OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 31 JULY 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 - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
MUNDESLEY CONSERVATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN
AREA:
CHARACTER
APPRAISAL
AND
Agreement is sought for the draft Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Proposals for Mundesley to be approved for public consultation
purposes.
1.0 Background
1.1 Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plans
Conservation areas are designated under the provision of Section 69 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A conservation area is defined
as ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of
which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. Section 71 of the same Act requires
local planning authorities to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and
enhancement of these conservation areas.
The Council’s Corporate Plan Changing Gear 2008-11 identifies the preparation of
character appraisals as a key target.
In response to the above requirements, this appraisal document defines and records
the special architectural and historic interest of the conservation area and identifies
opportunities for enhancement.
1.2 Purpose
This document therefore seeks to:
•
Define the special interest of the conservation area and identify the issues which
threaten the special qualities of the conservation area (Part 1: Character
Appraisal)
•
Provide guidelines to prevent erosion of character and achieve enhancement
(Part 2: Management Proposals).
Note: A copy of the draft Mundesley Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan is available for inspection in the Members’ Room.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
31 July 2008
2.0 Assessment of the Mundesley Conservation Area
The format of the appraisal includes the planning policy context, a summary and
assessment of the area’s special interest including location and setting, historic
development and archaeology, layout and planform, architectural and townscape
character, spatial analysis and key views, character analysis including the qualities of
buildings, prevailing uses and the contribution of green spaces and suggested
boundary changes. However, it must be noted that no character appraisal can ever
be completely comprehensive and omission of any particular building, feature or
space should not be taken to imply that it is of no interest.
The Mundesley Conservation Area was designated by North Norfolk District Council
on 6 December 1975. Mundesley is located on the cliff tops of north-east Norfolk
above a renowned wide golden beach in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Mundesley Beck passes through the village to enter the sea; its valley and
former mouth adding interest to the landform. A late Victorian and Edwardian building
boom has left its mark on the settlement in the form of some imposing hotel
buildings, guest houses, large villas and shops.
2(a) Key characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
Coastal location – the settlement’s position on high cliffs overlooking a wide
sandy beach
The Mundesley Beck valley and mouth create an undulating landscape and
distinctive landscape feature
The historic buildings combine imposing late Victorian and Edwardian buildings
and the flint and thatch of the older coastal community of Mundesley
High flint boundary walls, often with arched door openings.
There are important multi-functional green spaces such as Gold Park and the cliff
top green along with mature garden vegetation
2(b) Key issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
Permitted development resulting in loss of architectural details, boundary
treatment and detrimental alterations and extensions: need to protect identified
areas through Article 4(2) directions
Buildings of Local Interest require identification and acknowledgement
Need for siting and design of new development to relate to historic context and
prevailing character
Design and maintenance of the public realm including parking provision
In order that the Conservation Area boundary accurately reflects definition of an
area of special architectural or historic interest, there is a need to review it
Retention and management of green spaces
2(c) Management Proposals
The key management proposals relate to:
•
•
•
•
•
A review of the Conservation Area boundary
The adoption of a List of Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest
The provision of extra protection for some areas of the Conservation Area
through the introduction of an Article 4(2) direction
Engaging with other bodies and agencies in order to improve the management of
traffic and reduce car parking problems
The general enhancement of the public realm
Development Control Committee (East)
2
31 July 2008
3.0 Conclusion
The surrounding landscape (part of the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty) and the architectural mix of older coastal properties with buildings of
the ‘Edwardian era’ give the seaside resort of Mundesley and its Conservation Area a
very distinct character. It contains predominantly nineteenth and early twentieth
century buildings - some notably taller and more imposing than other village buildings
of that period - alongside some older flint cottages, outbuildings and flint walls. It is
evident that in settlement development terms the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries was the ‘hey day’ for Mundesley. The arrival of the railway was the catalyst.
It brought with it the use of building materials from further a field and the design of
several buildings with a railway influence. To preserve and enhance this special
character is the main aim of the character appraisal and the associated management
proposals.
4.0 Timetable for public consultation and formal adoption
The six weeks public consultation period is proposed to be carried out during
November and December 2008. This will include a public exhibition, meeting and
distribution of leaflets to all addresses in the Mundesley Conservation Area. It is
anticipated that an amended document will be brought to Committee for final
adoption in spring 2009.
5.0 Budgetary implications
There are no budgetary implications at this stage. Adoption of some of the
Management Proposals may have financial implications and these will be assessed
as part of the adoption report to be prepared for the Committee following the public
consultation period.
6.0 Recommendations
•
That the Draft Mundesley Character Appraisal and Management Proposals
incorporating proposed boundary changes and Article 4(2) directions outlined in
the body of this report be approved for public consultation purposes.
•
That following consultation, the amended Mundesley Conservation Area
Character Appraisal and Management Proposals be brought back before
Committee for final adoption.
Source: (F Callaghan, Extn 6367– File Reference: Mundesley CAA )
Development Control Committee (East)
3
31 July 2008
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
CROMER – 20080405 – Application for Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing
Use as Single Dwellinghouse; The Bath House, The Promenade for Dr and Mrs
B C Connell
The Committee is recommended to approve an application for a Certificate of
Lawfulness for use of these premises as a single dwellinghouse on the basis of the
evidence submitted.
Date of Application: 12 March 2008
Case Officer: John Chinnery
THE APPLICATION
The application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness of the existing use of the Bath
House as a single dwellinghouse as a result of use for more than four years before
the date of the application (i.e. since before 12 March 2004). The use is claimed as
from August 2003
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllrs. Cabbell-Manners, Johnson and Lee in view of the degree of
public interest in the application.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Section 191 of the 1990 Act:
This provision allows an applicant to ascertain whether an existing use is lawful. If
the LPA (Local Planning Authority) are provided with information:
“satisfying them of the lawfulness at the time of the application of the use
…….. they shall issue a certificate …… and in any other case they shall
refuse the application.”
Past and existing development is either lawful or it is not and these procedures allow
landowners to obtain a ruling to that effect.
2. Circular 10/97 – Annex 8: Lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate
advises as follows:8.12: The onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the applicant.
8.15: The relevant test of the evidence is the balance of probability. The LPA should
not refuse a certificate because the applicant has failed to discharge the stricter,
criminal burden of proof, namely beyond all reasonable doubt. The applicant’s own
evidence does not need to be corroborated by independent evidence in order to be
accepted. Neither the identity of the applicant nor the planning merits of the use are
relevant to the consideration of the purely legal issues which are involved in
determining an application.
8.33: “Any views on the planning merits of the case ….. are irrelevant.”
3. Circular 10/97: Annex 2 – “Single Dwellinghouse” advises as follows:2.81: “It is considered that the criteria for determining use as a single dwellinghouse
include both the physical condition of the premises and the manner of the use.
Where a single, self-contained set of premises comprises a unit of occupation which
can be regarded as a separate planning unit …., are designed or adapted for
residential purposes, containing the normal facilities for cooking, eating and sleeping
associated with use as a dwellinghouse and are used as a dwelling whether
permanently or temporarily by a single person or more than one person living
together as, or like, a single family, those premises can properly be regarded as
being in use as a single dwellinghouse for the purposes of the Act.”
Development Control Committee (East)
4
31 July 2008
[In one case in 2006, the Court held that a building that lacked the basic attributes of
a dwellinghouse (a question of fact) could not be used as such under the Act.]
APPLICANTS’ EVIDENCE
1. Statutory Declaration by both Dr and Mrs Connell. The Bath House has been in
use as single dwellinghouse since August 2003.
2. Applicants’ letters and other evidence.
Applicants purchased the former
hotel/public house in semi-derelict state in 1999. Began exhaustive renovations in
2000, with substantial completion in late 2002; builders leaving site in August 2003.
In early August 2003, we moved (into the Bath House) in to a suite of rooms on the
first floor utilising on the same floor a pantry room as a temporary kitchen. We have
solely and continuously lived there since August 2003. The Bath House has not
been used for any other purposes since August 2003. Refurbishment was completed
in 2006 and the premises were rated for Council Tax from October 2006.
(Note: there is considerably more detail in the actual correspondence, if any Member
wishes to view it.)
3. Photographs provided by the applicants, which are stated to be of the interior of
the Bath House from August 2003. The photographs show a bedroom, living room,
kitchen area, bathroom and refrigerator, all apparently being used. There is a
photograph showing the upstairs sitting room fully finished and apparently inhabited
dated January 2004. (Other photographs show removal boxes from September 2003
and the front bedroom from April 2005.)
4. Letter from Cromer Post Office confirming that the applicants’ mail was redirected
from the Old Lookout to the Bath House from August 2003.
5. Credit Card statement apparently showing a television licence at the Bath House
from January 2004.
6. Invoice for installation of alarm at the Bath House in August 2003.
7. Various invoices/bills showing usage of water and electricity at various times at the
Bath House from late 2003 on. Also, delivery of beds and furniture.
8. Some 17 letters from third parties which support the applicants’ claim, some in
generalised terms. At least 11 of these state that the applicants moved into the Bath
House in/around August 2003. These correspondents include the applicants’
solicitor and doctor.
EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE APPLICANTS’ CLAIM
1. Letters
18 letters have been received, including three from Cromer Preservation Society and
one from Cromer Town Council. These letters object on the planning merits of a
change from hotel and public house to a single dwellinghouse. They also raise a
number of specific points which are set out below.
2. Petition with approximately 204 signatures, which states: “We oppose the Bath
House in Cromer being converted to a residential property.”
3. Specific Points Raised in Correspondence
(a) Council Tax – that the premises were only rated for Council Tax from October
2006 and therefore were not occupied before.
(b) Electoral Papers: that Dr Connell’s electoral papers for the County Council
election in 2005 give his address as 1 the Old Lookout.
(c) Electoral Register: there are entries in the Electoral Register for both the Old
Lookout and the Bath House at various times between 2002 and 2007.
(d) Appearance of premises: some people say that the premises did not appear to be
inhabited at all times during the period.
(e) Applicant’s flat in London:
(f) A review in the magazine ‘Norfolk’ from June 2006 about the Old Lookout.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
31 July 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the application may raise issues relevant to Article 1 – First
Protocol (the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) and Article 8 (right to
respect for private and family life, house and correspondence).
Having considered the likely impact on individuals’ Human Rights and the general
interest of the public, the recommendation is considered to be justified, proportionate
and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT, SECTION 17
This application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
APPRAISAL
In response to the evidence challenging the applicants’ claim the following comments
are made:1. Letters
Comments on planning merits must be disregarded as they have no relevance.
Those raising specific points are considered below, together with the applicants’
responses.
2. Petition
This petition must be disregarded in its entirety, as it relates to planning merits, not
factual matters.
3. Specific Points
(a) Council Tax
Council Tax rating by itself is not conclusive proof of the date of first or subsequent
occupation of the Bath House by the applicants – it must be weighed against the
applicants’ evidence, which in this case is specific and detailed.
The only specific evidence which contradicts the applicants has been found after a
search of Council Tax records. Overall, the Council Tax position is that the Bath
House was taken out of the Council Tax rating list in June 2001 as being incapable of
occupation. It was eventually reassessed and rated in June 2006 when all the
refurbishment works were finished, and in particular when the proper kitchen was
ready. During the interim, there are some handwritten notes on the file, which
include the following:
“10.8.04 – phoned (Mrs) Connell – she has not moved in yet – still living in
London – will phone use if she moves in.”
“11.8.04 – Mrs Connell rang. They may have somebody sleeping odd nights
for security – still ‘res’ in London.”
? 2004 (no date) “Not yet habitable.”
21.6.05 – Kitchen still gutted, plumbing is faulty. Walls and floors on ground
floor have got to be removed and replaced. (Opinion given that we could not
yet class it as a dwelling because it has no kitchen, nor plumbing for showers,
etc ……. might be able to charge for storage of furniture.)
21.06.05 (another note) … will not Business Rate it “as it has furniture in it.”
The above points were put to the applicants. They had already stated in an earlier
letter: “We understood that once the builders left we did not need to and/or were not
able to regularise our position with regard to rates/tax until we had installed a working
kitchen (in due course a domestic one) which was the case in 2006”. In another
letter, it was stated “that (a friend) confirmed that she was told that as she was
paying tax on one property she would only commence paying tax on the other when
it was fully functional i.e. with a kitchen; pretty much the evidence we also received.”
