OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Chief Officer responsible, the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
CROMER - 20080818 - Construction of short stay facilities for Gypsies and
Travellers; adjacent Council Offices Holt Road for North Norfolk District
Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :19 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr A Mitchell
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Undeveloped Coast
Corridor of Movement
Countryside
Historic Parks and Gardens (Ungraded)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20000555 - (Full Planning Permission) - Nursery and garden centre
Refused, 19 Dec 2001
20021048 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Development of land for garden centre
with associated car parking, landscaping and formation of highway access
THE APPLICATION
This proposal provides for the construction of a ten pitch short-stay stopping site for
Gypsies and Travellers on agricultural land extending to approximately 0.25ha.
The site lies to the south-west of the Council Offices and is proposed to be accessed
via a new section of roadway from the existing access road serving the Council
offices. The proposed pitches measure 10m x 10m and would be arranged around a
central access road which would have a one-way system. The hardstandings would
be constructed in concrete and divided by concrete bollards. One hardstanding would
be specifically designed for a disabled user. Further hardstandings would be
provided for portaloo and for skip/bins. There would be no requirement for foul
drainage and surface water drainage in the centre of the site.
No permanent buildings are proposed nor is any external lighting. There would be a
standpipe for water and electricity would be made available.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
25 September 2008
The submitted plans show a level site to be achieved by cutting into land the
southern end of the site and the building up of the land to the northern end of the site.
A 2.5m high fence on concrete posts is proposed around the perimeter of the site
with a further 10m of landscaping around the western and southern sides. However,
this has been reduced to 5m on the eastern side with a recently submitted amended
plan. The landscaping proposed comprises a combination of hedge, shrubs and tree
planting.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the site's location in
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the extent of local interest in the
proposal.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments on original and revised plan:No objection on planning grounds. However, do object to the three month maximum
stay and would like to see this reduced to a maximum of one month. Concern was
raised in respect of future industry not wishing to come to Cromer, current industry
wishing to relocate and as to whether it is in the best interests of the residents of
Cromer.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received from local residents in respect of the
current planning application. Those concerns are summarised below:
1. Cromer and its surrounding area, especially those of outstanding natural beauty do
not require any short-stay facilities for Gypsies and Travellers.
2. There is no demand as there have been no illegal encampments in the local
vicinity this year.
3. To have a three month maximum stay period would encourage gypsies and
travellers to the area and to stay for the maximum period allowed.
4. Impact on the local area and community.
5. The site is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is a prominent site at the
entrance to Cromer and could have a detrimental effect on tourism in the area.
6. Increased traffic on the Holt Road/A148. This would be exacerbated by additional
traffic visiting the new Homebase and the proposed new police station.
7. The area is already being overdeveloped.
8. The site is encroaching further into the countryside.
9. The proposed portable toilet facilities are inadequate.
10. Concerns over the practicality of managing the site. This would be particularly a
problem during the evening, nighttimes, weekends and bank holidays.
11. The time the Gypsies and Travellers should be allowed to stay on the site should
be a maximum of four weeks.
12. The site does not provide easy access to facilities such as doctors, hospital,
schools etc.
13. There is no public bus service on or near the site that would link this site with the
facilities.
14. If a temporary site were to be allowed there is a risk that it could become a
permanent site in the future.
15. There should be no decision made on the temporary sites in this area until the
debate on permanent sites has been concluded.
16. What happens if all ten spaces are taken and others arrive? This could result in
the lay-by being used as overspill with nowhere to move on to this would be a greater
intrusion on this gateway to Cromer.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
25 September 2008
17. One of the reasons put forward to this site being preferred was the ease of
management however with the possibility of a unitary authority being discussed this
may not be the case in the future.
18. A less prominent and more remote site should be found.
19. Concern about impact on the area and a local caravan park.
20. Concerns about security.
21. Potential impact on local services such as the doctor's surgery and local school.
22. Increased traffic could give rise to problems for emergency services.
In support of the application, a consultation statement, design and access statement
and a background/management statement have been submitted with the application
which are attached as Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Aylmerton Parish Council - Supports the application. This is on the basis that the
Parish Council played an active role in the Gypsy and Traveller Site Consultation
Forum held during late 2006. It was an extremely detailed consultation process which
involved representatives of both Town and Parish Councils throughout the district,
business organisations and land owners. A large number of sites were examined and
by reasoned and democratic process only two sites were deemed to be suitable for
these facilities. These are now both the subject of applications. The District Council
has already demonstrated the need for two short-stay stopping places in the District.
Parish Council supports the proposal subject only to the proviso that the Cromer
facility should not be brought into use until occupation of the new Norfolk
Constabulary Police Station (due to be constructed adjacent to the proposed shortstay stopping place) takes place.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
Felbrigg Parish Council - No objection to the original or amended plans.
The Runtons Parish Council - Support the application as originally submitted.
Comments awaited in respect of the amended plan.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments on the
amended plans as follows:
Concerned about the visual impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. However, with suitable landscaping the development should be
capable of being screened. The amended plan illustrating a 5m planting strip to the
east of the site is acceptable. Recommends conditions.
County Council (Highways) - The proposal has been discussed on an informal basis
when it was indicated that the existing access arrangements are adequate to cater
for the proposed development.
Whilst it is noted that the proposal would result in the loss of some staff car parking
spaces the Highway Authority has no objection to the application.
Recommends a condition that prior to the first occupation of the development the
proposed access, on-site pitches and car parking should be laid out, demarcated,
levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained
thereafter for those specific uses.
Comments awaited on the amended plan and on the "rumble strip" and alternative
access suggestion put forward by the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and the
Council's Community Safety Manager (see comments below).
Development Control Committee (East)
3
25 September 2008
Environmental Health - The provision of short-stay stopping facilities for Gypsies and
Travellers is essential if the Council is able to deal with the management of
unauthorised encampments. Without such provision the ability of the Council and its
partner agencies to move Gypsies and Travellers from unsuitable locations would be
significantly compromised. It should also be noted that the facility would only be used
under the terms of the draft management protocol.
Nothing further to add in respect of the amended plan.
Norfolk County Council Fire Officer - Awaiting comments.
Norfolk County Council Traveller Liaison Officer - The 2007 Norfolk GTAA recognises
the need for short-stay sites in Norfolk in addition to the need for permanent provision
identified by EERA's Single Issue Review. In addition, Caravan Count data suggests
there are in excess of 100 unauthorised caravans in Norfolk at any time.
The ten pitches this development would provide would certainly contribute to the
target figures, and would assist in reducing the pressure on unregulated sites. The
scale of this proposal is considered appropriate and unlikely to raise any on-site
problems (e.g. between respective families).
