) unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
d) Prior to the commencement of development the amphibian exclusion fencing
referred to in Section 4.4 of the Ecological Assessment shall be installed in
accordance with the details specified and retained during the period of construction
works.
27) Prior to the date on which the first prisoner is accommodated overnight in secure
conditions approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in
development as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), the
following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with
contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority:
a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
- All previous uses.
- Potential contaminants associated with those uses.
- A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors.
Development Control Committee (East)
29
22 January 2009
- Potential unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
b) A site investigation scheme, based on (a) to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
c) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (b) and, based on
these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the
remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to
demonstrate that the works set out in (c) are complete and identifying any
requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and
arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
28) Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application no development shall
be carried out until full details of surface water and sewage disposal from the
development hereby permitted have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies
GS3 and ENV2 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
3) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and TRA14 of the Broadland
Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
4) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local
Plan (Replacement) 2006.
5) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local
Plan (Replacement) 2006.
6) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local
Plan (Replacement) 2006.
7) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan
(Replacement) 2006.
8) To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway in accordance
with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and
ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
9) To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate
standard in the interests of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local
highway corridor, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement)
2006.
10) To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce
the impact of travel and transport on the environment in accordance with Policy CT 5
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
11) To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway in accordance
with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and
ENV14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
12) In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV14
of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
Development Control Committee (East)
30
22 January 2009
13) To protect and enhance the visual and residential amenities of the area, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies
GS3, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
14) In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of Policy
EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy and ENV5 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
15) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy and ENV5 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
16) To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to
retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the
approved development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide and Policy GS3 of the Broadland Local Plan
(Replacement) 2006.
17) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Policies GS3 and CS14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
18) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy
GS3 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
19) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Policies GS3 and CS14 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
20) To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy
GS3 of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
21) In the interests of visual amenity and to avoid light pollution in accordance with
Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and CS14
of the Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
22) In the interests of the residential amenities of the area and in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy GS3 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
23) In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy EN 4
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV2 of the
Broadland Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
24) In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS3 and ENV2 of the Broadland
Local Plan (Replacement) 2006.
25) In order that the development accords with the submitted Sustainability
Statement in accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
26) In the interests of wildlife protection in accordance with Policy EN 6 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policy ENV4 of the Broadland Local Plan
(Replacement) 2006.
27) To ensure that the proposed development does not cause pollution of Controlled
Waters and that development complies with approved details in the interests of
protection of Controlled Water in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Structure Plan.
28) To ensure satisfactory methods of drainage in the interests of public amenity and
in accordance with paragraph F.4 of PPS25.
Development Control Committee (East)
31
22 January 2009
Note:
1) The proposal has been considered against Development Plan policy comprising
Policies SS 1, SS2, SS 4, SS 5, SS 6, EN 2, EN 4, EN 6, EN 8, EN 10, EN 13 EC 2,
EC 4 and CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Policies GS1, GS3,
ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, TRA2, TRA3 and TRA14 of the Broadland
District Local Plan (Replacement) 2006. The Local Planning Authority considers that
the proposed development complies with the objectives of these policies and is also
of the view that the national need for additional prison places is a material
consideration to be taken into account in determining the application. As such it is
considered that approval of the application is justified, proportionate and in
accordance with planning law.
5.
WALCOTT - 20081662 - Removal of condition 3 of planning application
reference: 20021117 to permit residential occupancy; White Farm Barn North
Walsham Road Happisburgh for Mr Kinsey
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :23 Jan 2009
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside Policy Area
Listed Building Grade II
Class 'B' Road, within 60m
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20021117 - (Full Planning Permission) - Alterations and change of use of barn to
holiday accommodation and formation of access
Approved, 14 Oct 2003
THE APPLICATION
Removal of condition 3 of planning application reference 20021117 to permit
residential occupancy. The condition states as follows:
'The development hereby permitted shall be used for holiday accommodation
purposes only and shall not be used as the sole or main residence of the occupiers.'
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Walker having regard to the following planning issue:
Future review of saved Local Plan Policy 29.
PARISH COUNCIL
Walcott Parish Council - No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicants have submitted a supporting statement referring to the reasons they
wish to occupy the barn as their home (Appendix 4). The statement refers to the
applicant's links with the locality - elderly parents live close by and in poor health;
they have four children, one of whom walks to the local primary school; applicant is a
tiler whose services are often called upon by the local community; applicant is on call
with the local RNLI inshore lifeboat based at Cart Gap. The supporting statement
also refers to the listed status of the barn and the cost associated with the conversion
work and the status of saved Policy 29.
Development Control Committee (East)
32
22 January 2009
Seven letters of support received stating the following grounds:
1. Applicant keen member of RNLI lifeboat station, struggling to retain members.
2. Family has become valued and well liked member of the community.
3. Children settled in well to local school.
4. Provide care for their elderly parents who live nearby.
5. Child attends local school and his progress would be disrupted if the family were to
have to relocate.