Development Control Committee (East)
6
31 July 2008
A letter from the applicants dated 22 June goes into greater explanation, this is
attached in full at Appendix 1. It explains which parts of the building were being
used and which were finished in 2005 and 2006. It ends by restating what the
applicants have said repeatedly: that “during the period in question we were in fact
living in the Bath House, not the Lookout or London, where our tenant was residing”.
(b) Electoral Papers
Dr Connell states in reply that while this is correct that it was his recollection and
understanding at the time that he could only give an address where he was paying
Council Tax (at that time only on The Lookout and his London property) and
therefore registered as a voter. In fact, he states that the Old Lookout was let before,
during and after the election, and he produces back up evidence from letting agents
to verify this.
(c) Electoral Register
Any doubts as to the actual main residence are dispelled by the explicit statements of
the applicants.
(d) Appearance of Premises
This is not hard evidence to refute the applicants’ statements.
(e) Applicants’ flat in London
The applicants state that these premises have been let throughout the period in
question (2003 to 2007) and have lodged a letter from the tenant which confirms this.
(f) ‘Norfolk’ magazine review
There are no hard factual statements in this which contradict the applicants’
evidence, and indeed the Article itself states that the Old Lookout was available for
letting.
SUMMARY
It is considered that the applicants have shown that they have used the Bath House
as a single dwellinghouse continuously for four years up to the application date.
The specific reasons for reaching this conclusion are as follows:1. The applicants’ evidence is detailed and specific, and is backed up by a variety of
records, invoices, letters and statements.
2. In contrast, the opposing documents are almost entirely conjectural, based on
suppositions which do not bear up against the applicants’ evidence.
3. The only real contrary evidence is that from the Council Tax records, and this is
countered by the applicants’ supplementary statements and in particular the letter in
Appendix 1.
4. As the Council is not legally able to have regard to planning merits, political
matters or unsubstantiated suppositions, the evidence on a balance of probabilities
lies clearly with the applicants.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Certificate of Lawfulness for a single dwellinghouse is granted.
(Source: John Chinnery, Ext 6135 – File Reference: 20080405)
Development Control Committee (East)
7
31 July 2008
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.
HICKLING - 20080487 - Erection of village hall; The Recreation Ground Stubb
Road for Hickling Parish Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :22 May 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Environment Agency Flood Zone 3
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19950420 - (Full Planning Permission) - Sports pavilion incorporating club rooms, car
park and outside recreation areas
Approved, 07 Jul 1998
20031008 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of sports pavilion incorporating club
rooms, car park and outside recreation areas (renewal of planning permission
reference 19950420 PF)
Approved, 21 Aug 2003
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a village hall incorporating combined amenities for meetings, community
events, recreation and changing rooms/social facilities associated with the adjacent
sports ground. The building would be 56m long with an average width of 9.5m. The
main hall would be 10.8m tall and the single-storey elements between 4.5m - 7m tall.
Forty-seven car parking spaces together with cycle facilities are proposed.
The existing access to the playing field from Mallard Way would be improved to serve
the site.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Partridge and Stockton having regard to the following
planning issues:
Provision of new community facilities, flood risk and local objections.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of representation objecting to the proposal on grounds of:1. Noise and disturbance from vehicles and functions.
2. Mallard Way could become overflow car park.
3. Inadequate facilities to deal with waste water.
4. Facilities are excessive for a small village.
5. Highway safety as the roads to the site are inadequate.
6. Running costs would increase parish precept.
7. Ouse Lane floods.
8. Existing problems with foul drainage.
9. Light pollution.
10. Retired population of Hickling do not need these facilities.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
31 July 2008
Letter received from the Parish Council (as the applicant) in support of the
application, and in response to objections, explaining the need for a village hall and
how it would operate (Appendix 2).
CONSULTATIONS
Community Safety Manager - Welcomes the inclusion of facilities for young people
and provides advice on vandalism and theft prevention measures.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the provision of an eight space
cycle parking area, a coach drop off point in accordance with the standards of the
Highway Authority and the imposition of conditions relating to the provision of the
road, parking and turning areas and access.
Environment Agency - Initially objected to the proposal but following subsequent
amendments made to the Flood Risk Assessment now comments as follows:
"The proposed site is shown to fall within Flood Zone 3a (high risk) by our Flood
Zone maps and zone 3b (functional floodplain) by the North Norfolk Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment (SFRA).
However, the Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has shown the site to fall
within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone. Therefore in accordance with PPS.25,
this application for a less vulnerable development should pass the sequential test
and be supported by an appropriate Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
Providing you are satisfied that you have considered all other reasonably available
sites in lower flood risk zones and you can provide evidence in support of this, we
have no objections on sequential test grounds."
Concludes that no objection is now raised on flood risk grounds subject to conditions
relating to minimum floor levels, submission of a flood response plan and flood
proofing measures.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions on the prior approval of
external lighting and extraction systems.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - The proposed development is located on the site of
a Second World War searchlight battery that is visible on 1945 aerial photographs.
Suggest the imposition of an archaeological investigation condition.
Water Management Alliance - No objections.
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
Refer to the Community Safety Manager's comments above.
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).
Development Control Committee (East)
9
31 July 2008
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
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 93: New Community Facilities (permissive toward new facilities in defined
settlements, subject to amenity/character, access and parking considerations.
Specifies criteria for new facilities in the Countryside).
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. Flood risk.
2. Residential amenity.
3. Design.
4. Provision of community facilities.
APPRAISAL
The application site comprises part of the playing field at the southern end of the
village. The site has an extant permission for a sports pavilion with associated car
parking.
The site is located within the Local Plan Countryside policy area but is adjacent to the
development boundary for Hickling. Core Strategy Policy CT3 is permissive towards
community facilities in the countryside where they meet an identified need of the local
community. Local Plan Policy 93 states that in the countryside new community
facilities may be permitted if there are no alternative sites within the development
boundary. The site also falls within an area identified by the Environment Agency as
being at the high risk of flooding.
The aim is to provide a wide range of community facilities by combining a sports
pavilion with a village hall offering enhanced facilities for sporting, leisure and
community uses. The result would be a larger, more prominent building than the
approved sports pavilion and with more parking spaces. The car parking area is to be
located between the new building and Ouse Lane where it would be screened by an
existing hedge. The new hall is to be sited at the eastern end of the playfield field
almost parallel with Ouse Lane. The foyer entrance would be on the eastern side of
the building and accessed from the car park. Access from the building to the playing
field would be either directly from the changing facilities or from the main hall onto a
patio area.
Several dwellings on the southern side of Mallard Way have open boundaries
overlooking the playing field. However, taking into account the existing public use as
a playing field, the distance, position and orientation of the building it is considered
that the relationship is an acceptable one.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
31 July 2008
The building has been designed to reflect a group of rural farm buildings consisting of
a central two-storey element and single-storey additions. The main two-storey
element would consist of the main hall. The single-storey additions would comprise
smaller meeting rooms, snooker club room, youth club, kitchen, changing facilities
and groundsman store. The design would allow for a phased construction. Whilst the
building would have a certain prominence on this edge of the village setting, it is
considered that the design is acceptable for the location and would have an
acceptable relationship with neighbouring residential properties.
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) sets out Government's national policy on
development in flood risk areas. The objective of this policy is to locate new
development away from areas of high flood risk to areas at lower risk. As referred to
above this site is indicated as being within an area at high risk from flooding on the
Environment Agency Flood Maps. As required by PPS.25 the application is
supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
The content of the FRA has been the subject of much discussion with the
Environment Agency which until recently has continued to maintain an objection.
However, as Members will note from above the Environment Agency no longer
objects since the amended FRA has now established that the site lies within Flood
Zone 2 (medium risk).
To conclude this is considered to be a well designed scheme that complies with
Development Policy and that could provide real benefits to the village. There would
be an impact on nearby residential properties, but not to a significant degree. Issues
of flood risk have now been addressed.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
HICKLING - 20080486 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings; Old
Bowling Club Mallard Way for Hickling Parish Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :22 May 2008
Case Officer :Miss C Ketteringham
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Environment Agency Flood Zone 3
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19950420 - (Full Planning Permission) - Sports pavilion incorporating club rooms, car
park and outside recreation areas
Approved, 07 Jul 1998
20001218 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of three dwellings
Withdrawn, 01 Sep 2006
20031008 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of sports pavilion incorporating club
rooms, car park and outside recreation areas (renewal of planning permission
reference 19950420 PF)
Approved, 21 Aug 2003
Development Control Committee (East)
11
31 July 2008
THE APPLICATION
The erection of two four-bedroom, two-storey, dwellings with attached double
garages. Access to the dwellings would be via an existing private roadway off Mallard
Way, which serves adjacent playing fields.
The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Partridge and Stockton having regard to the following
planning issues:
Provision of new community facilities, flood risk and local objections.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seven letters of objection have been received:1. Noise disturbance from the roadway.
2. Highways safety.
3. Loss of hedgerows as a wildlife habitat.
4. Loss of playing field.
5. Flood risk.
6. Sewage problems locally.
7. Out of keeping with the area.
8. Overlooking and loss of privacy.
Letter received from the Parish Council (as the applicant) in response to objections
and explaining how this application would fund the construction of the village hall
(Appendix 3).
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions regarding the
provision of the private road and on-site parking, as indicated on the submitted plans,
visibility splay and prior approval of any gates.
Environment Agency - initially objected to the proposal but following subsequent
amendments made to the Flood Risk Assessment now comments as follows:
"The proposed site is shown to fall within Flood Zone 3a (high risk) by our Flood
Zone maps and zone 3b (functional floodplain) by the North Norfolk Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment (SFRA). However, the Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
has shown the site to fall within Flood Zone 1, the low risk zone. Therefore, we have
no objection on the grounds of either the Sequential Test or the Exception Test."
Concludes that no objection is raised on flood risk grounds, subject to conditions
relating to minimum floor levels, submission of a flood response plan and flood
proofing measures.
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)
12
31 July 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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 104: Retention of Playing Space (safeguards against loss of existing facilities.
Redevelopment proposals only acceptable where alternative facilities are provided or
no harmful loss demonstrated).
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. Flood risk.
2. Residential amenity.
3. Design.
4. Contribution towards new village hall.
APPRAISAL
The application site is formed from the subdivision of part of the village recreation
ground which contains the changing facilities and part of the old bowling green. It is
located within the Local Plan development boundary for Hickling where the principle
of new dwellings is acceptable subject to the compliance with the other Local Plan
policies. Hickling will become part of the countryside policy area as part of the North
Norfolk Core Strategy. The site lies within a high risk flood zone as identified by the
Environment Agency Flood Maps.
This application is one of three submitted by the Parish Council which are linked to
the proposal for a new village hall on the village playing fields. The application for the
new village hall is also reported on this agenda (20080487). In addition an application
for two dwellings, to redevelop the existing Community Hall site in the centre of the
village is being dealt with under delegated powers. It is intended that the sale of the
residential sites will help to fund the construction of the new village hall. In the event
of planning permission being granted the Parish Council has offered to enter into a
Section 106 Obligation to ensure that the income from the two housing sites goes
towards providing the new village hall within a reasonable time-scale. There is
justification in requiring such an Obligation in this case given that Local Plan Policy
104 safeguards against the partial or complete loss of public playing space.
The proposed dwellings are two-storey with the first floor accommodation served by
dormer windows. The two plots are on the corner of Mallard Way and Ouse Lane.
Existing properties on Mallard Way are all bungalows whereas properties on Ouse
Lane/Stubb Road are more characterised by two-storey cottage style dwellings. In
Development Control Committee (East)
13
31 July 2008
terms of design the proposed dwellings are considered acceptable for this semi-rural
setting. As a related issue, the Environment Agency has indicated that bungalows
are much less acceptable in this location as they provide no upper floor refuge in the
event of a flood.
With regard to overlooking and loss of privacy issues, the front dormers of one
dwelling (plot 2) would face across the private roadway towards the rear gardens of
nearby dwellings on Mallard Way. However, given the open character of these
boundaries onto a public area and the distance involved from the proposed dwelling,
it is difficult to argue there would be a significant loss of privacy than that concurrently
experienced. The rear dormers, particularly of Plot 1, would face across to the rear
garden of a dwelling on the opposite side of Ouse Lane. Given the distance (30m)
and a boundary hedge, this relationship is considered acceptable.
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) sets out Government's national policy on
development in flood risk areas. The objective of this policy is to locate new
development away from areas of high flood risk to areas at lower risk. As referred to
above this site is indicated as being within an area at high risk from flooding on the
Environment Agency flood maps.