Therefore providing there are no over-riding highway/access issues arising and
providing the District Council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with national
advice, I can confirm that the County Council's Traveller Liaison Team would not
wish to raise any objection to this application.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - My response to the pre-application consultation in
December last year summarises my views on this proposal from the perspective of
conservation and enhancement of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
I remain concerned about the creeping encroachment and consolidation of
development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty around this area on the
fringes of Cromer without any apparent strategy on the part of the District Council to
manage this. In the Partnership's previous correspondence the Partnership
understood and supported the need for the District Council to make this provision
and appreciated the sensitivities of placing sites of this nature near residential areas.
However, we had significant concerns about the proposal at Cromer in terms of the
Council's statutory duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
to have regard to the objectives of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
designation, i.e. conserving and enhancing its natural beauty. The proposed site is
well inside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and although significant
development has taken place inside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on this
side of Cromer since designation in 1968 they would not see this as in any way
legitimising further development. The objective should be one of improving the
existing situation rather than accepting further erosion of the value and observance of
the designation in this area. Although in itself it might be thought this proposal would
not be very significant, there is no doubt if it went ahead it would represent further
encroachment of unsuitable development into the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. This is a point that has been raised with regard to other development
proposals in this area.
Even if it is felt that the site would not be very visible from highways or other publicly
accessible areas it is not possible to see how the proposal would be consistent with
the objective of conserving and enhancing the area's natural beauty. The Partnership
is not aware of what other potential sites around Cromer may have been considered
but hope that there is at least one that would not cause a breach of the Council's
statutory duty towards the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
25 September 2008
Norfolk Gardens Trust - The site lies adjacent to the North Norfolk District Council
offices, to the west of the woodland boundary to the estate surrounding Cromer Hall,
a historic landscape of local interest. The proposed site is elevated but would be cut
in slightly to the existing ground surface and surrounded by a 2m high fence of close
boarded appearance. The fence itself would be surrounded by native tree and shrub
planting.
The Trust do not consider that the site as proposed would have a detrimental
appearance on the integrity of the historic landscape although it could intrude into
views of the parkland belt which can be seen through gaps in the hedges from the
lay-by. The Trust considers the proposal would have a minimal impact on the historic
landscape around Cromer Hall and therefore does not wish to object to the
application.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer and District Council Community Safety Manager Combined response received:
(1) Overview of the proposed development
It is apparent that the intention is to screen the site from view as much as possible
and this is not good practice from a crime prevention point of view as it leaves the
users of the site and service providers to the site and their property vulnerable to
criminality from outside or possibly within.
In fact, such a design gives the impression of keeping the travelling community
separate from the settled community with the formation of physical/psychological
barriers and this does not serve to integrate communities.
(2) Specific recommendations for consideration
All screening (both fencing and planting) to the front of the site (i.e. at the point of
access) should be kept to a maximum height of 1.8m to ensure visibility into and out
of the site. This would ensure that anyone occupying the site can clearly see any
vehicle or person entering and/or leaving and therefore, affords a level of protection
to those in occupation and likewise for those responsible for providing services to the
site to enter and move about more safely.
Provision should be made to ensure that all planting is regularly maintained to
prevent it growing beyond this height and this can be achieved making use of the
Community Payback Scheme currently running at no additional expense to the
Authority.
The application clearly states that no external lighting is to be incorporated into the
development and this is a significant oversight as there is an evidenced fact that
provision of lighting is a factor in preventing crime and reducing the fear of crime.
Additionally, without external lighting there is a real health and safety risk to those
who use the site - i.e. trips, falls etc which if they occur, could leave the Authority
open to litigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that some external lighting is
provided on site. This could be solar powered and operated on movement sensors,
which also serves to alert those in occupation to movement on the site during the
hours of darkness and thus, affords them protection from unauthorised access.
Those persons providing services or otherwise needing authorised access to the site
need to be able to do so safely.
The provision of a 'rumble strip' or similar 'barrier' be placed at the entrance of the
access road, this serves to slow down vehicles entering and leaving the site. This
also serves to give a sense of 'privacy' and/or 'ownership' of the site from the
adjacent surroundings.
(3) Further observations made from the Operational Policing Area Commander
Consideration should be given to the entrance to the site where any obstruction of
this only route may be detrimental to the operation of both the proposed Police
Station and functionality of the District Council Offices. A preferred entrance would be
from the existing lay-by.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
25 September 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues. However, see the
comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and the District Council
Community Safety Manager.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy HO 4: Sites for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (specifies
the criteria to be met for the provision of sites).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
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 CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 25: Historic Parks and Gardens (prevents insensitive developments).
Policy 26: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary developments or those which
would be significantly detrimental to appearance or character).
Policy 68: Residential Caravans (same policies apply as for residential buildings).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Access and highway matters.
4. Lighting.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
25 September 2008
BACKGROUND
The District Council has adopted the "Norfolk Protocol for Managing Unauthorised
Encampments", which recommends that unauthorised encampments should be
tolerated where they occur whenever possible. Only in extreme cases would eviction
to another site be considered and this would only be possible with the co-operation of
the Police. Recent changes to legislation have altered how the Police and the
Council can deal with Gypsy and Traveller encampments. The Police can move on
just one vehicle, but an alternative site containing a "suitable pitch" must be offered.
A suitable pitch is one that is provided with minimal facilities of water, toilets and
hardstanding although these do not need to be permanent and can be provided on a
temporary basis as required. The lack of alternative sites severely restricts the ability
to move unsuitable and unauthorised encampments.
North Norfolk has relatively low levels of Gypsy and Traveller activity compared to
other areas of Norfolk and it is not considered that there is a need to identify a
permanent facility in the District. However, Gypsies and Travellers do visit the District
and there is a need to provide stopping places for use for short periods of time.
Therefore, the Council is seeking to provide two short-stay stopping places in the
District, one in Fakenham and one in the Cromer/Sheringham area. Access to the
site would be controlled and it would be managed by the Council and only used on
an occasional temporary basis when required.
Furthermore, the Government requires such sites to be identified and provided for
though the Development Plan process and Policy HO 4 of the Core Strategy
specifically deals with sites for Gypsies and Travellers and for Travelling Show
People.
As a precursor to the application, extensive consultation was undertaken in respect
of site identification which is outlined in the consultation statement in support of the
application attached as Appendix 1.