Letter of support from Happisburgh Parish Council for the following reasons:
1. There is no shortage of holiday accommodation in Happisburgh or Walcott. There
is a barn complex of around 6 units at Church Farm Barns, close to that complex is a
holiday barn conversion at Golds Barn. The latter is occupied at weekends only.
2. Happisburgh has at least 10% holiday homes with a good caravan site nearby.
Whilst very welcome the second home owners contribute very little to the community.
(i.e. engage with local school, RNLI, pub and shop all year round)
3. Walcott has many holiday homes and a caravan/chalet park also.
4. The conversion of this barn has improved and retained a listed building to the
benefit of the area. Had such a conversion been for holiday units it would no doubt
be refused on the grounds a listed building would not be allowed to be converted in
this way.
5. Mr and Mrs Kinsey have contributed to the local area/economy. Applicant is a
member of the local RNLI crew. Their children attend the local school and they use
the local shop regularly. They are well known and respected members of this
community.
To refuse this application would render the family homeless, which to the Parish
Council is nonsensical and possibly immoral given the fact the housing waiting list is
so vast, with over 400 on that list waiting for a home in Happisburgh.
We hope the Committee will approve this application.
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 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 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of residential use in the Countryside policy area.
Development Control Committee (East)
33
22 January 2009
APPRAISAL
The site comprises a late C18th Grade II listed former barn converted to residential
accommodation by virtue of planning permission 20021117. In accordance with
Policy 29 of the North Norfolk Local Plan, approval was granted subject to a condition
restricting occupancy of the converted barn to holiday use only.
The barn lies within the Countryside policy area, approximately 800m (road
measurement) outside the development boundary of Happisburgh, designated as a
Coastal Service Village in the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Policy EC 2 allows for the
re-use of buildings within the countryside for economic purposes only (including
holiday uses), whilst saved Policy 29 allows for residential use of such buildings
where they lie directly adjacent to the boundary of a town or Service Village.
The applicants purchased the barn in 2004 with the benefit of planning permission.
The operational work has been completed and the accommodation has been
occupied since July 2007. The applicants have occupied the barn as their sole
residence since that time contrary to the holiday occupancy condition. The
application seeks the removal of the holiday occupancy restriction to allow for the
occupation of the barn on a permanent basis.
Given the Countryside location of the barn and the distance from the settlement
boundary of Happisburgh, the application to remove the holiday restriction is clearly
contrary to both saved Policy 29 and Policy EC 2 of the Core Strategy. Approval of
the scheme would represent a departure from adopted policy which establishes a
strong presumption against residential development in the countryside.
Policy 29 of the Local Plan was saved as a result of the Inspector's report on the
examination of the Core Strategy which required that proposed Policy HO 9 be
withdrawn and a revised policy prepared. Policy HO 9 previously proposed to allow
the conversion of barns in the countryside to residential use where they were within
1km of a designated town or 0.5km of a Service Village. The Inspector considered
the proposed policy (HO 9) gave insufficient consideration to the possibility of
conversions within or close to villages formerly identified in the Local Plan (and
reclassified as countryside as a result of the Core Strategy) and raised concerns
regarding circumstances where residential use may be the optimum viable use for
some buildings of historic, architectural or landscape value. Saved Policy 29 is
scheduled to be reviewed in the next 2 years and will be the subject of full public
consultation and formal examination. It is inappropriate at this stage to prejudge the
manner in which policy is likely to change. To make a decision on the basis of future
policy may not only pre-determine those policy changes but also in the interim set a
precedent for further similar applications to remove holiday conditions. In relation to
the latter point, just within 800m of the application site there are 15 other barns the
subject of holiday occupancy restrictions.
The barn is a Grade II Listed Building. In the case of listed building conversions
Development Plan policy may allow for residential use where it is proven that this
constitutes the optimum viable use of the building. In this instance the barns have
already been converted under the terms of the original permission. It has been
suggested in the applicant's supporting statement that it is doubtful, given
development costs, that anyone would have wished to convert the listed barn to a
holiday unit. However, there is no evidence to substantiate that such a scheme would
not have been viable.
On the basis of the above it is considered that the proposal is contrary to adopted
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE
Development Control Committee (East)
34
22 January 2009
6.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of full reports at the next meeting.
As these applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make their representations at the next meeting of the Committee when the
applications are discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
CROMER - 20081650 - Erection of Replacement Hospital Buildings; Cromer and
District Hospital, Mill Road for NNUH NHS Foundation Trust
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
An early site visit by the Committee is considered necessary by the Head of Planning
and Building Control in view of the complexity of the planning issues involved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake a site visit.
STALHAM - 20081644 – Erection of Extensions to Store, Replacement Filling
Station and Construction of Roundabout and Revised Access and Parking
Arrangements; Tesco Stores Limited, Old Market Road for Tesco Stores
Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
An early site visit by the Committee is considered necessary by the Head of Planning
and Building Control in view of the complexity of the planning issues involved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake a site visit.