The content of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been the subject of
much discussion with the Environment Agency which has requested supplementary
information and site levels. The Environment Agency up until recently continued to
maintain an objection pending receipt of further supplementary information. As
referred to above the amended FRA has now established that the site is in Flood
Zone 1 (low risk). Accordingly the Environment Agency no longer objects to the
proposal.
In conclusion, in general there is no objection to the design of the dwellings or their
relationship with the surrounding development. The issue of flood risk has now been
resolved.
The scheme has been the subject of extensive discussions and this is considered to
be a case where Local Plan policy should continue to he given significant weight,
with which the proposal accords. Approval is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation to secure that funds from the disposal of the site go towards the
new village hall development, and subject to appropriate conditions.
5.
HICKLING - 20080576 - Conversion of barn to single unit of holiday
accommodation; Plummer's Farm Barn Pockthorpe Loke Stubb Road for G A
Tallowin and Co
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 May 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Environment Agency Flood Zone 3
Development Control Committee (East)
14
31 July 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070794 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of barn to two holiday
dwellings
Refused, 05 Jul 2007
THE APPLICATION
Conversion of a barn to single unit of holiday accommodation.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support.
REPRESENTATIONS
One joint letter of objection from residents of two nearby properties on Pockthorpe
Loke. No objection to principle of conversion but concerns over:1. Condition and lack of maintenance of Loke.
2. Lack of maintenance of drainage ditch on west side of application site.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
condition requiring a further survey of the barns for protected species and
appropriate mitigation.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
Environment Agency - Object in principle to the development since it fails the
sequential test set out in PPS 25.
Environmental Health - Requests advisory note re contaminated land.
Natural England - No objection, subject to wildlife mitigation measures being
imposed.
Norfolk Landscape
archaeological work.
Archaeology
-
Requests
condition
for
programme
of
Water Management Alliance - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 (Submission Document):
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Development Control Committee (East)
15
31 July 2008
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
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).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Compliance with policy with regard to the conversion of buildings in the
countryside.
2. Flood Risk.
APPRAISAL
This application was previously considered by the Committee on 5 June 2008 when it
was deferred to allow the applicant time to liaise with the Environment Agency.
The application site comprises a vacant agricultural building and adjoining land. The
site is accessed via an unadopted lane known as Pockthorpe Loke which runs in a
north-easterly direction from Stubb Road. The site is outside the development
boundary of Hickling in an area designated as Countryside and an Area of High
Landscape Value. The site lies with an area identified by the Environment Agency as
being at high risk of flooding (Zone 3).
The application relates to the conversion of the building to a single unit of holiday
accommodation. Policy 29 of the Local Plan is permissive of the re-use and
adaptation of buildings in the countryside to holiday uses provided that proposals
meet the detailed criteria set out in the policy. The existing building is substantial and
appears to be structurally sound. The conversion scheme proposes holiday
accommodation over two floors. Minor extensions, as well as some external
alterations are proposed. These collectively are considered to be acceptable given
that they are largely sympathetic to the character of the existing building. Additionally
County Highways have raised no objection to the application and the submitted
protected species survey raises no adverse wildlife issues. As such the proposal is
broadly compliant with Policy 29.
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) sets out Government's national policy on
development in flood risk areas. The underlying objective of this policy is to avoid
inappropriate development in areas of flood risk and to direct development to areas
at lower risk. The application of the sequential test is fundamental in steering new
development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Given the extent of
operational development involved with a barn conversion the view has previously
been taken that such applications should be subject to the sequential test. In
applying this test it has been considered that there are reasonable options available
for such a use in lower risk areas given the supply of barns in North Norfolk in Flood
Zone 1 (low risk). In such circumstances it has been considered that the application
therefore fails the sequential test. This formed one of the reasons for the refusal of a
similar application on this site in July 2007 (20070794).
Since this application was previously considered by the Committee the Government
has published a revised Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide (June 2008)
which confirms that when considering changes of use the sequential test should not
be applied but proposals will still need to meet the requirements of a site-specific
Development Control Committee (East)
16
31 July 2008
flood risk assessment. In addition the revised advice confirms that Local Planning
Authorities should take account of the flood vulnerability of changes of use and that
when formulating policy should set out what changes of use will be acceptable. The
advice states that this is likely to depend on whether developments can be designed
to be safe and that there is safe access and egress.
The application involves the change of use of an agricultural building to a residential
holiday use. The proposed use therefore represents a more vulnerable use than the
existing. Policy EN10 of the Core Strategy would not be permissive of such a change
of use. Since the application was deferred the applicant has been in consultation with
the Environment Agency and is seeking to submit the outstanding data it has
requested. It is understood that this will confirm;
a) whether the site is at low/medium/high flood risk,
b) whether there is safe access/egress.
It is understood that discussions with the Environment Agency are nearing
conclusion and that it will be in a position to respond in time for the Committee
meeting.
Subject to satisfactory resolution of the flood risk issue, the scheme would comply
with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Members will be updated orally in light of the formal response of the
Environment Agency.
6.
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.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Ford having regard to the following planning issues:
Scale and form of development.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds of over development of the site and highway access.
Development Control Committee (East)
17
31 July 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Four 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.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle but requests further details and
clarification with regard to land ownership and visibility splays.
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
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
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 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.
Development Control Committee (East)
18
31 July 2008
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 to issues including overlooking and suggesting
bungalows would be more appropriate.
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/hectare 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 the submission of details that satisfy the highway requirements, the
proposal is considered to meet the policy criteria of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to receipt of details required by the
Highway Authority including clarification on achievable visibility splays and
ownership of land required for highway requirements.
7.
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
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :25 Apr 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Corridor of Movement
General Employment Area
Contaminated Land
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20030646 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Residential development, associated
infrastructure, open space, landscaping and pedestrian footpath to railway station
Refused, 03 Jul 2003
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a mixed development of this 5ha site. All matters are reserved apart from
access, in respect of the junction arrangement onto Cromer Road. The revised
application seeks permission for a mixed development of the following land uses in
the quantities indicated:a) 149 dwellings (40 of which would be sheltered).
b) 10 commercial units providing a total of 1,189sq.m of employment floor space.
c) 60 bed residential care home.
d) Convenience store - approximately 186sq.m.
In addition a twenty space rail users' car park is indicated as well as an area of public
open space.
Development Control Committee (East)
19
31 July 2008
The application has been accompanied by a large number of supporting documents
including:
Flood Risk Assessment.
Asbestos Survey Report.
Transport Assessment.
Draft Travel Plan.
Noise and Vibration Assessment.
Ecological Survey.
Utilities Report.
Environment Review.
Proposed Head of Terms (Section 106).
In addition a report on the pre-application public consultation undertaken on behalf of
the applicants has been submitted. The main body of the report is attached in
Appendix 4.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports in principle the mixed development on this site but have a number of
outstanding concerns:1. The level of affordable housing is not 40%.
2. Encourage the developer to increase the proportion of the site used for
employment purposes.
3. The employment units should be part of the first phase of the development.
4. There is concern from residents about the highways issue. The District Council to
look closely to ensure best possible scheme to encourage best flow of traffic and
pedestrian safety.
5. Before the application is approved the District Council to be satisfied that there will
be an enlargement of health provision at GP level in the town.
6. That permission is granted only subject to the District Valuer issuing a statement
that a mixed development is a proper use and value of public money.
7. As part of the conditions, the employment units be marketed to encourage a range
of skilled employment.
8. That footpaths shall be provided on all the site roads.
9. The proposed convenience store will not create unfavourable competition with
shops in the town centre and other convenience stores elsewhere.
10. That acoustic barriers should be erected to curb noise by the railway line,
particularly where residential properties are being erected.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection (although two also support redevelopment of the site in
principle) raising the following concerns:1. Highway safety.
2. Norwich Road already very busy.
3. Increase in traffic.
4. Need for a relief road.
5. Proposed location of shop would encourage parking on Norwich Road.
6. Impact on residents of Norwich Road who live directly opposite the proposed
development.
7. Pedestrian safety/crossing of Norwich Road.
8. Opening hours of convenience store and possible disturbance.
9. Less of site for possible redevelopment for business/light industrial use.
10. Pressure on local services and infrastructure.
Development Control Committee (East)
20
31 July 2008
In addition letter received from adjoining landowner requesting that in the event of
planning permission being granted the internal road layout should allow for the
further expansion of the site.
The Griffon Area Partnership - Consider a mixed redevelopment of the site a
practical solution. Consider industrial scale operations on the whole site no longer
valid given the proximity to residential areas. Consider the application offers
significant and much needed improvements to the area around the railway station, a
key and visually very poor gateway to the town.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - In the event of planning permission being granted suggest the
imposition of a number of informatives regarding water supply, waste water and trade
effluent.
British Pipeline Agency - No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Following the receipt
of two further Bat Surveys (dated 21 March 2008 and 28 may 2008, prepared by
Southern Ecological Solutions) the impact of the development on bats (European
Protected Species) has now been clarified. Based on the information contained in the
reports, the development should have no adverse affect on bats, with the exception
of the loss of some foraging habitat; however, this may be mitigated through some
effective landscaping and planting. Now satisfied that the ecological impacts of the
development have been assessed and any future requirements can be dealt with
through appropriate conditions.
The only other concern relates to the two protected Hornbeam trees at the front of
the site. Amended plans now illustrate the roadway being aligned directly in front of
the two trees and a bus stop positioned in between the trunks of the trees. Following
on from the observations made by the agent regarding the situation with the two
Hornbeam trees at the front of the site, comments as follows:
"I understand the highway needs of the development and that it is not possible to
design a road scheme that would lessen the impact on the trees. With the proposed
road scheme remaining the trees would be unsustainable in their present location.
This only leaves two possible solutions, either transplanting the existing trees to
another location on the site, or removing the trees and replacing them with new
specimens. Although the transplanting option is discussed by the agent in his letter, I
have seen no evidence to indicate that the trees would be suitable for transplanting.
Leaving aside the issue of possible services beneath the trees which would render
the operation impossible, transplanting the trees would involve using a specialist tool
called a Treespade (a large hydraulic device on the back of a lorry). In order for this
to work the trees have to be young enough to withstand uprooting and then respond
with new root growth in the transplanted location, in addition there is a limiting size to
the trees which can be taken on the Treespade. At the moment I am slightly sceptical
as to whether these particular trees could be moved, or if they could be moved
whether they would survive the operation.
However, the option of replacing the TPO'd trees would be feasible. The opportunity
to mitigate the loss of the trees with substantial new planting with heavy standard
specimens would in my opinion be acceptable. I would like to see at least six
specimen trees planted along the frontage of the development on the Norwich Road
with enough space to grow into mature trees without impacting on the new buildings
or the highway. Further tree planting would be expected within the development, and
around the entrance to the estate."
Development Control Committee (East)
21
31 July 2008
Countryside and Parks Manager - Considers that the indicative layout plan fails to
provide public open space/outdoor play space at a level required by the Local Plan.
Notwithstanding this under provision it is suggested that the areas proposed as local
areas for play (LAPs) be deleted and one large open space be provided. In addition
in the event of Local Plan standards not being met it is suggested that the developer
be required to make a financial contribution towards off-site provision.
County Council (Highways) - Raises no objection subject to the imposition of
conditions and securing financial contributions towards associated highway works.
The following further comments have been received since the last meeting:
"I can confirm that the right hand turn lane is in the optimum position from a highways
perspective. There is no scope to move it to avoid the trees as the length of the
frontage is so limited. The right hand turn lane is absolutely necessary for this
development given the status of the Norwich Road and the likely level of side road
traffic. National advice is that a ghost island right hand turn lane should be
considered when side road flows are in excess of 300 vehicle movements a day
along with other factors. The housing alone is likely to produce some 1500 vehicle
movements so you will understand why I say that a ghost island right hand turn lane
is essential here.
My view is that whatever redevelopment takes place on this site it is highly likely that
a ghost island right hand turn lane will be required. The only reason one was not
provided for the previous use is because of the historic nature of the factory use on
this site.
I cannot see any way that the trees can be saved but it must be possible to put in
adequate replacement trees along the frontage.
I am in discussions with Bidwell's with regard to the scale of the following
contributions:
1. Contribution to up-grading the A149/B1150 traffic signals to improve pedestrian
facilities and to improve accessibility from the site to the town centre.
2. Contribution to improving the footway provision across the railway station access
points to improve accessibility from the site to the town centre.
3. Contribution towards provision of a dial-a-bus to ensure the site is as sustainable a
possible.
4. A bond to guarantee funding of travel plan measures including employing full time
travel plan co-ordinator for a minimum of five years to ensure the site is as
sustainable a possible."