The search area for sites was based on the historic patterns of Gypsy and Traveller
movements in North Norfolk and clearly any such site identified needs to be in an
area where these groups wish to go in order to be effective. The Cromer/Sheringham
area was identified along with Fakenham, but the site selection process recognised
that there were very restricted choices in the Cromer/Sheringham area due to the
prominence of tourism business and residential areas along the A149 Coast Road
between the two resort towns, which suffers heavy seasonal traffic volumes and
congestion, and the desire in the adopted Local Plan to seek the removal of cliff-top
caravan sites between Overstrand and Sheringham. For this reason it was
considered that the greatest potential to identify a site to serve Cromer/Sheringham
was along the principal A148 Corridor. The site in question was the preferred option
from the consultation process.
The site would be managed by the Council. A copy of the draft protocol for the
management of the proposed temporary stopping places (agreed by the Cabinet on 6
May 2008) is attached for Members' information.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area where under Local Plan Policy 5 high
priority will be given to protection and enhancement of the appearance and character
of the area and development proposals will not be permitted unless they are for
purposes listed in that policy. They should also be in accordance with other policies
in the Local Plan. Included in the proposals in that policy that could be acceptable in
the Countryside policy area sites for Gypsies and Travelling Showpeople; this is also
in Core Strategy Policy SS 2.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
25 September 2008
Policy HO 4 of the Core Strategy indicates that development to meet the need of
Gypsies and Travellers and of Travelling Showpeople will be permitted provided such
development is of an appropriate scale and nature and it meets the seven criteria
listed below:1. the intended occupants meets the definition of Gypsies and Travellers or the
description of Travelling Showpeople; and
2. development minimises impact on the surrounding landscape; and
3. safe vehicular access to the public highway can be provided; and
4. the movement of vehicles to and from the site will not cause significant
disturbance; and
5. there is adequate space for parking, turning and servicing on site; and
6. the site is on the outskirts of, or within a reasonable distance of, a settlement
which offers local services and community facilities; and
7. suitable landscaping and boundary enclosures are provided to give privacy,
minimise impact on the surrounding area and provide a safe and acceptable living
environment.
The other major policy consideration against which the development of this site
needs to be considered relates to its location within the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. Whilst the previous policy relating to protecting the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty is not one of the saved Local Plan polices the Council as Local
Planning Authority clearly has to take into account the advice in Planning Policy
Statement No.7 "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas" and its duty under
Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to have regard to the objectives
of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation, i.e. conserving and
enhancing its natural beauty.
Core Strategy Policy EN 1 also provides the context for considering proposals in the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and states that proposals that would have an
adverse effect would not be permitted, unless it could be demonstrated that they
cannot be located on alternative site that would cause less harm and the benefit of
the development clearly outweigh any adverse impact.
In the light of the site search and consultation exercise carried out, and given the
constraints of the search area, it is considered that there is no suitable alternative site
available and that given the limited views of the site currently available in the wider
area and the landscaping proposed (which would help to assimilate the development
in the landscape), the proposal is considered acceptable under Core Strategy Policy
EN 1. At the time of writing this report that policy was awaiting formal adoption by the
Council. However, the Inspector's binding report into the Core Strategy declared it to
be sound and it is therefore of considerable policy weight.
With regard to the other principal planning considerations and the criteria contained
within Core Strategy Policy HO 4, the site would be used occasionally for the
temporary location of Gypsies and Travellers. The landscape impact issue has
already been discussed and suitable landscape and boundary treatments would be
provided to give privacy and soften the impact visually in respect of the surrounding
area.
With regard to traffic generation and highway safety the Highway Authority raises no
objection although Members will note that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and
the Council's Community Safety Officer are suggesting an alternative access from
the existing lay-by. At the time of writing this report this suggestion has been referred
back to the Agent and the Highway Authority and Members will be updated orally at
the meeting.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
25 September 2008
In respect of residential amenity, the site is not close to any residential property and it
is considered that there are unlikely to be significant issues of noise or disturbance
as a result.
The site layout has been designed to reflect the advice contained within the
Department of Communities and Local Government "Designing Gypsies and
Travellers Site", a Good Practice Guide for temporary stopping places. In terms of
access for emergency vehicles, Members will note that the Police Architectural
Liaison Officer has been consulted (and commented) along with the Fire Officer. At
the time of writing this report the comments of the Fire Officer were awaited.
Finally, the site is on the outskirts of the town, with access to local services and
community facilities and is located in an area where there is a desire for the Gypsy
and Traveller community to visit for short periods of time.
In terms of length of stay, the advice in the Good Practice Guide is that whilst lengths
of stay can vary they are usually set between twenty-eight days and three months for
transit sites and up to twenty-eight days for temporary stopping places. Whilst this is
not considered to be a transit site, there may occasionally be specific circumstances
where a period of occupancy of up to three months could be accepted within the draft
protocol for the management of the sites. This period also reflects the advice in
"Managing Unauthorised Camping: A Good Practice Guide" (2005), and Section 62A
of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by Section 62 of the
Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003.
With regard to other matters raised through other consultation responses, Members
will appreciate the comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and the
District Council Community Safety Manager. In respect of screening both in terms of
fence and the planting this is considered to be essential for landscape and visual
amenity grounds in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, taking into account the
Council's statutory obligations therein; it is not therefore accepted that it should be
restricted to a maximum height of 1.8m. With regard to external lighting again there is
a concern that the introduction of permanent external light and could be detrimental
to the visual amenities of the area but there is considered to be some merit in the
suggestion that movement-sensitive lighting be installed, taking into account the fact
the site would only be occupied for a few weeks of the year.
With regard to the suggested "rumble strip" or similar barrier this suggestion has
been raised with the agent and a response is awaited at the time of writing this
report.
In summary, it is considered that the proposal would comply with Local Plan Policy 5
and Core Strategy Policy H 04 and would not significantly conflict with other adopted
Development Plan or emerging policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to
approve the application subject to no new grounds of objection being received
following the expiry of the re-consultation and re-advertisement period on the
amended plan, no objections being received from the Fire Officer, the response
from the agent in respect of the suggestion rumble strip and the agent and
Highway Authority with regard to the possible alternative access off the lay-by,
the consideration of movement-sensitive lighting and the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
25 September 2008
2.
CROMER - 20081255 - Erection of nineteen flats and two shops; land to rear of
27 Church Street for Smart Space (UK) Ltd
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :19 Nov 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20040829 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of nine dwellings
Approved, 02 Nov 2004
20080785 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of fifteen flats, three maisonettes
and three shops
Withdrawn, 14 Aug 2008
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a three-storey block containing nineteen flats and two shop units. The
proposed building would be of a contemporary design with brick walls at ground floor
level and timber cladding above, monopitch roofs of clay pantiles and curved roofs of
profiled metal. Vehicular access to the site would be from Mount Street to the south
through an archway, whilst pedestrian only access would be from Church Street to
the north.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in the light of the changed
policy context since the withdrawal of the earlier application.