7.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - 20081531 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Amarante
Chapel Road for Mr and Mrs Mendes
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - 20081504 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 restaurant and A5
(take-away); Busy Bodies Coast Road for Mrs Pettersson
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - 20081611 - Erection of detached garage; Plough Barn Church Road
for Mr M Craven
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
35
22 January 2009
BACTON - 20081612 - Erection of modular accommodation building and
formation of car park; land adjacent, Seagull Field Paston Road for National
Grid Property Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - 20081639 - Erection of first floor side extension; Rosemary Cottage
Keswick Road for Mr H Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081537 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Food Fare Mill
Road for Mr Singh
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081241 - Raising of roof to provide second floor flat and new
shopfront; 15 West Street for Daugaard and Co
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081550 - Installation of replacement windows; 5 High Street for
Ms Chapman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CROMER - 20081551 - Change of use of ground floor from A1 (retail) to
residential; 22 West Street for Mr Bigley
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081552 - Continued use of land for siting mobile refreshment unit;
Kiosk Bottom Melbourne Slope Promenade for Mr V Gray
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081585 - Installation of block paved driveway; 67 Clifton Park for
Mr and Mrs Couse
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081586 - Change of use from light industrial/warehouse unit
(classes B1 and B8) to light industrial unit with retail (furniture) and storage
(classes B1, B8 and A1); Unit 4b Middlebrook Way for Mr D Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081622 - Use of land for siting replacement portable catering unit;
Melbourne Slope Promenade for Mr Spencer Gray
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - 20081527 - Erection of conservatory; Middle Cottage Church
Road for Mr M Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - 20081618 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and detached
garage; Windchimes Heath Road for Mr and Mrs R Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - 20081509 - Erection of garage/garden store; Highbank House The
Street for Mr and Mrs Gatfield
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
36
22 January 2009
LUDHAM - 20081604 - Alterations to parking and installation of windows and
rooflights (revisions to planning permission ref: 20050782); Beeches Farm
Horse Fen Road for Mr Blackstock
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20081598 - Erection of boundary wall; 1a Heath Lane for Mr J
Davies
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - 20081572 - Variation of condition 7 of planning permission ref:
20021202 (touring caravan/camping park and storage area for caravans and
boats) to allow sole access via access b; Street Hill Farm School Lane for Mr
Loveday
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - 20081576 - Erection of two-storey rear extension with sun
lounge and single-storey side extension; Homelea Common Road
Threehammer Common for Mr and Mrs Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - 20081583 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 3 School Road
for Mr Shorten
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081450 - Erection of extensions to the Melbourne Club;
The Melbourne Club Bacton Road for Walsham Chalet Park Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081518 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 34
Legrice Crescent for Mr Barrett
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081609 - Erection of garage/store; 49 Burton Avenue for
Mrs J Thaine
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081615 - Change of use from A2 (financial and
professional services) to D1 (dental surgery); 20 Market Place for Oasis
Healthcare Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20081574 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions
and detached garage/shed; The Waves, 22 The Londs for Mr Love
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20081556 - Erection of double garage; Swans Nest Norwich Road
for Mr C Howell
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20081653 - Erection of single-storey extension; Green Cottage
Lower Common East Runton for Mrs Woodhouse
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20081553 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; The
Hawthorns Charlottes Close West Runton for Mr Simmons
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
37
22 January 2009
SEA PALLING - 20081605 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; Farm
View Stalham Road for Mr and Mrs Dennis
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20011212 - Change of use from sports ground to mixed use to
include sports ground and market (car boot sales); Rivers Park Stepping Stone
Lane for Mr D J Penrose
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20081591 - Erection of two-storey side extension and detached
garage; 1 Ingham Road for Mr Trett
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20081592 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extension; Holly
Cottage The Street for Mr Folds
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - 20081543 - Change of use of land from siting of fourteen semistatic caravans to siting of eleven static caravans; Woodland Caravan Park
(Trimingham) Ltd Cromer Road for Woodland Caravan Site (Trimingham)
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - 20081522 - Alteration to include new windows, balcony and erection
of cart shed; South Barn Mundesley Road for Mr Wiseman
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20081532 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Heathview The
Street Ridlington for Mr R Mills
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20081539 - Retention of outbuildings; Heathers Bacton Road for
Jeesal Residential Care
(Full Planning Permission)
8.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
LESSINGHAM - 20081405 - Formation of amenity lake; land adjoining The Star
Inn High Road for Mr Colby
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20081625 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 32 Hillingdon
Park for A G Brown (Builders) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - 20081277 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling and garage
(renewal of 20051326); Marigold Poplar Drive for Dr M Goodliffe
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
38
22 January 2009
APPEALS SECTION
9.
NEW APPEALS
AYLMERTON - 20080300 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site adjoining Breck
Lodge Holt Road for Westcrome Properties Limited
INFORMAL HEARING
WORSTEAD - 20080458 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide two
units of holiday accommodation; Church View Westwick Road for Mr D P
Gilligan
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WORSTEAD - 20081167 - Conversion and extensions to the forge to provide a
residential dwelling; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D Gilligan
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
10.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
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 03 Feb 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
11.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
SEA PALLING - 20080258 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; land rear of
Old Cottage Church Road Sea Palling for Mr E Smith
12.
APPEAL DECISIONS
None.
Development Control Committee (East)
39
22 January 2009