County Council (Planning Obligations) - Advises that a development of the scale
proposed would require financial contributions to be made towards the fire service
and library provision.
EDF Energy - No response received.
Emergency Planning Section - Raises concerns regarding a development of this size
in such close proximity to BPA site (Appendix 4).
Environment Agency - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to
surface water management issues, pollution control, contamination and sustainable
construction.
Environmental Health - Recommends the imposition of conditions regarding
contaminated land, waste disposal, noise attenuation measures and lighting.
Natural England - No objection.
Development Control Committee (East)
22
31 July 2008
Planning Policy Manager - Comments relating to policy context, housing needs and
demand, suitability/sustainability of the site and wider policy objectives, including
supply of employment land attached as Appendix 4.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager 1. This planning application provides a reasonable assurance that this development
will create employment for 80-100 people. (The equivalent occupation of this site by
a large highly automated distribution company could in comparison employ 25
people.) However, this is not to say that any other high level diversity service sector
development would not easily exceed this level of employment.
2. The likelihood of attracting a large sector specific inward investment is relatively
small, given the weakness in the surface transport infrastructure and connectivity of
the town to the main commercial corridor to Cambridge, London and other European
destinations.
3. Growing importance of the service and knowledge sector - a nationwide trend
linked to the decline of manufacturing.
4. Skills gaps in the workforce - an issue seen as a barrier to value added growth.
Full comments attached at Appendix 4.
Strategic Housing - Sets out the affordable housing requirement for a development of
this scale. (Comments attached at Appendix 4.)
Water Management Alliance - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 1: Growth Towns (main towns for growth in district).
Policy 9: General Employment Areas (primarily reserved for business, industrial and
warehousing purposes).
Policy 70: Employment Strategy
Policy 72: Proposed General Employment Areas
Development Control Committee (East)
23
31 July 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of residential development on designated employment land.
2. Impact on employment objectives.
3. Sustainability/suitability for housing.
4. Affordable housing.
5. Highway safety.
6. Wildlife issues.
7. Impact on trees.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee for clarification on
highway and tree issues and negotiation on affordable housing and open space.
The application site comprises 5ha of industrial land with a road frontage on to
Norwich Road. The site is currently vacant and has been since Premier International
Foods ceased business in June 2002. The Cromer to Norwich railway line and North
Walsham station lie to the east of the site. To the south and west the site backs on to
agricultural land with housing beyond. To the north of the site lies an electricity substation and an established builders merchant.
The site is characterised by a large number of vacant buildings up to four storeys in
height, extensive hardstandings, open storage areas and parking areas. An area of
open land is located at the southern end of the site.
Planning Policy Context
In the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan the site is designated as a General
Employment Area (GEA). Local Plan Policy 9 states that the introduction or
intensification of non-employment uses will not be permitted within GEA's.
Consequently the proposal is, and has been advertised accordingly, as a departure
from the Development Plan. The Local Plan will remain a statutory part of the
Development Plan until its replacement with the new Development Plan Documents.
The application should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan
unless it is demonstrated that there are material considerations to justify a departure.
LDF policies and guidance contained in PPS3 (Housing) together with the Regional
Spatial Strategy are all material to the consideration of the proposal. The Core
Strategy has been found to be sound in relation to the policies relevant to this
application.
The Core Strategy proposes the retention of 65ha of designated employment land for
North Walsham. The land subject to this application forms part of this designation.
Core Strategy policy for such employment land would only be permissive of Class
B1, B2 and B8 proposals as well as other commercial uses provided that there are
no sequentially preferable sites available. The proposal therefore would also
represent a departure from Core Strategy policy.
PPS3 requires Local Planning Authorities to identify and maintain a five year land
supply. The Council has recently revised its Housing Land Supply Statement which
identifies sufficient sites within the District to provide a 5.17 year supply. In this
context there is no presumption that the Council should consider housing on sites
which have not previously been identified for residential development.
It should be borne in mind however that this application seeks permission for a mixed
development, including a range of employment generating uses. In addition the site
constitutes previously developed land (brownfield), well-placed within the town.
National planning policy advice recognises the benefits of effectively re-using
previously developed land.
Development Control Committee (East)
24
31 July 2008
In terms of assessing the application against this policy context (and whether a
departure from policy is acceptable in this case), two particular issues need to be
considered in detail. These are firstly, would the proposal undermine employment
policy objectives, and secondly how suitable and sustainable is the site to
accommodate housing development?
1) Employment Objectives
North Walsham is identified as a growth town in the Local Plan. Over time the town
has experienced high levels of housing and economic growth and it continues to be
well-placed, strategically, to serve the rural hinterland. The town's economic growth
will continue to be an important aspiration for the future, particularly following a
number of high profile business closures and that of RAF Coltishall.
The comments of the Planning Policy Manager on the employment land issue are
appended to this report (Appendix 4). The response makes a number of key points:
North Walsham currently has a comparatively low level of self-containment for jobs.
Around half of those in employment leave the town for work.
The Core Strategy identifies the creation of good quality job opportunities as a key
priority for the town
The identification and retention of employment land is an important part of the Core
Strategy and the mechanism for creating the potential for job creation.
The application site is substantial vacant employment site, well placed within the
town.
It is considered important to retain a choice of employment development
opportunities in the town and as a general principle it would be preferable to focus on
the redevelopment of brownfield sites.
The application seeks to acknowledge the employment designation of the site
through the mix of development being proposed. In terms of employment generating
development the proposal includes: 1189sq.m of business (B1) floor space; a local
convenience store; residential care home and sheltered accommodation. The
applicant's agent has indicated that this range and quantity of development would
have the potential to generate around 161 FTE jobs (B1:50-75 jobs; convenience
store: 10 jobs; care home: 76 jobs; sheltered housing: 5 jobs). This figure, according
to the agent, exceeds the number employed at the site during normal operational use
as HL Premier Foods (on closure 90 job losses were announced). In the event of the
planning application being approved it would be possible to secure the phased
construction of this employment development to ensure delivery.
Additionally, the applicants have suggested that the exceptional development costs
associated with site demolition, clearance and decontamination ensure that a sole
employment use would not be viable and despite being marketed for employment
purposes previously (2003-2006) no appropriate interest was shown by prospective
purchasers.
The Core Strategy North Walsham Town Policy (SS10) states that 65 ha of
employment land should be retained and this will be provided through a choice of
brownfield and greenfield opportunities. The site forms part of the 65ha designation
and 50% of the vacant brown field land available in the town for redevelopment. The
former HL Foods site has been identified by the Council as an employment site of
strategic importance as stated in 'Employment Land in North Norfolk: March 2007'.
This document summarises the characteristic of the site as follows;
'Substantial complex of vacant buildings suitable for re-use or redevelopment. Good
location for employment in relation to highway network. Although currently vacant is
Development Control Committee (East)
25
31 July 2008
considered that the site is ideally suited to meet any long term needs, particularly for
employment buildings. The site is within a principal settlement where employment
growth is being promoted. Retention and re-use of the site/buildings for employment
uses would assist in fulfilling strategic objectives in a sustainable manner.'
The loss of the potential to develop the whole of the site for employment reduces the
amount of identified employment land to below 65ha (by approximately 3.5ha) and
substantially impacts on the amount of brownfield land remaining for new growth over
the plan period. In the event of planning permission being granted for this application
this may raise the need for replacement of this provision elsewhere. This opportunity
would arise at the next stage of the LDF process (Site Specific Proposals). It would
be likely to require the consideration of greenfield land.
The Report on the Examination into the Core Strategy recommends no change to the
employment land policies for North Walsham and in effect endorses the Council's
position of resisting changes from employment use where the land and premises
remain suitable for such uses. The Inspector qualified his findings by referring to the
possible need for the flexible implementation of the strategy at site-specific level to
aid project viability and that this may include the encouragement of mixed use
development on appropriate sites.
2) Sustainability/suitability of site for residential development
North Walsham is clearly a relatively sustainable location for development and this is
reflected in the Core Strategy which identifies the town as a Principal Settlement. As
part of the preparation process for identifying Site Specific Proposals in the town the
relative sustainability of individual sites for housing has been appraised. This
involved scoring sites against a matrix of criteria such as whether the site is
brownfield/greenfield, its location and proximity to key facilities, together with issues
such as access to public transport. Of all the sites considered, the application site
was the highest scoring in the town, reflecting its central location, brownfield status
and close proximity to key facilities.
Thus, notwithstanding the value of the site for employment development, the site also
has significant benefits in terms of accommodating new housing growth in the town.
Given the proximity of the site to key facilities and to the railway station, future
residents of the development would have real choices as to how to travel both for
local and longer journeys. As a consequence there is the potential to reduce
dependency on the car which is a key objective in achieving sustainable patterns of
development.
A further factor relevant to assessing the suitability of the site for housing is the
proximity of the BPA condensate tanks. There are two tanks storing gas condensate,
a light crude, 140m to the north of the site. Given the quantities of substances stored,
the site is not an identified 'Hazardous Installation' and therefore falls outside the
jurisdiction of the Health and Safety Executive. The operators of the site BPA have
produced safety zone map information to assist the Local Planning Authority and
developers in accounting for potential risk. Parts of the application site fall inside
these safety zones (Appendix 4). The applicant has taken into account this
constraint when planning the mix of development on the site and has used a HSE
computer tool to influence the layout and mix of development relative to the safety
zone information. In particular this has influenced the location of the employment
zone and that of the care home.
Development Control Committee (East)
26
31 July 2008
The Council's Emergency Planning Section has raised concerns regarding a
development of this size in such close proximity to the BPA site. They point out that
the majority of the site falls within the 400m radius initial evacuation zone set out in
the emergency response plans for the BPA site. This development would add
approximately 400 people to the number to be evacuated and accommodated
including a significant portion of vulnerable people (from the care home).
Other Factors for Consideration:
Affordable Housing - The application proposes a total of 149 dwellings. Applying
current policy and a requirement of 40%, the development provides the potential to
achieve 60 affordable homes or 67 if the emerging core strategy requirement of 45%
were to be applied. The application originally proposed 30% affordable housing and
therefore failed to comply with policy requirements. This comprises a total of 45
affordable dwellings including:9 x I bed flats.
7 x 2 bed flats.
9 x 2 bed terrace.
1 x 4 bed terrace.
5 x 2 bed house (shared ownership).
2 x 3 bed terrace (shared ownership).
12 x sheltered flats.
The applicants have submitted an Affordable Housing Statement in support of the
proposal (Appendix 4) and consider that the wider community benefits of the overall
scheme should be taken into account (ie. provision of employment units, shop, rail
parking, sheltered housing and care home). In addition they have submitted financial
information detailing the viability of the proposed development, suggesting that as
proposed the projected profit margin would be in single figures. Independent
verification of this confidential financial information has been sought, and the District
Valuer’s report is attached as Appendix 4. The District Valuer concludes that a 40%
affordable housing contribution would result in a level of profit which is well below
industry norms and is at a level at which the scheme would be considered unviable
by developers. In this context the applicant has considered ways of increasing the
affordable contribution and has suggested that by adjusting the tenure mix to 70%
rented and 30% shared equity three extra affordable units could be provided
(equivalent to 33% affordable over all).
Highway issues - The application proposes to utilise the existing junction on to
Norwich Road to provide the main point of access on to the site. The revised
proposal includes work to reconfigure Norwich Road (B1150) to provide for a right
turn lane in to the site. The Highway Authority has no overriding objection to the
proposed development subject to conditions and contribution towards highway
works.
Open space - Local Plan policy seeks the provision of two categories of outdoor
public space (sport and play). Applying Local Plan standards the development would
require 1.3ha of outdoor public space. This would represent 26% of the site area and
would appear unreasonable and prove uneconomic to facilitate the development. The
agent has confirmed that the applicant is committed to providing 700sq.m of play
area and 3520sq.m of public open space (0.422ha total). Open space requirements
for new developments are in the process of being renewed to reflect Core Strategy
policy. Those new requirements are likely to consider five categories of open space:
public parks, children's play space, sport pitches, natural green spaces and
allotments. Under the new assessment framework account will be taken of the
proximity of development sites to existing public parks and the potential for
Development Control Committee (East)
27
31 July 2008
enhancement. In this instance the application site is within 400m of the Trackside
Park. The Open Space and Recreation Study commissioned by the Council identified
the Trackside Park as offering the potential for enhancement in three areas:
landscaping, accessibility and scope to introduce other open space uses. In light of
this the Council's Countryside and Parks Manager has confirmed that in this instance
he would seek the on-site provision of children's play space and natural green space
and a financial contribution to be used to enhance Trackside Park. The combined
area of 0.422ha proposed by the developer would exceed the emerging standards for
the categories of open space identified (play/green space).