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Agent's Design and Access Statement attached at Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Identifies changes to internal layout and materials which
will be needed to meet fire regulations.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions covering refuse bin storage and
contaminated land.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
25 September 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 7: Town and Large Village Centres (broad range of development/uses
encouraged).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 79: Core Retail Areas (limits use of ground floor premises to Class A1, A2 or
A3 uses - shops, offices or food/drink outlets).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of residential development in the town centre.
2. Design and density.
3. Need for affordable housing.
4. Car parking provision.
APPRAISAL
This application is the resubmission of one received earlier this year which was
withdrawn to enable modifications to be made to the submitted designs.
The site has an existing planning permission for a development of nine dwellings in
the form of two and three-storey terraced houses, granted in November 2004 and
valid for 5 years. This establishes the principle of residential development on the site.
The site is enclosed by buildings on all sides with no street frontage. Access is
gained via two archway entrances from Church Street and Mount Street. In the North
Norfolk Local Plan the site was included within the Core Retail Area. Under the Core
Strategy the site is within the defined town centre but does not form part of the
primary shopping area. Policy SS 5 is permissive towards proposals for residential
development where they do not result in the loss of shops. The proposal complies
with this policy.
The density of the proposed development works out at approximately 200 dwellings
per hectare. This is clearly a high density development but the site is within the town
centre and comprises small single bedroom flats. The site layout provides for the
Development Control Committee (East)
11
25 September 2008
retention of a horse chestnut tree in the north-west corner of the site and for bin
stores, cycle stores and small courtyard gardens for the ground floor flats. Detailed
comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager are awaited, as are
further drawings from the agents amplifying the design details of the proposal.
However, the general design approach is considered to be acceptable, given that the
site has little impact in the street scene or on the character or appearance of the
wider Conservation Area. The scale of the proposed building is similar to that of
surrounding development. Partly because of the access limitations imposed by the
landlocked nature of the site the building is intended to be constructed in modular
form.
The impact of the proposal on adjoining properties is difficult to establish accurately
without clearer details of the relationship between existing and proposed buildings,
which have been requested. On balance the proposal appears at this stage to have
less impact on the properties on Bond Street to the west and slightly greater impact
on the northern elevations of the Mount Street properties along the southern
boundary of the site.
The current proposal makes no specific provision for affordable housing although
Core Strategy Policy HO 2 requires 45% affordable housing on sites of 10 or more
dwellings. This application follows a withdrawn application submitted in May when
the relevant policies were those of the saved North Norfolk Local Plan which did not
require affordable housing for this scale of development. This earlier application was
withdrawn, rather than negotiated to a conclusion, so as to ensure that the decision
did not run over the 13 week determination period. Consequently, in these
circumstances, it is suggested that in so far as the issue of affordable housing is
concerned the application should be considered against the saved North Norfolk
Local Plan policies. In that case there is no requirement for affordable housing
provision.
The only car parking provided as part of the development is four spaces required by
adjoining landowners, with no provision made for on- site parking for residents. This
would avoid the need for vehicles to use the existing substandard access through the
archway onto Church Street, and would comply with the North Norfolk Local Plan
parking standards. The Core Strategy parking standards would as a norm require 1.5
spaces for each one bedroom unit, although it is accepted that within town centres
such standards may be reduced. Given the accessibility of Cromer town centre by
public transport and the undesirable consequences in traffic generation terms of
providing this level of parking on a site with very poor standard access points and the
planning history of the site, it is suggested that no objection should be raised to the
minimal parking provision proposed.
In the absence of key consultation responses and the further information being
sought from the agents it is not possible to make a formal recommendation at the
time of preparing this report. Further updates will be given at the Committee meeting.
In the meantime Members are asked to consider the issue of affordable housing and
the particular circumstances surrounding the background of this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:Committee will be updated at the meeting.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
25 September 2008
3.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080830 - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings; land
rear of 45 Happisburgh Road for Mr M Neale
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :31 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19981212 - (Full Planning Permission) - Construction of three detached houses with
garages (renewal of approval 01 931275 PF)
Approved, 27 Jun 2003
20011691 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn, 30 Jan 2004
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the approval in principle of eight two-storey dwellings and indicates a layout
that includes two detached dwellings and three pairs of dwellings linked by garages.
Access is proposed via a private drive from Happisburgh Road that includes a
passing bay. Access and layout are for consideration at this stage.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds of over development of the site and highway access.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection from nearby residents concerned at issues of impact on their
amenities including overlooking, environmental impact, adequacy of private access,
highway safety and the condition of existing trees along the north-western boundary.
Letter from applicant's agent attached as Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle but requested further details
and clarification with regard to land ownership and visibility splays.
Has subsequently confirmed that dimensions of visibility splays are acceptable
provided they are within the applicant's control.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
25 September 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 1: Growth Towns (main towns for growth in district).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on character of area.
2. Impact on neighbouring housing development.
3. Highway matters.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the July meeting to facilitate negotiations for singlestorey dwellings on the site and at the August meeting to enable Members to visit the
site. The applicant is unwilling to modify the proposal for the reasons set out in the
architect's email (Appendix 3), but has provided additional details indicating that the
proposal would produce no significant overlooking.
The site is formed by an amalgamation of part of the long rear gardens of five
dwellings which front the eastern side of Happisburgh Road. The site is currently land
locked as it is bounded by a variety of other residential properties. The site is within a
predominantly residential area where policy allows for the development of additional
dwellings in principle.
Access to the site is to be gained by a 4.5m wide private drive formed between
numbers 45 and 49 Happisburgh Road which involves the removal of a small group
of trees. Due to the length of the access (approximately 80m) the proposal includes a
passing bay. The access arrangement is considered acceptable in principle by the
Highway Authority although further details and clarification on ownership and visibility
provision have been requested. The driveway includes a turning head suitable for
service/emergency vehicles.
The proposed layout indicates that all dwellings can be sited to meet the basic
amenity criteria of 10m minimum rear gardens and 21m between proposed and
existing dwellings, in accordance with Policy 13 of the Local Plan. However,
objections have been received from occupiers of bungalows that front onto St Benets
Avenue expressing concern in respect of issues including overlooking and
suggesting that bungalows would be more appropriate.
Development Control Committee (East)
14
25 September 2008
The proposed development is at a density of approximately 23 dwellings/ha and
makes the best use of existing residential land as required by the current
Government guidance, taking into account the existing character of the area. The
Core Strategy aims to achieve a minimum of 40 dwellings/ha in principal settlements,
such as North Walsham. Whilst the density is below the Government's recommended
minimum and Core Strategy aims, this is justified by the need to retain trees on the
site boundaries and to prevent overlooking of neighbours.