Ecological Issues - The Ecological Report submitted with the application identified
several areas on the site with high and medium bat roost potential. The report
identified the need for further activity and emergence surveys to be undertaken (mid
May - August). This further survey work has now been completed and the Council's
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is satisfied that the development
would have no adverse impact on bats. Concerns remain however regarding the
impact of the proposed highway works on two Hornbeam trees on the Norwich Road
frontage. Both trees are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. The County Highway
Authority has confirmed that the access arrangements proposed are necessary for
the scale of development proposed and are designed to optimise safety. Given this
the Council's Countryside Officer considers a replanting scheme comprising at least
six specimen trees (heavy standard) to be acceptable.
Conclusion
This site has been identified as an employment site of strategic importance. It is
considered integral to providing for future employment growth in North Walsham. The
judgement to be made is therefore whether it is considered that the employment
opportunities which are being offered now, in terms of the number and potential
quality of jobs, are sufficient to justify the 'loss' of the remainder of the site for
employment development. On the one hand the Development Plan takes a long-term
view and concludes that the entire site should be retained. However, as part of this
judgement some consideration can also be given to the contribution that mixed
development would make to other objectives such as housing provision, affordable
housing provision, providing car parking for the station and improving the appearance
of what is acknowledged to be an unsightly site at a key location in the town.
Following on from the last meeting when the application was deferred, the Highway
Authority ahs confirmed the need for a right hand turn lane and the required position
of the access junction. This would result in the two Hornbeam trees being removed,
but the Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager does not object to
this subject to suitable replacement planting. Open space provision is proposed both
on site and off-site (by means of a financial contribution). This approach is supported
by the Council’s Countryside and Parks Manager. Finally the applicants have raised
the proportion of affordable housing to 33%.
On balance, and on the basis of the analysis above, it is considered that the mix of
development now proposed offers sufficient benefits to justify in principle a departure
from adopted policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to a Section 106 Obligation to secure:
1. Affordable housing.
2. Highway contribution.
3. Open space contributions.
4. Contributions required by County Council in regard to libraries, fire hydrants
and education.
Development Control Committee (East)
28
31 July 2008
Recommended conditions include:1. Submission of reserved matters application.
2. Full landscaping scheme including provision of six extra-heavy standards along
Norwich Road frontage of the site.
3. Housing mix in line with Core Strategy.
4. 20% to be easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled.
5. On-site renewable energy technology.
6. Minimum Code 2 rating under the code for sustainable homes.
7. Those required by Highway Authority.
8. Those required by Environment Health in relation to contamination and noise
attenuation.
9. Those required by Environment Agency.
10. Phasing of delivery of employment units.
11. Provision of open space and play equipment.
8.
SCOTTOW - 20080705 - Conversion of former RAF buildings to Category C
prison and erection of buildings to provide ancillary accommodation; former
RAF Coltishall Tunstead Road for National offender Management Service
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :13 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Tree Preservation Order
THE APPLICATION
The applicant is the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), part of the
Ministry of Justice 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 12ha. 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 of it.
The secure area (4.5ha) would be enclosed by a 5.2m high fence with a solid sheet
steel panel for the first 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 styles and arrangements 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 alterations are proposed to the
windows of this building with a subsequent amendment to have only high level
windows at first floor level facing towards the Douglas Bader Centre.
Development Control Committee (East)
29
31 July 2008
Other buildings proposed within the secure area include the conversion 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.
Additional security fencing is proposed within the secure area which would mean that
the outside movement of inmates would be contained within this inner zone.
All existing trees and soft vegetation are proposed to be removed within the secure
area. To mitigate against this loss the proposals (as amended) now include woodland
tree planting and the creation of a 'memorial garden; on an area of approximately
12ha at the north-eastern end of the former airfield runway. It is intended that this
would provide a link with the adjacent historic Spitfire pits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The application is supported by the following documentation:Supporting letter from NOMS (Appendix 5).
Planning Supporting Statement (Executive Summary Appendix 5).
Design and Access Statement.
Transport Assessment.
Framework Travel Plan.
Energy Statement.
Noise Statement.
Arboriculture Statement.
Electrical Statement.
Statement of Economic Benefits.
Statement of Public Consultation.
Sustainability Statement.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
No comments received.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received on behalf of applicants concerning a wide range of issues together
with two letters addressing issues raised by Members at the last meeting are
attached in Appendix 5.
Development Control Committee (East)
30
31 July 2008
Eight letters from private individuals received, including one lengthy letter of objection
and another purporting to represent the views of approximately 50 local residents
following a meeting held at the Douglas Bader Centre. The grounds of objection
raised in these letters are as follows:1. No need for prison in the area.
2. Contradicts Government guidelines for location of prisons near to families of
potential inmates.
3. Not in interests of society as a whole.
4. Use of H blocks proven inappropriate.
5. Problems of security.
6. No strategic case made for a prison in Norfolk.
7. Likelihood of extension.
8. 'Thin end of the wedge'.
9. Public Inquiry needed to consider all issues.
10. Opportunity elsewhere on airbase site to build a fit for purpose prison away from
houses and school which would reduce light pollution, risk/fear of crime, traffic
problems.
11. Surrounding road network unfit to cater for traffic.
12. Hautbois Road unsuitable for prison traffic.
13. New road link to Scottow Road required.
14. Junction of Hautbois Road/Scottow Road needs improvement.
15. Loss of trees.
16. Too close to residential properties creating disturbance, noise, disruption, light
pollution.
17. Lack of local facilities for visitors.
18. Unacceptable visual impact from nearby properties and wider countryside.
19. Inappropriate relationship with Douglas Bader Centre.
Further letter received from objector requesting that a public inquiry is held and
requesting deferral of a decision, pending receipt of a response from the Ministry of
Justice following a Freedom of Information request.
Letter received from Belaugh Parish Council objecting on the following grounds:1. It is totally unsuitable for a prison boundary to run up to a housing area, especially
as many of the new residents will have bought with a view to raising their families in a
rural area.
2. It is difficult to see how the immediate local area will benefit economically, given
that Coltishall and Hautbois are in agricultural surroundings.
3. Social problems might arise from the integration of prison staff and families within
small rural communities. Prison staff families might decide to live outside the
immediate area instead.
4. Transport problems will result from the foreseeable increase in road traffic from
visitors' and suppliers' vehicles, on roads that are already coping with more than their
intended capacity.
5. The proposals to site a prison within an area that has the status of a national park,
for which tourism is an essential element of district planning, are not appropriate.
CONSULTATIONS
Broadland District Council - Following consideration of a report to Broadland District
Council Planning Committee on 18 June; no objection raised subject to North Norfolk
District Council having regard to comments set out in their (Broadland) Committee
report and that a Traffic Management/Routing Plan including appropriate highway
signage be secured to provide that vehicular access and egress to/from the prison is
via Hautbois Road/Scottow Road/B1150.
Development Control Committee (East)
31
31 July 2008
The report included responses from Parish Councils and individuals (also referred to
in this report) as well as from the Coltishall ward member whose comments were as
follows:1. Access via B1150 is the only realistic one.
2. Concerned about impact on future of the officers' mess.
3. Concerned about security.
4. Window treatment/evergreen landscaping needed in respect of relationship with
the Douglas Bader Centre.
The officers' report stated the economic benefits of the proposal should be welcomed
and that significant tree planting should be secured.
Buxton with Lamas Parish Council - Support, with the following to be taken into
consideration:1. Prison accommodation is restricted to this application, and no further buildings of
this type are considered on the whole site.
2. The Douglas Bader School is protected as far as possible.
3. The Planning Authority ensures full replacement planting takes place to mitigate
the loss of trees.
4. The access road is constructed before the prisoners are housed.
5. The sewage system is adequate for the development and no sewage is
discharged into the existing local system in Lamas.
Coltishall Parish Council - No objection, but raises the following concerns:1. The exit from the prison, with just advisory highway signs to turn right and join the
B1150. Once people know that the Hautbois Road is a considerably shorter route
and with the high fuel costs, they will use this as an exit route causing increased
traffic on a minor road.
2. The number of trees being felled. Perhaps a community wooded area nearby
dedicated to the memory of service personnel would be appropriate.
3. The close proximity of the education block to the Douglas Bader school, even with
frosted windows is inappropriate and should be relocated.
4. The name of the prison should not have any relation to Coltishall.
5. The support of prisoners whose families are outside the local area is vital for their
eventual increase.
Swanton Abbott Parish Council - No objection, other than the removal of trees that
are memorials.
Skeyton Parish Council - Objects for the following reasons:1. Inappropriate site for a prison. There is no local demand and the road and rail links
are totally inadequate. All evidence points to the need for prisons to be sited near the
families of inmates, to assist in their rehabilitation. The prison at Coltishall
immediately removes a significant part of its raison d'etre'.
2. To cut down the 154 trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order is an act of
vandalism of the highest order. It would completely destroy the credibility of Tree
Preservation Orders. The Arboriculture report is a sham. There is no mention of their
contribution to biodiversity.
3. 18% of the proposals involve new build. National planning guidance and the Local
Development Plan restrain new development in the countryside.
4. The application contains no environmental assessment of the site.
5. There is a lack of provision of renewable energy. The application does not meet
the targets. Sustainability is also poor.
6. The Douglas Bader School unavoidably overlooks the site. This is entirely
inappropriate. The application makes several attempts to mitigate this but they
remain unsatisfactory. Calling the neighbouring buildings an education centre is not
the answer.
Development Control Committee (East)
32
31 July 2008
7. Application shows little consideration for the fact that this is a heritage site. It was
the last operational Battle of Britain RAF station - 'the Nation's finest hour'.
8. The application offers no Section 106 Obligation in order to mitigate the
inconvenience and inevitable planning blight which will affect the neighbouring
communities.
Overview - Councillors totally support the Minister of Justice in its urgent need to
increase the prison accommodation. However this urgency is being used to support a
completely flawed application. Internal reports within the Justice Ministry, obtained
under the Freedom of Information Act, indicate that H-blocks are not suitable for
managing prisoners. RAF Coltishall would undoubtedly make a bad prison. It is
important for the sake of everyone, both prisoners and the community that NNDC do
not feel pressured to making an equally bad decision.
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.
Worstead Parish Council - Support.
Westwick Parish Council - No comments received.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions to cover the following
aspects of the development:1. Access construction and visibility at junction with Hautbois Road.
2. Drainage measures.
3. Off-site highway improvements at junction of Scottow Road and Hautbois Road.
4. Route signage directing traffic to/from the prison via Hautbois Road, Scottow Road
and the B1150.
5. Submission and agreement of a Travel Plan.
6. Construction traffic management and routing.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Previously commented
that the loss of 154 trees protected by a TPO is significant and will remove a large
area of the historic landscape on the site that the Order was intended to preserve.
Also had major reservations regarding the arboricultural statement submitted with the
application which de-values the trees on the site and does not take into consideration
the historic landscape value. However, now considers that the amended proposals
for a community woodland represent suitable mitigation for the loss of the TPO trees.
A detailed landscaping plan will be required specifying the density and species mix of
trees and shrubs.
Environmental Health - Requests further details of proposed lighting. Confirms that
the noise report covers all areas of concern and recommends the imposition of
conditions with regard to maximum noise levels, delivery hours, staff parking areas to
be used during early morning hours and details of any kitchen extract systems.
Planning Policy Manager - Has considered the application in terms of Policy EN6
(Sustainable Construction and Energy Sufficiency) of the Council's Core Strategy
submission document. Confirms that the techniques referred to in the accompanying
Sustainability Report comply with the policy requirements in terms of:1. Minimising energy consumption (new and existing buildings will achieve BREEAM
ratings of 'excellent' and 'good' respectively; dedicated shuttle bus for visitors and
framework travel plan).
2. Minimise resource consumption (re-use of existing buildings; rainwater harvesting;
waste management unit).
Development Control Committee (East)
33
31 July 2008
3. Adaptation to future climate change (rainwater harvesting).
Comments however that the application does not presently comply in terms of
providing 10% of the development's energy requirement to be met by renewable
energy. Appreciates that there are unique constraints associated with providing
certain forms of renewable energy technology. Is satisfied that exploring the
possibility of a wind turbine is the only viable solution of all this development.
Economic and Tourism Development Manager - Considers that positive job creation
and other economic development benefits will results from this proposal.
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.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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 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).
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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 16: Pollution Control (aims to protect public amenity and natural habitats
against potentially polluting developments) (prevents sensitive development near to
existing polluting environments).
Policy 17: Control of Noise (aims to protect public amenity from noise generating
developments) (prevents sensitive developments near to noisy environments).
Policy 18: Light Pollution (aims to prevent insensitive lighting schemes to protect
residents, traffic safety and environment).
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).
Development Control Committee (East)
34
31 July 2008
Policy 74: Non-Conforming Uses (specifies criteria for employment uses outside of
designated employment areas in terms of residential amenities, highway and
environmental impacts).
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. Impacts upon nearby residential properties and education facility.
APPRAISAL
Background
Members deferred consideration of this application at the meeting on 30 June for
more clarity on the justification of not allowing trees within prisons; negotiations for
more replacement tree planting; and more information on materials.
Members visited the site on 29 May 2008. Previously on 1 May certain Members and
Officers visited Lindholm Prison near Doncaster at the invitation of the Ministry of
Justice. Lindholm is a Category C prison which was established on a former RAF
base some 20 years ago.
The main part of the application site lies within North Norfolk's administrative area.
However the access route proposed to serve the development from Hautbois Road
lies within Broadland District. Accordingly duplicate planning applications were
submitted to both Councils. Subsequently Broadland District Council at its Council
meeting on 20 May 2008 resolved to exercise its powers under Section 101(1)(b) of
the Local Government Act 1972 to delegate determination of the planning application
to North Norfolk District Council. Before resolving to do so, Broadland District Council
received Counsel's advice, a copy of which has been provided to this Council.
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 5). Certain of the representations received have not disputed
this need as such, but have challenged the Government's decision to seek to
address it by proposing a new prison in rural Norfolk. The role of this Council as
Local Planning Authority is not to make judgements upon the Government’s
locational strategy for prisons but to determine the application on land use planning
issues relating to this specific site.
Land Use Policy
In terms of current land use policy the whole of the former technical area of the
airbase lies within the Countryside policy area in the adopted Local Plan. The Core
Strategy proposes a similar designation. Clearly, however, this is not 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.
Local Plan Policy 29 allows for the re-use and adaptation of buildings in the
countryside, although in this case a significant amount of new buildings is proposed.
The Core Strategy includes a similar policy although more pertinent to this
application also includes a specific policy on redundant defence establishments.
Policy EC4 allows for proposals involving the re-use of existing or development of
Development Control Committee (East)
35
31 July 2008
replacement buildings within the defined 'technical areas' of such establishments,
provided that there is no overall increase in gross floor space. Details provided with
the application illustrate that new buildings proposed account for 2,853sq.m of
floorspace, but this is offset by the demolition of 2,322sq.m floorspace within the
application site and a further 705sq.m elsewhere within the former 'technical' area.
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 Committee will note the comments of the Council's Economic and Tourism
Development Manager in relation to these economic benefits (above).
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.
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).
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 a number of
conditions.
Impact on trees
As a matter of detail perhaps the most controversial and emotive aspect of the
proposal is the removal of 154 trees within the secure prison area and within the
7,5m perimeter zone outside the security fence. Security reasons dictate this
requirement and as requested by Members at the previous meeting the applicants
have expanded further as to why no trees can be retained for operational purposes
(Appendix 5).
All of these trees and others within the base are protected by a Tree Preservation
Order (TPO) served 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.
Development Control Committee (East)
36
31 July 2008
As referred to above, since the last meeting the applicants are now proposing a
larger and more significant area for replacement tree planting at the end of the former
airfield runway, in the form of a community woodland and memorial park. The
Council's Countryside, Design and Landscape Manager considers this to represent
suitable mitigation for the loss of the existing trees.
Impacts on local amenity
The surrounding built up area to the application site includes some 337 former RAF
personnel houses which are currently being sold on the open market. 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. 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 main security fence would
retain much of their present appearance apart from becoming active once more and
there being further landscaping. Any public views of the secure area would be
dominated by the outer 5.2m high security fence.
Those 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. 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 the relationship is considered
acceptable.
At the site visit Members viewed the site from the Douglas Bader Centre and will
have appreciated the proximity (particularly from the rear playground) of the
proposed security fence and a wing of the two-storey 'H' Education and Learning
block. It is proposed to provide a planting screen between the rear boundary of the
centre and the security fence. The amended proposals now include only high level
windows at first floor level on the elevation facing towards this boundary. This
combined with a suitable evergreen planting screen is now considered sufficient to
address earlier concerns regarding this relationship. (It should be noted that the use
of this 'H' block was initially proposed for inmate accommodation, but was altered
following the pre-application public consultation.)
Security lighting is another aspect which will 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. Subject to additional technical data the Environmental Health Officer has
raised no real 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 conditions
referred to above. Those Members who visited HMP Lindholm will have gained an
impression on the level of noise generated outside the secure area by a similar type
of prison.
Development Control Committee (East)
37
31 July 2008
Sustainability Issues
The application is accompanied by a Sustainability Statement and a Renewable
Energy and Energy Conservation Report. The comments of the Planning Policy
Manager (above) refers to and concurs with the measures being proposed as part of
the development. The outstanding issue relates to the emerging 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 and is likely to require submission of an Environmental Impact
Assessment. Nevertheless the applicants have confirmed a commitment to pursue
this option and at the time of preparing this report a Section 106 Obligation of the
Town and Country Planning Act is being finalised.
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 date etc) 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.
Materials
Following discussion at the last meeting the applicants have confirmed that walls to
the new buildings on the site will be brick or brick cladding as opposed to metal
panelling as originally proposed. On the two H blocks which currently have flat roofs
however the proposal is for profiled metal cladding on the new pitched roofs, as tiles
would pose a security risk (see letter dated 11 July in Appendix 5).
Conclusion
It is considered that the site represents a suitable location for this proposal and that
with the amendments now submitted (in particular relating to the replacement tree
planting proposals) there are no technical or substantive planning reasons to object
to the application.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to completion of a Section 106
Obligation in respect of renewable energy and restriction to category C prison
only; and subject to the imposition of conditions to include the following:
- amended plans.
- those recommended by the Highway Authority.
- landscape/tree planting.
- a scheme for the future use and maintenance of the community woodland.
- materials.
- those recommended by the Environmental Health Officer.
- any further conditions considered necessary and reasonable by the Head of
Planning and Building Control.
Development Control Committee (East)
38
31 July 2008
9.
SEA PALLING - 20080848 - Erection of building to provide church meeting
room; Nissen Hut site Church Road for Sea Palling Parochial Church Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :23 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Environment Agency Flood Zone Type 3
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070742 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension and conversion of nissen hut to
provide church facilities and social centre and erection of store
Withdrawn, 07 Jun 2007
THE APPLICATION
Erection of building to provide church meeting room. The building, 9m x 6.5m, would
provide toilet and kitchen facilities as well as a room for church meetings. Proposed
external facing materials include feather edge soft wood horizontal boarding/black
corrugated sheet metal roof.
Amended plan received including three cycle stands.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Price having regard to the following planning issue:
Local concerns over traffic and further development along Church Road.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, comments made regarding traffic, drainage and removal of flora/fauna
on the site.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection received raising the following concerns:1. Church Lane too narrow to accommodate additional traffic.
2. Concerns regarding driver and pedestrian safety.
3. Building too large for the site.
4. Inadequate boundary screening.
5. Church could use facilities at village hall.
6. Drainage.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle but have requested additional
parking and cycle parking facilities.
Environmental Health - No objections.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
39
31 July 2008
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 CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 93: New Community Facilities (permissive toward new facilities in defined
settlements, subject to amenity/character, access and parking considerations.
Specifies criteria for new facilities in the Countryside).
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.
2. Traffic.
APPRAISAL
The site comprises land to the west of Church Road on which there are two WW2
nissen huts. The site is owned by the Parochial Church Council, St Margarets Church
being located approximately 70m to the east. The site lies within the village boundary
for Sea Palling as identified by the Local Plan and in an area of countryside identified
in the Core Strategy.
The application seeks permission for a church meeting room and ancillary
toilet/kitchen facilities. Such facilities are currently not available at St Margarets and
would be difficult to provide on site given the extent of consecrated burial land. Such
facilities are therefore proposed on this nearby site. Policy CT3 of the Core Strategy
and Policy 6 of the Local Plan both allow for new community facilities where they
meet the identified needs of the local community.
The proposed building is simple in form providing modest facilities. The building
would be sited to the south of the existing derelict nissen hut, on what is currently
overgrown land. Much of this boundary overgrowth currently provides a visual screen
to the site but would undoubtedly benefit from being supplemented by new planting.
Given the modest scale and the nature of the proposed use, the development is
unlikely to result in either an adverse visual impact or detract from neighbours’
amenities.
Development Control Committee (East)
40
31 July 2008
Concerns have been raised regarding increased traffic and demand for parking along
Church Road. The scheme includes on site parking for six cars and three cycle
stands. Given the scale of the proposal and the link to the use of the church it is
considered that the development would not generate a significant increase in traffic
or demand for parking.
The development would confirm with existing and emerging Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including building
to be used in association with the church, hours restrictions no later than
10pm, landscaping, parking provision.
10.
SUFFIELD - 20080874 - Retention of buildings as constructed subject to
alterations to provide for a total of eight units of holiday accommodation,
erection of courtyard walls and installation of LPG tanks; Cooks Farm Rectory
Road for D and M Hickling Properties Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Enforcement Notice
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19961612 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of agricultural barns to holiday
accommodation
Approved, 24 Oct 1997
20051696 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of former agricultural
buildings to six units of holiday accommodation
Approved, 19 Dec 2005
20061927 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barns to three units of holiday
accommodation
Approved, 10 Sep 2007
20071381 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barns to six units of holiday
accommodation
Refused, 20 Dec 2007
20071627 - (Full Planning Permission) - Variations to approved scheme to include
new vehicular access, erection of walls and installation of three LPG vessels with
security fence
Refused, 17 Dec 2007
20080441 - (Full Planning Permission) - Variation of condition numbers 2 of planning
permissions 20051696 and 20061927 to retain nine holiday units as constructed
Refused, 12 May 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to retain the barns which have been converted. This revised scheme includes
a reduction to eight units, alterations to the elevations (particularly the north
elevation) and the treatment of the external spaces.
Development Control Committee (East)
41
31 July 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in the light of the planning
history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Clearly the plans do not address the well documented issues over the height, area or
new build element of the "6 units" nor do they meet Policy 5 or 29 of the Local Plan.
However the new plans do respond to heart-felt criticism from local residents
regarding the north wall of the six (now five) units and the easterly openings in units 7
and 8 - now windows rather than doors.
At their meeting of 25 June the Parish Council agreed with the developers that the
plans would be amended to address some remaining issues and to help provide
reassurance that the property would be completed strictly in accordance with the
approved plan.
The Parish Council has no objections to the amended plan provided North Norfolk
District Council are able to take certain actions and to apply conditions as follows:
Before first occupancy the developer must (a) gain approval from North Norfolk
District Council for an external lighting plan and (b) provide everything specified on
the plan. Permitted development rights should be removed; any changes to the plans
before completion should be subject of as further application; the meadows either
side are not to be used for any domestic purposes.
In view of the chequered history of planning problems with this development the
Parish Council would ask North Norfolk District Council to keep a close eye on
progress to ensure we get what we are expecting.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter from near neighbours accepting that the latest proposal addresses most of
the previous concerns but querying whether the developer will do what is shown on
the drawings.
Explanatory letter from agent listing changes incorporated in latest proposals
attached as Appendix 6.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to conditions (2m parallel visibility
splay, parking and turning areas to be laid out, no access other than those shown on
plan).
Environmental Health - No objections (Environment Agency will need to agree
consent to discharge).
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)
42
31 July 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 10: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to
be attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies).
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
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. Extent of re-building.
2. Impact on character of group of buildings.
3. Impact on nearby residents.
APPRAISAL
Members will be aware of the history of this site where in implementing the 2005 and
2007 permissions the developer without specific planning permission or written
agreement incorporated a number of changes from the approved schemes, and
reconstructed significant areas of new brickwork, enlarged the buildings slightly in
both width and height and introduced changes to the number and position of
windows and doors. Theses changes are subject of current enforcement
proceedings.
The current application seeks to deal with some of the Council's concerns, and at the
same time incorporate measures to deal with the specific concerns of neighbours
and the Parish Council.