Subject to confirmation that visibility splay details satisfy the highway requirements,
the proposal is considered to meet the policy criteria of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to final comment of the Highway
Authority and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081129 - County council reference: sp/c/1/2007/1011
conversion of former waste water treatment plant to liquid waste transfer
station; Sewage Works Marshgate for HFS Liquid Waste
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :21 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(County General Regs - Reg.4 (1992))
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19751251 - (Full Planning Permission) - Boiler and compressor house with
associated sludge digestion tanks and gas holder
Approved, 11 Nov 1975
19781218 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extensions
Approved, 30 Aug 1978
19820685 - (Full Planning Permission) - Prefabricated building to be used as
messroom/changing room
Approved, 11 Jun 1982
19821509 - (Full Planning Permission) - Proposed erection of brick and tile
messroom/changing room/ office/toilets
Approved, 12 Nov 1982
20061772 - (Full Planning Permission) - Highway improvement works, including
widening of access
Approved, 16 Jan 2007
THE APPLICATION
Has been submitted to Norfolk County Council as a 'County Matter' as it relates to
the treatment of waste material. The application includes a number of elements:
1. Change of use of the site for the storage and splitting of non-hazardous liquid
waste.
2. Installation of four steel storage tanks for the storage of non-hazardous liquids and
muds.
3. Construction of weighbridge.
4. Erection of metal clad storage and treatment building - 18m x 9m height to eaves
4.5m.
5. Siting of metal storage container - 5.9m x 2.4m height 2.4m.
Development Control Committee (East)
15
25 September 2008
6. 1.0m increase in height of existing concrete structure and erection of covering roof.
7. Retention of two storey portacabin office.
8. Retention of toilet facilities.
9. Hardstanding and surfacing for car and lorry park.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Ford having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Highways.
2. Residential amenity.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
Norfolk Waste Local Plan (December 2000)
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on highway safety and residents’ amenities from traffic movements.
2. Landscape impact.
APPRAISAL
This application falls within the responsibility of the County Council to determine
against policies in the Norfolk Waste Local Plan. The District Council is a consultee.
It is understood that until 2005 the application site was operated by Anglian Water in
association with the sewage treatment works on the northern side of Marshgate. The
site has a vehicular access from Marshgate which is a single track unclassified road.
The site is separated from neighbouring agricultural land by mature trees and
hedging. The site is approximately 300m east of North Walsham's development
boundary, within an area of Countryside as designated in the Core Strategy.
Policy EC3 of the Core Strategy allows for the extension of existing businesses in the
Countryside where the proposal is of a scale appropriate to the existing development
and would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
When operated by Anglian Water the site was used for the treatment of sewage
sludge which arrived at the site via a piped system from the site to the north and
directly from transport vehicles. On site, the sewage was then subject to treatment
which involved digestion, settlement in lagoons, cooling and de-watering. The treated
sewage was then removed from the site via vehicles either for further processing or
for agricultural use.
The applicant is currently operating from offices at the site. An Operator's Licence for
6 vehicles has been granted and these are stored and operated from the site. The
vehicles are used to collect and transport a variety of liquid wastes including flood
water, agricultural waste, run off from car parks, etc, to licensed waste disposal sites.
Confirmation has been sought from the County Council as to the status of this current
use.
Development Control Committee (East)
16
25 September 2008
The application seeks to use the site for the waste transfer of non-hazardous liquid
waste. This use entails the storage and bulking up of the liquid waste on the site prior
to off-site disposal. The use does not involve any treatment other than the removal of
water and the waste would arrive at the site via the 6 vehicles covered by the
operator's licence. Existing buildings and storage tanks previously used by Anglian
Water would be re-used and in addition some additional structures are proposed.
Marshgate is a narrow single track road, with limited passing and restricted visibility
with adjoining roads. County Highways have been consulted in relation to the
proposal. It is understood that the existing amount and weight of traffic using
Marshgate gives rise both to highway concerns and to problems for local residents
and this has been substantiated by the letters of representation submitted in
response to this application. Information has been submitted by the applicant to
demonstrate that the traffic associated with the proposed operation of the site would
be no greater than historic levels. The Highway Authority is considering this
evidence. In light of the constraints of the local highway network it is likely that even a
small increase in traffic would give rise to additional highway safety concerns. It is
considered that the issue of traffic generation is crucial to this application and that
any proposal which is shown to increase the scale of operations on the site and
related vehicular activity, above historic levels, should be resisted.
Notwithstanding the above, in terms of landscape impact the site is generally well
screened by the mature hedging and trees on the perimeter. In relation to the
proposed new building the greatest visual impact would be from the south which has
a relatively flat terrain. The existing trees on the western perimeter of the site are of
sufficient height to screen the proposed tanks from the west, but the hedging to the
southern perimeter would not be adequate to screen the tanks or the proposed
roofed concrete structure. The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager therefore suggests additional planting of native trees along this boundary.
An Arboricultural Report submitted with the application sets out protection and
construction methods to safeguard the trees. The Council's Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager is satisfied that, subject to works being implemented in
accordance with these recommendations, there would be no adverse impact on the
existing trees. Given the distance of the development from the properties to the south
and with the benefit of additional landscaping it is considered that the visual impact of
the proposal would not be significantly detrimental and as such the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager has not raised an objection.
In relation to the impact of the proposed development on nearby residents' amenities
Environmental Health have reviewed the submitted information in relation to noise,
odour and lighting and have responded directly to the County Council. Environmental
Health have raised no objection to the application but have recommended the
imposition of planning conditions restricting hours of use (07:30 and 17:00 Monday to
Saturdays and 07:30 to 12:00 Saturdays and no working on Sundays or Bank
Holidays), the monitoring and control of odours and the prior agreement of external
lighting.
In conclusion the main concern to this proposal relates to traffic movements. Other
issues could, it would appear, be satisfactorily addressed by planning conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:That the County Council be advised that the District Council:
Development Control Committee (East)
17
25 September 2008
1. has severe reservations over any increase in traffic associated with the operation
of the site which is considered to have a detrimental impact on highway safety and
the amenities of local residents, contrary to Policy EC 3 of the Core Strategy; and
2. recommends in the event of the County being minded to approve the application,
the inclusion of planning conditions in relation to - landscaping (in particular the
southern boundary); tree protection; works to be implemented in accordance with
Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan; restricted hours of
operation; odour controls; and external lighting.
5.
SKEYTON - 20081047 - Erection of 4 semi-detached two-storey dwellings and 2
single-storey semi-detached dwellings; land adjacent Highview Felmingham
Road for Broadland Housing Association
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings (2 x 3 bedroom
houses, 2 x 2 bedroom houses, 2 x 2 bedroom bungalows) on agricultural land to
east of existing dwellings at High View, Skeyton.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application but asks for 30m.p.h. speed limit because of the dangerous
cross roads to the west; amendments to the site layout; addition of chimneys;
clarification of sewage disposal arrangements (no main sewer is available); some
shared ownership housing; and residents to have strong local connection. Full
comments are at Appendix 4.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. Contrary to planning policy.