It is clearly not possible to undo the extensive rebuilding which has been carried out
on the south gables and internal walls of the barns 1-6, as the pre-existing fabric has
been removed. This degree of re-building is considerably more than the Council
would normally accept under Policy 29 which requires that barns should be capable
of conversion without complete or substantial re-building.
As with any scheme to convert old buildings it is inevitable that detailed examination
of and work on the building reveals structural weaknesses not immediately apparent,
and it does not appear that any structural report was obtained when permission was
first granted. The building is not listed so the loss of historic fabric is not considered
significant and the reconstruction work has been carried out using materials which,
making allowance for the lack of weathering, match those of the original building. To
further ameliorate the impact of the new work the application proposes the
construction of 1.8m high flint and brick walls along the southern side of the range of
buildings, creating small enclosed courtyards and a less harsh appearance.
Other main changes proposed by the current application are to the north side of
barns 1-6 (now 1-5) where the rooflights would be removed and relocated on the
south facing roof slope, and where all window and door openings other than the
original ones would be blocked up in matching materials.
Development Control Committee (East)
43
31 July 2008
The result of this would be to recreate the simple agricultural character of this
element of the building and reduce the impact of windows and lights on the
countryside and existing residents to the north of the barns. A consequence of these
changes is a reduction in the number of units in this part of the building from six units
to five, making eight, rather than nine on the whole site.
These and other changes to the external works identified in the agent's letter would
assist both the character and setting of the buildings and the impact of the
conversions on the amenities of nearby residents.
Whilst the scheme as now amended still incorporates a degree of new work which
would normally be considered excessive, the overall impact of the group of barns in
the landscape is considered to be acceptable and not sufficiently damaging to the
character of the countryside as to warrant refusal of permission. Granting planning
permission in this case would therefore comply with the relevant saved policies of the
Development Plan.
Any holiday use granted under the Core Strategy would be subject to Policy EC 10
which would restrict the occupation of the units to short term holiday lets only. In this
case the current application does not raise fundamental issues of principle. It seeks
to resolve issues of design and construction arising from the implementation of a
permission granted under the policies of the North Norfolk Local Plan and there
would seem to be little justification in seeking to vary the holiday restrictions imposed
on the earlier permissions.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
numbers 2690.B and 2690.1.B) received by the Local Planning Authority on 3 July
2008, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Prior to the first occupancy of any of the holiday units hereby permitted the
development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no enlargement of or alteration to any of the holiday units hereby
permitted shall be undertaken and no building, structure or means of enclosure within
the curtilage of any of the holiday units shall be erected unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
5) The holiday units hereby permitted shall be used for holiday accommodation
purposes only and shall not be used as the sole or main residence of the occupiers.
6) Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be
installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
7) Prior to the occupation of any of the holiday units hereby permitted all openings on
the north wall of barns 1-5 other than those shown on the approved plan shall be
blocked up in brick and flint to match the existing wall.
8) Prior to the occupation of any of the holiday units hereby permitted the external
works shown on the approved site layout plan 2690.B shall be carried out in their
entirety.
9) Prior to the first occupation of any of the holiday units hereby permitted the
vehicular access shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council
Development Control Committee (East)
44
31 July 2008
residential access construction specification for the first 5m into the site as measured
back from the near edge of the adjacent carriageway.
10) Vehicular and pedestrian access to and egress from the adjoining highway shall
be limited to the access shown on drawing number 2690.B only. Any other access or
egress shall be permanently closed, and the highway verge shall be reinstated in
accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority, concurrently with the bringing into use of the
new access.
11) Prior to the first occupation of any of the holiday units hereby permitted a 2m
wide parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent
highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site's roadside
frontage. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any
obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
12) Prior to the first occupation of any of the holiday units hereby permitted the
proposed access and on-site parking and turning areas shall be laid out, levelled and
surfaced in accordance with the approved plan. They shall be retained thereafter for
those specific uses.
13) Within three months of the date of this permission a landscaping scheme shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall indicate the species, number and size of new trees and shrubs at
the time of their planting.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not 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.
The landscaping scheme shall include a detailed specification for the wildflower
meadow shown on the approved site layout plan, together with management
proposals for the landscaping and wildflower meadow and the meadow areas shall
thereafter be managed in accordance with the landscaping management proposals
as agreed.
14) 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.
15) Within six months of the date of this permission details of the construction and
provision to be made for an owl hole and nesting box/loft for barn owls shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and carried out prior to
the occupation of any of the holiday units unless prior written agreement is obtained
for any variation.
16) Before the development is started samples of the facing materials relating to
screen walls and infill areas within the walls of the buildings shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall then be
constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
REASONS:2) To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To safeguard the architectural character and setting of the building(s) and to
accord with Policy 29 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan regarding conversion
of buildings in the countryside.
5) For the avoidance of doubt and because the site is located in an area designated
as Countryside in the North Norfolk Local Plan where the Local Planning Authority
Development Control Committee (East)
45
31 July 2008
would not normally permit permanent residential accommodation, in accordance with
Policies 5 and 29 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
6) In the interests of the visual amenities/residential amenities of the area and in the
interests of highway safety and convenience, and in accordance with Policy 18 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
7) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
8) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
9) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy 147 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
10) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
11) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
12) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
13) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
14) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
15) To ensure adequate provision is made for protected species in accordance with
Policy 29 (f) of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
16) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings,
in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
11.
THORPE MARKET - 20080971 - Alterations to hotel to provide guest house with
owner's accommodation, conversion of outbuildings to two dwellings and
three holiday units and erection of two semi-detached single-storey dwellings;
Green Farm Restaurant and Hotel Cromer Road for Mr P Lomax
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mrs T Armitage
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Corridor of Movement
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080532 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of hotel and outbuildings to nine
dwellings, erection of two semi-detached dwellings
Refused, 20 Jun 2008
20080533 - (Alteration to Listed Building) - Alterations to hotel and outbuildings to
facilitate conversion to nine dwellings
Withdrawn, 22 May 2008
Development Control Committee (East)
46
31 July 2008
THE APPLICATION
Alterations to hotel and outbuilding to form guest house (eight bedrooms) with
owner's accommodation, conversion of outbuildings to two dwellings and three selfcatering holiday units and erection of two semi-detached single-storey dwellings.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the recent planning
history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection. Raise questions regarding the occupancy of the new build and future
maintenance of slip road with A149.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Welcomes the new intention of keeping the hotel in its existing use - satisfied that the
application would not harm the listed building or the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area.
County Council (Highways) - The site is located upon the A149, a Principal Route in
the Adopted Norfolk County Council Route Hierarchy. The County Council, together
with your Authority has an adopted policy (Policy 146 of the North Norfolk Local Plan)
to protect "Corridors of Movements" such as North Walsham Road (A149) which is a
principal route, from development proposals where it can be demonstrated that
highway safety and traffic capacity would be adversely affected.
In this instance however, whilst the application relates to eight guest rooms, four
dwellings and three holiday units, I do not consider that the proposed change of use
would result in a significant increase in traffic and therefore hazard at the existing
access. Therefore I believe that the proposal would not be in contravention of the
Policy 146. In addition, the proposal would incorporate the re-use of redundant
buildings, which could be of benefit to the local and wider community.
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Development Control Committee (East)
47
31 July 2008
Policy EC 9: Retaining an adequate supply and mix of tourist accommodation
(specifies criteria to prevent loss of facilities).
Policy EC 10: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to
be attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999 - saved policies):
Policy EC.10 - The Change of Use of Hotels, Holiday Parks, Chalet, Camping and
Caravan Sites.
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 37: Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings (prevents proposals which
would be detrimental to character).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Retention of tourist facilities.
2. Principle of new dwellings.
3. Impact on listed building/Conservation Area.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
Green Farm Hotel is located within the Local Plan settlement boundary of Thorpe
Market, identified as a Selected Small Village in the Local Plan. The premises
comprise a 16th Century Grade II listed former farmhouse, together with a range of
outbuildings. The site lies within the village Conservation Area.
The application seeks in part the conversion of the hotel and an outbuilding to eight
rooms of bed and breakfast accommodation (including managers flat) and
conversion of outbuildings into three self catering holiday units. Structure Plan Policy
EC10 seeks to resist the loss of hotels where they make a significant contribution to
both the stock and range of facilities available. In addition policy EC9 of the Core
Strategy seeks to retain an adequate supply and mix of tourist accommodation. The
Green Farm Hotel comprises 20 guest bedrooms, restaurant (24 covers), bar and
conference facilities/function room (100 guests).
A recent application 20080532 sought the conversion of the Green Farm Hotel and
outbuildings to residential dwellings. That application raised issues regarding the loss
of quality hotel accommodation and highlighted the increasing pressure on the
District's tourism economy. Planning permission was refused on grounds of noncompliance with affordable housing policy, but not on grounds of loss of the hotel.
This application seeks to retain the use of part of the site for tourism purposes
through the retention of the main listed building as Bed and Breakfast
accommodation and by the provision of three units of self-catering accommodation.
The hotel at its current scale has been unsuccessfully marketed over a period of two
years and financial information submitted in support of the application indicates that
the existing hotel use is no longer viable.
Development Control Committee (East)
48
31 July 2008
In order to support financially the tourism element of the scheme, four residential
units are proposed, two through conversion and two new build. Under the Local Plan,
four dwellings would be policy compliant given they would all fall within the Thorpe
Market Settlement Boundary. However, under the Core Strategy the village loses
Selected Village status and becomes subject to Countryside policy restrictions which
prohibit new residential development. Given the planning history of this site and the
planning negotiations which have now occurred over a period of several months it is
considered that in this instance Local Plan policy should be attributed more weight
than the Core Strategy and that the principle of new residential development should
not be resisted on policy grounds.
In terms of the design approach to the scheme, as a whole this is considered
acceptable and the development is considered sympathetic to both the listed building
and the Conservation Area setting.
In conclusion is it considered that this mixed development successfully retains quality
tourist accommodation, the integrity of a listed building and provides the potential for
new dwellings in the village. On this basis it is considered to be compliant with the
current adopted Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
12.
TUNSTEAD - 20080628 - Erection of three dwellings; Menwyth House Market
Street for Mr A Rowe
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :09 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Tree Preservation Order
THE APPLICATION
Originally proposed for four dwellings. Amended plans submitted to provide for three
dwellings at the rear of an existing dwelling. Details of access and layout included for
consideration. Illustrative plans show the intention to construct a pair of semidetached houses with a detached garage block, and a single detached house.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the policy issues
involved.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects; greywater tanks are not considered suitable to solve/reduce the drainage
and sewerage system problems in that area; privacy of residential neighbours will be
affected; increase of noise for the residential neighbours; three houses are not
considered an enhancement for the village; no amenities in the village and an
overpopulated primary school.
Development Control Committee (East)
49
31 July 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from immediate neighbour, concerned about:1. Loss of privacy.
2. Impact on character of village.
3. Traffic safety.
Letter from developer of adjoining building plot to north objecting on grounds of
intensity of development, ownership issues in respect of the visibility splay, surface
water drainage problems and loss of trees.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Turning facilities suitable for a fire appliance will be
required.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objections subject to conditions requiring
formation of parking and turning areas and visibility splays.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The amended
proposals will result in the removal of nine trees out of a total of fifty two ... the edge
of some of the dwellings will encroach slightly into the root protection areas of some
of the protected trees ... there may be shading issues with the detached dwelling
which will suffer from lack of light from the trees during the morning and late
afternoon depending on the time of year .... No objections, but recommends
landscaping conditions and an arboricultural method statement and tree protection
plan as part of any permission.
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 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 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in the village.
2. Impact on trees.
Development Control Committee (East)
50
31 July 2008
3. Impact on character of the village.
4. Highway safety.
5. Drainage.
APPRAISAL
The site is within the settlement boundary defined in the Local Plan but the village will
lose this settlement boundary with the advent of the Core Strategy and will then be
subject to countryside policies. The application was submitted in April this year in the
period between the close of the Inquiry into the Core Strategy and the receipt of the
Inspector's report.
Considered against Policy 4 of the North Norfolk Local Plan the proposal is within a
residential area and adjoins a site at the rear of the former Horse and Groom Public
House where a similar development in depth has been permitted and is currently
under construction. In terms of the form and character of the village, similar cul-desac developments exist (Weavers Loke) or have been recently permitted (rear of Hall
Cottage) on the opposite (west) side of Market Street.
The original proposal for four dwellings has been amended to three dwellings and the
access changed to facilitate the retention of the most important trees on the site. The
amended proposal would see the removal of two fir trees, two Scots Pine trees and a
Norway Maple as well as half a dozen fruit trees. Nevertheless the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager advises that there are no objections subject to
detailed conditions to prevent any damage to the protected trees during construction,
and also draws attention to the potential shading of one of the houses.
With the retention of the majority of the trees on the site the wooded character of the
site would be retained. The proposed dwellings would not have a significant impact
on the street scene and the roofs would be the most visible element seen through
gaps between the frontage buildings against a backdrop of trees on this and nearby
sites. The backland form of development has several precedents in the vicinity and
the proposal would not therefore be damaging to the character or appearance of the
village. Neither is the proposal considered to be detrimental to the amenities of the
nearest neighbouring dwelling in view of the adequate distance between it and the
new development and well established boundary treatments.
The proposed access will require minor modifications to provide fire appliance turning
area and also to enable effective landscaping between it and the neighbour's fence.
The Highway Authority is satisfied that provided that visibility splays are formed there
is no highway safety objection to the proposal. The formation of the splays involves
third party land and this will require a 'Grampian' style condition to be imposed on
any permission.
As with many recent proposals in the village the Parish Council has expressed
concern about drainage. The applicant proposes that foul drainage be connected to
the main sewer, and has confirmed that Anglian Water would have no objection to
this. The surface water from the proposed dwellings would drain to soakaways, or
should percolation tests suggest that this was not feasible, to a grey water system
which would reduce the volume of run-off. The proposed access road would be
permeable to minimise run-off.
Although in clear conflict with the Core Strategy, the proposal generally accords with
policies of the North Norfolk Local Plan and granting permission would accord with
the saved Development Plan policies, which are considered to have significant
weight in this case in view of the length of time the application has been the subject
of discussion.
Development Control Committee (East)
51
31 July 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions covering
landscaping, tree protection and highway issues.
13.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - 20080676 - Change of use from residential to residential/guest
house; Aldborough Hall Hall Road for Mr K Grant
(Full Planning Permission)
ANTINGHAM - 20080606 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide
annexe; Chapel Farm House Southrepps Road for Mr and Mrs E J Wiggins
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - 20080713 - Erection of single-storey replacement dwelling; Sea
Holly Kimberley Road for Mr S Norman
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - 20080723 - Erection of single-storey and two-storey side extensions;
Orchard House Rectory Road Edingthorpe for Mr and Mrs Beecroft
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - 20080760 - Erection of rear conservatory; Field View
Smallburgh Road for Mr and Mrs Robinson
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - 20080726 - Erection of side conservatory; 3 Birch End for Mr L
Dawson
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - 20080686 - Erection of rear conservatory; River Lodge Bridge Road
for Mr and Mrs Lilley
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - 20080717 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Farmview Colby
Road Banningham for Mr A Thwaites
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - 20080718 - Construction of raised roof with dormer windows to
provide first floor accommodation; Nakiska Bridge Road for Mr I Groom
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080687 - Erection of rear conservatory; adjacent 22 Connaught
Road for Mr P Marshall
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080838 - Retention of amateur radio mast and aerials; 25 Compit
Hills for Mr D G Edwards
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080489 - Conversion of garage/store to two-storey dwelling;
Garage/store adjacent 7 Colne Cottages The Croft for Mr A J Raby
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
52
31 July 2008
CROMER - 20080631 - Installation of internal doorway; 5 High Street for Mrs C
McGrath
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CROMER - 20080704 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; No. 2
Boathouse Promenade for Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
CROMER - 20080754 - Change of use from A2 (financial and professional
services) to D1 (chiropodist); 28 Louden Road for Miss K Flynn
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080774 - Erection of rear conservatory; 6 Court Drive for Mr J
Malley
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080798 - Erection of extension and re-arrangement of car parking;
Cromer Crab Factory 33 Holt Road for The Seafood Company
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20080827 - Erection of sprinkler tank and pump housing; Homebase
Ltd Holt Road for Hargreaves Estate and Management Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - 20080680 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Mole End
Eagle Road for Mrs C Jope
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - 20080603 - Erection of first floor extension; The Old Post office 1
Beech Close for Mr and Mrs H Englestone
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - 20080721 - Internal alterations to unblock former doorway; 2
Stable Yard Gunton Hall White Post Road for Mr and Mrs Dawson-Smith
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HAPPISBURGH - 20080735 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and side
extension with attached garage; Field Fare Whimpwell Street for Mr Dye
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - 20080690 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Between Golden
Gables and Harrow Weald Staithe Road for Mr and Mrs Pratt
(Outline Planning Permission)
HORNING - 20080781 - Erection of replacement garage; Alder Tree Cottage 109
Lower Street for Mr Shingler
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20080716 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 55 Waveney
Drive for Mr and Mrs F Popey
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - 20080745 - Erection of single-storey extension; Fritton Cottage
Fritton Road for Mr M Monk
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
53
31 July 2008
MUNDESLEY - 20080712 - Erection of bicycle/garden store; Seaview House
Hotel Paston Road for Mr J Flowerdew
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - 20080829 - Change of use from village hall to dwelling; Victory
Hall The Street for Trustees of Victory Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080725 - Erection of rear extension; 2a and 2b Stanford
Tuck Road for Mr P Beck
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080732 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extension; 9 Millfield Road for Mr D Mortimer
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080736 - Conversion of former office to dwelling; 23
Grammar School Road for Mr C Bird
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080741 - Installation of advertisement; 30 Market Place
for Nationwide Building Society
(Alteration to Listed Building)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080797 - Change of use from first floor residential to B1
(office); 5a Market Street for Mindcom
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080809 - Alterations to facilitate formation of two
additional units; 2a and 2b Stanford Tuck Road for Mr P Beck
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - 20080742 - Change of use of redundant farm building to two
units of holiday accommodation; The Old Rectory Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs
Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - 20080743 - Change of use of redundant agricultural building to
one unit of holiday accommodation; Barn at New Road Crossdale Street for Mr
and Mrs Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20080432 - Erection of single-storey front and side extensions;
Steelbanks 1 Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs A J Nash
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20080472 - Erection of smoke-house chimney; Garage and
Workshop rear of 22-24 High Street for Mr R L West
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20080504 - Change of use of former poultry shed to B8
(storage); Station Farm Station Approach Cromer Road for Mr A Kirkham
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20080738 - Retention of rear dormer window; 33 High Street
for Mr and Mrs Chadwick
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
54
31 July 2008
OVERSTRAND - 20080750 - Erection of rear conservatory and replacement
garage; Grange Lodge Coast Road for Mr K Gee
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - 20080795 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and
installation of solar pv and thermal roof mounted panels; Olaf House Church
Road for Mr N Prior
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20080558 - Use of land for siting five static caravans; Six Acres
Caravan site Norwich Road for Mr N M Julian
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - 20080787 - Erection of first floor side extension; 10 Orchard
Close for Mr D Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - 20080746 - Erection of single-storey and first floor rear extensions;
Shire View Water Lane West Runton for Mr and Mrs Sheridan
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - 20080755 - Continued use of land and buildings for the
storage, preparation, maintenance and repair of watercraft and boats; Keith
Farm Clink Lane for Mr G Deary
(Full Planning Permission)
SKEYTON - 20080840 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Beech Farm Felmingham Road for R W Randell and Sons
(Prior Notification)
SLOLEY - 20080803 - Erection of rear conservatory; 12 Burley Road for Mr and
Mrs Strong
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - 20080731 - Erection of conservatory; Old Hall Cottage Hall
Road for Miss J Platt
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - 20080749 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
one unit of holiday accommodation; Fen Lane Wayford Road for Mr J Green
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20080642 - Retention of residential caravan; Greenways
Thorpe Road for Southrepps Development Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - 20080700 - Erection of two-storey side extension and front
porch; 5 Long Lane for Mr and Mrs Manning
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20080396 - Erection of a part single part two-storey block of seven
flats; land off Bank Street for Terry Boddy Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20080780 - Erection of single-storey extension and dormer
extension; 2 Millside for Mr G Bucknell
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
55
31 July 2008
SUTTON - 20080530 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to three units of
holiday accommodation; Hall Farm Hall Road for Mr D Tatam
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - 20080775 - Erection of front and rear extensions; Green Tiles Moor
Road for Mrs M Cook
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080776 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Hulver Cottage The Street for Mr and Mrs R Butler
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080876 - Retention of en-suite bathroom and first floor
replacement windows; Lilac Farmhouse Long Common Road for Mr P Haynes
(Alteration to Listed Building)
TRIMINGHAM - 20080782 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Church
Farmhouse Church Street for Mr R Turner
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - 20080793 - Construction of outside seating area, boundary fence
and entrance porch; The Crown Public House Front Street for George Bateman
and Son Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - 20080737 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Sunnybrae
Anchor Street for Mr M Hurst
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20080685 - Erection of replacement single-storey extension and
conservatory; Heathview The Street Ridlington for Mr R Mills
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20080792 - Erection of conservatory extension to approved dwelling;
plot 4 Manor Works Heath Road Ridlington for Admiral Construction (UK)
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20080853 - Erection of single-storey extension; Church Barn
Happisburgh Road Ridlington for Mr A Perryman
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - 20080854 - Erection of single-storey extension; Church Barn
Happisburgh Road Ridlington for Mr A Perryman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WORSTEAD - 20080525 - Use of land for electricity equipment compound; H J
Heinz and Co Ltd Station Road for EDF Energy
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - 20080801 - Erection of acoustic screen; Heinz Frozen and Chilled
Foods Station Road for Heinz Frozen and Chilled Foods
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
56
31 July 2008
14.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
MUNDESLEY - 20080683 - Raising of roof by 1.6m to provide first floor
accommodation; 4 Albion Road for Mr D Fernandez
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - 20080786 - Retention of first floor extension; Old School House
Waxham Road for Mr T R Etheridge
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - 20080589 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Blackberry Hall Blackberry Hall Lane for Mr E G Harrison
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
15.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - 20071939 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling; 28 Hillside
for Mr J Carly
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
MUNDESLEY - 20071869 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage; 40
Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs F V Cousins
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071764 - Erection of seventeen flats and one singlestorey dwelling; 48-50 Bacton Road for P and N Developments Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080124 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at The
Conifers Cross Road for Mr R G J Wallace
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080447 - Erection of a pair of semi-detached twostorey dwellings; land adjacent The White Cottage Aylsham Road for Mr M
Chipperfield
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
16.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071135 - Residential development; land at Cromer Road
and Bradfield Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071136 - Residential development; land at former
Marricks Wire Ropes Cromer Road for Norfolk Homes Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20070243 - Erection of 4 terraced dwellings; land
adjacent former Weavers Arms Aylsham Road for Horning Properties
INFORMAL HEARING 24 Jun 2008
Development Control Committee (East)
57
31 July 2008
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20071469 - Erection of three detached houses; land
adjacent to Ex Weavers Arms Aylsham Road for Horning Properties
INFORMAL HEARING 24 Jun 2008
17.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
CROMER - 20071320 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission reference
20050527; Fletcher Hospital Roughton Road for Mr S A Sheikh
MUNDESLEY - 20071149 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at 20
Beckmeadow Way for Mr and Mrs D Spinks
SITE VISIT :- 29 Jul 2008
MUNDESLEY - 20071272 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 39-41
Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs Briggs/Mr and Mrs Roberts
MUNDESLEY - 20071338 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and stables and
erection of eight two-storey dwellings; 17 Marina Road for Mrs P Smith
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071806 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling; 1
Woodbine Close for Miss J Dyble
RUNTON - 20071542 - Erection of rear dormer window; Inglewood Bungalow
High Street East Runton for Mr and Mrs R Brownsell
SUFFIELD - 01/097/DEV6/07/001 - Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D and M
Hickling Properties Ltd
SUFFIELD - 20071381 - Conversion of barns to six units of holiday
accommodation; Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D and M Hickling Properties
Limited
WORSTEAD - 20080029 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land rear of 30 and
32 Honing Row for Worstead Farms Limited
18.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BACTON - 20071293 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; land at Sea Holly
Kimberley Road for Mr S Norman
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
MUNDESLEY - 01/071/DEV6/07/005 - Authorised enforcement action for
removal of unauthorised flue; 32 High Street for Halit Kol
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
OVERSTRAND - 20071678 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage;
Beckhythe Cottage 3 High Street for Mr and Mrs Aylward
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
OVERSTRAND - 20071879 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at 3 Cromer
Road for Mr and Mr P Eden
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (East)
58
31 July 2008