2. Considerable distance to local amenities.
3. Impact on character of the area.
4. Increase in traffic.
5. Better sites available.
6. Loss of agricultural land.
7. Poor highway network.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Points out that the site
is in an area where the Local Development Framework Landscape Character
Assessment identifies that significant numbers of new dwellings either within or
outside existing settlements would not contribute to or maintain landscape character,
and that new development should not stand out but should be unnoticeable within the
existing development structure. No attempt has been made to soften the impact of
new buildings in the landscape and the current proposals would have a detrimental
effect on the landscape. (Full comments attached at Appendix 4)
Development Control Committee (East)
18
25 September 2008
County Council (Highways) - Recommends refusal for two principal reasons, Firstly
the unclassified road serving the site is considered inadequate because of its poor
alignment, restricted width and severely restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions.
Secondly the site is not in a sustainable location, being remote from public services
(schools, healthcare etc) and local facilities, with very limited levels of public transport
available. (Full comments attached at Appendix 4).
Strategic Housing - Supports. Proposal meets identified housing need in the parish
and is the preferred site identified by the Parish Council. (Full comments attached at
Appendix 4)
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of affordable housing in the countryside.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Design.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
The site adjoins a group of nine dwellings and the village hall, but otherwise is in a
relatively isolated position in open countryside. Policy HO 3 of the Core Strategy
would permit affordable housing in isolated rural locations such as this, provided that
the proposal adjoins an existing group of ten or more dwellings. In this case the site
adjoins a slightly smaller group and is therefore in conflict with Policy HO 3.
Development Control Committee (East)
19
25 September 2008
This would not normally be regarded as a sustainable location for new housing as
access to services would be almost entirely reliant on the private car. Policy SS 4 of
the Core Strategy requires that all development proposals be located and designed
so as to reduce carbon emissions. The isolated location of this proposal brings it into
conflict with this policy.
The site is in an elevated and exposed position in an open rural landscape and the
proposed dwellings would be visible over a wide area, particularly from existing roads
to the south east and south west of the site. The submitted application contains no
proposals for any substantial planting to help assimilate the development into the
landscape and the proposal is therefore likely to be intrusive and prominent in the
landscape, damaging to the character of the area and in conflict with Policy EN 2 of
the Core Strategy.
The proposed dwellings are two pairs of houses and one pair of bungalows, plain in
design but broadly comparable in style and proportions with the existing pairs of
semi-detached houses to the west. The Parish Council has raised concerns about
the lack of chimneys and the need to protect the privacy of existing dwellings by
siting the proposed bungalows rather than the houses next to the existing houses.
Given that the proposed houses would have blank gable ends it is not considered
that there is any need to change the position of the houses to ensure privacy, and the
appearance of the group as a whole would be best achieved by retaining the
proposed houses next to the existing houses. The inclusion of chimneys would be a
matter for negotiation if permission is to be granted.
The County Council has objected to the proposal on general sustainability grounds
arising from the isolated location of the site, and on site specific grounds arising from
the substandard highway network in the vicinity of the site. In support of the former
issue it refers to Policy T1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and points out that
Skeyton is remote from schooling, shopping and health provision and has restricted
employment opportunities and limited scope for improving access by public transport.
It concludes that the location of the development is unsustainable and will not
encourage a broader travel choice.
In relation to the second issue it refers to the limited road width of only 3m - 3.5m, in
the vicinity of the site where 4.1m is needed to allow two cars to pass safely, together
with the substandard visibility available at the nearby road junction in the critical
northerly direction (only 27m from a 2.4m setback where normal highway standards
would require 215m). The submitted application does not include any measures to
deal with these site specific requirements and there is therefore a highway objection
to the proposal.
Whilst the need for affordable housing is clearly a material consideration to be taken
into account when making a decision on this application, it is considered that in this
case the policy, sustainability and highway issues are so significant that they
outweigh the need for affordable housing on this particular site.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:The District Council received on 15 July 2008 the Inspector's binding report declaring
the North Norfolk Core Strategy to be sound. The following policies are considered
relevant to the proposed development.
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside
Policy SS 4: Environment
Development Control Committee (East)
20
25 September 2008
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Policy EN 4: Design
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the site is an unsustainable location for
new housing, being remote from schooling, healthcare and public services and local
facilities, with restricted employment opportunities and very limited levels of public
transport. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions
detrimental to safe sustainable development in planning and transport terms and
would conflict with Policies SS 4 and CT 5 of the Core Strategy and with Policy T1 of
the regional spatial strategy. The application site adjoins and existing group of less
than 10 dwellings and hence it is outside the scope of Core Strategy Policy H 03
which sets criteria for affordable housing in the countryside. Approval of the
development would therefore conflict with the recently adopted policies of the Core
Strategy.
In addition the site is in an elevated and exposed position in an open rural area
where the location and scale of development proposed would not protect and
enhance the distinctive character of the local landscape or the sensitive skyline. The
proposal would therefore conflict with Policy EN 2 of the Core Strategy and with the
landscape character assessment which supports it, and would be visually damaging
to and intrusive in this open rural setting, particularly since the application contains
no significant measures to ameliorate the adverse impact. In addition the house
designs proposed exhibit few references to the distinctive local architecture of North
Norfolk and would therefore conflict with Policy EN 4 of the Core Strategy.
Furthermore the unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to
serve the development proposed, by reason of its poor alignment, restricted width,
and severely restricted levels of visibility at adjacent road junctions. The proposal, if
permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety,
contrary to Development Plan Policy CT 5 of the Core Strategy.
6.
WORSTEAD - 20080902 - Change of use from agricultural storage to B8
(storage of haulage vehicles and trailers); Brockley Farm Station Road for Mr
W Davison
Target Date :06 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19960566 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of agricultural grain store building
Approved, 29 Jul 1996
THE APPLICATION
To use land currently used for the storage of agricultural machinery to store haulage
vehicles and trailers.
Amended plan received reducing the site area to exclude buildings on the site which
are to remain in agricultural use.
Development Control Committee (East)
21
25 September 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:1. Severe impact on quality of life for neighbouring cottages.
2. Increase in noise.
3. More damage to properties due to an even bigger number of lorries going through
the village.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters have been received objecting to the proposal on grounds it moves
unsightly storage of disused and unroadworthy vehicles from one site to a new site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the permission remaining
personal to the applicant and conditions on the on-site parking and turning access.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition limiting no noise
producing activities outside the hours of 07:30 - 19.00 Monday to Friday and 07.30 13.00 Saturdays.
Worstead Amenity Society - No comments received.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Residential amenity.
2. Highway issues.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting to allow Members to visit the
site.
Development Control Committee (East)
22
25 September 2008
The application site comprises the open storage area of existing agricultural business
premises which are located in the Countryside policy area. Policy EC 3 of the Core
Strategy allows for the expansion of local businesses in the countryside where it is of
a scale appropriate to the existing development and would not have a detrimental
effect on the character of the area.
The site would operate in conjunction with the applicant's existing haulage business
premises located on the opposite side of Station Road adjacent to the railway line.
The haulage business has a long association with Worstead and it is understood
provides freight transport for other local businesses including the inward and outward
goods from a food factory further along Station Road as well as local farm crops.
It is understood that the land would be leased from the local estate farm and used to
store trailers on a periodic basis for seasonal crops or specific types of transport and
moved across to the haulage yard as the need arises. Although it is anticipated that
vehicle movements to and from the application site will not be very frequent, the
agent has been asked to provide further details of anticipated large vehicle
movements. The extra storage will allow the applicant to make further improvements
to the haulage yard which is overflowing with trailers. With the effect of the current
economic climate on freight transporters it is both functionally and economically
practical to store the trailers close to the haulage yard thereby avoiding unnecessary
mileage.
As far as landscape impact is concerned the site is well-screened from public view by
three large modern agricultural buildings and established landscaping on the
southern and western boundaries. The eastern aspect is more open but this could be
remedied by a suitable landscaping along the boundary.
There is a pair of cottages immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be
affected by noise from the development. However, the Environmental Health Officer
considers this can satisfactorily be addressed by an hours of use condition limiting
any periods of noise producing operations. This would include large vehicle traffic
movements. This could be an improvement over the existing situation where large
agricultural vehicles may include early morning and night time movements especially
during the harvest season.
Haulage is a related component of agriculture, and as the business has strong local
connections, it is considered that the use of the application site for storage is in
principle acceptable. Moreover it would not adversely affect the character of the
countryside or, with an hours of use restriction, the residential amenities of
neighbours. However it is considered that the storage use should be linked by
condition to the existing haulage business.
Providing the Highway Authority raises no objections to the proposal the application
is considered to comply with the requirements of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Highway
Authority and the imposition of appropriate conditions to include hours of use
(as recommended by Environmental Health), landscaping and use limited to
vehicles associated with the existing haulage business nearby.
Development Control Committee (East)
23
25 September 2008
7.
WORSTEAD - 20081167 - Conversion and extensions to the forge to provide a
residential dwelling; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D Gilligan
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :01 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080459 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion and extensions to the forge to
provide a residential dwelling
Refused, 15 May 2008
20080460 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey extension and
subdivision to provide two separate dwellings
Refused, 15 May 2008
THE APPLICATION
Conversion and extension of the Forge and garage to provide a one-bedroom
permanent dwelling. Two parking spaces are to be provided in an area of communal
parking close to the site.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wilkins having regard to the following policy issue:
Planning policy interpretation regarding re-use of rural buildings as dwellings.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects:
1. The application falls outside the development area and is a new building in the
countryside.
2. Lack of amenities.
3. A shed not worthy of conversion.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter has been received objecting to the proposal on grounds of too many
vehicles using the access.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - No objection but requests contaminated land condition.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to a condition for a
photographic survey of the building prior to the commencement of development.
Worstead Amenity Society - The site lies in the Countryside where the newly
approved LDF forbids new residential dwellings and the application proposes a new
dwelling where none existed before.
That said the forge is worthy of preservation and conservation and the new plan does
more justice to the scale of the original forge.
Development Control Committee (East)
24
25 September 2008
Concerned that the proposed car parking is not within the curtilage of the forge. The
temptation may be to use the existing vehicle access onto Vicarage Lane at a narrow
and dangerous point near its egress onto Westwick Road.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of re-use of building as a dwelling.
2. Design.
APPRAISAL
The application site lies within the rear garden of Forge Cottage, an end terrace
property situated outside the village development boundary in the Countryside policy
area. The proposal is for the conversion of an old forge building and twentieth
century single garage, linked by a modest extension, to create a small one-bedroom
dwelling.
Saved Policy 29 allows for the re-use and adaptation of buildings in the countryside
to residential use where the buildings are 'adjacent' to a village development
boundary. In this case the site is some 90m distant from the development boundary.
This would normally be regarded as too great to be described as “adjacent”, but the
intervening area between the site and the boundary is mainly built up, and because
of this it is considered that on balance the proposal is reasonably in accordance with
saved Policy 29. Moreover, in this case a more flexible approach to this is justified by
the approval in 2007 of the conversion of nearby barns, into 4 dwellings. While the
distances from the boundary of each development are broadly similar the current
proposal has the advantage of being located within a group of dwellings is thus
considered better related to the residential envelope of the village.
In design terms this is a simple empathetic design which would restore an older,
traditional building, believed to have been the village forge, and making
improvements to the garage that would enhance the appearance of this twentieth
century building whilst keeping this element and the extension subordinate to the
Forge. The improvements to the buildings are considered to enhance the site and the
character and appearance of the Worstead Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (East)
25
25 September 2008
Two parking spaces are proposed to serve the new dwelling and these are proposed
as a small extension to a communal car park which serves other nearby properties.
There is to be a footpath link to these parking spaces from the garden of the new
dwelling. At present the site has an existing access onto a side road. It is understood
that the intention is to retain this, but for it to only serve Forge Cottage and not the
new dwelling. An amended plan has been requested to properly illustrate this and the
Highway Authority will need to be further consulted.
Provided that there are no highway objections to the parking and access details, the
proposal is considered acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan policy.
In all other respects the application is considered to comply with the requirements of
the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to the receipt of acceptable plans to
illustrate the access arrangements to serve the remainder of the site and no
objections received from the Highway Authority, and the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
COLBY - 20081017 - Retention of sewage pumping station as constructed;
adjacent to The Old Chapel Mill Road Banningham for Anglian Water Services
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080747 - Conversion of redundant storage building to two twostorey dwellings; H Bullen and Son Ltd Central Road for H Bullen and Son
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080925 - Installation of external refrigeration and air conditioning
units; Budgens Supermarket 10-11 High Street for Mr J Hundall
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081050 - Change of use of ground floor from A1 (retail) to
ancillary residential use; 5 Mount Street for Mr R Scammell
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081071 - Installation of solar panel; Flat 1 3a Mount Street for Mr
Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - 20080281 - Change of use of land to residential and
conversion of outbuilding to guest accommodation; Poplar Farm House
Chequers Street for Mr and Mrs Stares
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
26
25 September 2008
FELBRIGG - 20080877 - Certificate of lawfulness for existing residential
occupancy without complying with agricultural occupancy restriction; Drift
Cottage Farm The Driftway for Mrs D Payne
(Certificate of Lawfulness)
HAPPISBURGH - 20081052 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey
extensions; The Old Vicarage The Street for Mr A May
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - 20081053 - Demolition of conservatory, garage and shed; The
Old Vicarage The Street for Mr A May
(Demolition in a Conservation Area)
HOVETON - 20080993 - Erection of replacement two-storey dwelling; Hill House
Belaugh Road for Trafford Trust Estates
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - 20081065 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden,
erection of garage/store and new access; Ingham Cottage Brumstead Road for
Mr G Beck
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - 20081028 - Erection of front boundary wall and gates; Holmleigh
Catfield Road for Mrs K Attree
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20081034 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 16
Northfield Road for Mr and Mrs D Rogers
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20081036 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 5 Church Lane for
Mr MacGowan
(Outline Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20081049 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
E3975 to permit holiday occupancy from 1 March to 13 January; 4, 8, 9, 27 and
62 Seaward Crest Chalets Links Road for Mr D Austin
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20081060 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
E3975 to permit occupancy from 1 March to 15 January; 51 and 68 Seaward
Crest Chalets Links Road for Mrs J Dyet
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20081070 - Raising of roof to provide first floor accommodation;
4 Albion Road for Mr D Fernandez
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - 20081099 - Continued siting of residential caravan; 12 Cromer
Road for Mr H C Truong
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081015 - Erection of conservatory and detached garage;
116 Norwich Road for Mr and Mrs Long
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
27
25 September 2008
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081023 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; plot
8 Cornish Way for Kit For Kids Limited
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081078 - Change of use of two class A1 retail units to
offices; 4 and 6 Bank Loke for Anchor Homes Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081106 - Erection of industrial building to provide
commercial laundry; 7 Cornish Way for North Norfolk Laundry Services
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - 20081011 - Erection of four two-storey dwellings and two
single-storey dwellings and garage block; land at Norwich Road and Stevens
Road Cromer for Com-Tech Martham Ltd
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
OVERSTRAND - 20080966 - Illumination of existing advertisement; The
Pleasaunce Harbord Road for Christian Endeavour Holiday Centres
(Illuminated Advertisement)
OVERSTRAND - 20080967 - Installation of spotlight; The Pleasaunce Harbord
Road for Christian Endeavour Holiday Centres
(Alteration to Listed Building)
POTTER HEIGHAM - 20081092 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 13 St
Nicholas Way for Mr W Rooks
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20080567 - Formation of vehicular access; Hill Farm House
Thorpe Market Road for Mr D Bunting
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20080938 - Siting of park house to provide manager's
accommodation; Wyndham Park Caravan site Cromer Road East Runton for Mr
A Norris
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20080958 - Continued use of former residential building as
permanent staff accommodation; The Kingswood Centre Cromer Road West
Runton for Kingswood Learning and Leisure Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20081089 - Erection of extension to two toilet blocks; The Caravan
Club Incleborough Fields Sandy Lane West Runton for The Caravan Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - 20081084 - Retention of first floor extension and addition of
pitched roof; Old School House Waxham Road for Mr T R Etheridge
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20081090 - Construction of rear dormer window; Pantiles 32
Beechlands Park for Mrs R Guthrie
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
28
25 September 2008
STALHAM - 20080976 - Display of illuminated fascia sign; 95 High Street for
Miss S Murtha
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20081054 - Installation of air conditioning units; 68 High Street for
Boots The Chemists
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20081026 - Erection of two-storey extension and porch and
replacement of flat roof with pitched; Firs Farm House The Street for Mr A
Tilley
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - 20080784 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; St Crispin Chapel
Road for Mr R Wallace
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - 20081062 - Removal of garage door and installation of window to
facilitate conversion to habitable accommodation; 12 Laurel Farm Barns
Market Street for Mr P Condon
(Full Planning Permission)
WICKMERE - 20081081 - Demolition of extensions and erection of single-storey
and two-storey extensions; Wickmere House/the Old Rectory Watery Lane for
Mr C Buchan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - 20081066 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Barn Cottage Station Road Worstead Briggate for Ms R Kirk and Mr M
Pennington
(Full Planning Permission)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - 20080947 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land adjacent
Indarra Beechwood Avenue for M G Howell Builders
(Outline Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081014 - Erection of chalet bungalow; 124 Overstrand Road for
Mr I Hussein
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
No Items.
Development Control Committee (East)
29
25 September 2008
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No Items.
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
CROMER - 20071320 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission reference
20050527; Fletcher Hospital Roughton Road for Mr S A Sheikh
SITE VISIT :- 23 Sep 2008
CROMER - 20071939 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling; 28 Hillside
for Mr J Carly
MUNDESLEY - 20071338 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and stables and
erection of eight two-storey dwellings; 17 Marina Road for Mrs P Smith
SITE VISIT :- 06 Oct 2008
MUNDESLEY - 20071869 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage; 40
Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs F V Cousins
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071764 - Erection of seventeen flats and one singlestorey dwelling; 48-50 Bacton Road for P and N Developments Limited
SITE VISIT :- 15 Sep 2008
RUNTON - 20071542 - Erection of rear dormer window; Inglewood Bungalow
High Street for Mr and Mrs R Brownsell
SITE VISIT :- 15 Sep 2008
SUFFIELD - 20071381 - Conversion of barns to six units of holiday
accommodation; Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D and M Hickling Properties
Limited
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080124 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at The
Conifers Cross Road for Mr R G J Wallace
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080447 - Erection of a pair of semi-detached twostorey dwellings; land adjacent The White Cottage Aylsham Road for Mr M
Chipperfield
SITE VISIT :- 06 Oct 2008
WORSTEAD - 20080029 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land rear of 30 and
32 Honing Row for Worstead Farms Limited
SITE VISIT :- 06 Oct 2008
Development Control Committee (East)
30
25 September 2008
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
MUNDESLEY - 20071272 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 39-41
Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs Briggs/Mr and Mrs Roberts
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071806 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling; 1
Woodbine Close for Miss J Dyble
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071135 - Residential development; land at Cromer Road
and Bradfield Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071136 - Residential development; land at former
Marricks Wire Ropes Cromer Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
SUFFIELD - 01/097/DEV6/07/001 - Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D and M
Hickling Properties Ltd
APPEAL DECISION :- WITHDRAWN
Development Control Committee (East)
31
25 September 2008