OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 3 JANUARY 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control 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.
HOLT - 200510518 – Change of use of land to car and coach park, formation of
access and erection of toilet block; land adjacent to Thornage Road for Mr G F
Chapman
Report recommending that Members of both the East and West Development
Control Committees visit the site prior to consideration of the application at a
subsequent a meeting of the Combined Development Control Committee.
Background
At the meeting of the former Joint Development Control Committee (East and West)
on 19 January 2006 it was resolved that the Head of Planning and Building Control
be authorised to approve the application for the change of use of land to a public car
park and the formation of a new access at land adjacent to Thornage Road Holt.
This delegated approval was subject to:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the receipt of amended plans providing a right hand turn lane;
no new grounds of objection being received following re-advertisement and reconsultation on the amended plans;
off-site highways improvements to Valley Lane (pedestrian safety works);
provision of four coach parking spaces;
details of levels, lighting and landscaping;
the submission of surface water drainage details; and
the imposition of appropriate conditions to include drainage and pollution
controls.
Revised plans have now been received from the applicant’s agent which seek to
address the above requirements and also show a toilet block to the north eastern
corner of the site.
The amended proposals have been re-advertised and re-consultation has taken
place.
In view of the sensitive nature of the site and the fact that further objections have
been received, it is the intended to report the matter to a meeting of the Combined
Development Control Committee on 31 January 2008.
However, given the lapse of time since the previous meeting of the Joint
Development Control Committee and the fact that some Members may not be
familiar with the site, it is recommended that Members of both the East and West
Committees visit the site prior to a report being presented to a Combined
Development Control Committee meeting on 31 January 2008.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
3 January 2008
RECOMMENDATION:That Members of the Combined Development Control Committee visit the site.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference: 20050518)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
Validation procedures for the new standard national planning application
forms – adoption of a list of local requirements for North Norfolk District
Council
Report explaining the introduction of the new standard planning application forms
and seeking agreement, for consultation purposes, on a local list of validation
requirements applicable to North Norfolk.
Background
Following consultation the Government has now introduced a series of national
planning application forms which will become mandatory on 6 April 2008. Historically
Local Planning Authorities (LPA‘s) have designed their own application forms and the
Government was concerned that this has led to a wide variation in the information
authorities sought from applicants.
The new standard application forms will cover the following types of application:
• Householder Permission
• Outline and Full Planning Permission and Approval of Reserved Matters.
• Listed Building Consent
• Conservation Area Consent
• Advertisement Consent
• Consent under Tree Preservation Orders
• Lawful Development Certificates
• Application for Prior Notifications under the General Permitted Development
Order 1995
• Removal or Variation of Conditions
The forms themselves are more comprehensive than those currently used and
require a greater amount of information to be provided. There are in total twentyseven different types of standard application forms. Many of the forms combine
different types of applications required for a single development. For example, at
present an applicant may need to complete two different application forms for
Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent. There will now be one unique
form to combine both of these requirements.
Applicants will be able to complete and send the forms electronically via the Planning
Portal or alternatively by means of hard copies available at local authority offices or
down loaded from their websites.
As part of this new process, beginning in April the Government is increasing the
discretion available to LPA‘s in assessing whether applications are sufficient in terms
of their content for validation purposes. Research undertaken on behalf of the
Government in 2003 found that there was a wide variation in the information
requested by planning authorities and the level of detail that was considered
acceptable. The Government’s intention is that there should not only be consistency
in the application forms themselves, but also in the nature of supporting details that
LPA‘s require in order to register an application.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
3 January 2008
As part of this initiative the Government has now published (December 2007)
guidance for LPA’s entitled ‘The Validation of Planning Applications’. In it the
Government has introduced a national list and local list of requirements. The
national list, which is applicable to all LPA’s, includes the completed application form,
the appropriate fee, adequate plans, completed certificates and a design and access
statement (when required). The local list can comprise a range of additional
information which LPA’s can adopt for validation purposes. The guidance specifies a
national list of local requirements which defines the types of supporting information
which LPA’s should draw from in preparing their own local lists. It is emphasized that
not all the types of information will be applicable to every local authority area and in
the case of many requirements thresholds will need to be specified as to when they
should apply.
The Government states that the purpose of the new validation arrangements is to;
• provide a guide to the information that may be required at the outset;
• enable the LPA to provide applicants with certainty as to the information
required;
• enable the LPA to have all the necessary information to determine the
application and to draft the planning permission and all conditions;
• minimize the need for further submission of additional information in order to
allow LPA’s a reasonable opportunity to determine applications within Best
Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 109 targets; and
• ensure consistency in the approach taken by different LPA’s in registering
and validating applications whilst recognizing the need for variation
appropriate to local circumstances.
The Government will shortly be amending the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) Order 1995 to incorporate these procedures in legislation.
The Adoption of a Local List of Requirements
The Government makes it clear that LPA’s should undertake consultation before
adopting a local list of requirements. It recommends that firstly there should be a
resolution by the relevant Committee to consult on a specified list; hence the purpose
of this report. It is further recommended that the consultation should be for a
minimum period of six weeks involving relevant stakeholders. These it is suggested
should include appropriate statutory consultees, Town and Parish Councils, amenity
societies and agents who submit applications to the LPA. Once the consultation is
completed, responses received should be reviewed and reported back to the relevant
Committee in order for a local list to be formally adopted.
Where a LPA has consulted and adopted a local list in accordance with the
recommended procedures, it can be used as the local requirements when validating
applications. There is no statutory deadline for the adoption of local lists, but unless
and until a LPA publishes a local list on its website any local requirements will have
no bearing on the validity of applications and compliance with the national
requirements will be sole determinant of whether or not an application is valid.
Recommended Local List of Requirements for North Norfolk District Council
In Appendix 1 of this report there is a checklist and accompanying guidance notes
which indicate the list of recommended local requirements for this Council. These
requirements are shown in the left hand column of the checklist and the columns
along the top relate to each of the new standard planning application forms. The
checklist indicates for each application type if a particular requirement is required, is
not required or may be required. In the majority of cases the particular requirements
‘may be’ required and to establish this reference has to be made to the
accompanying guidance notes. It is suggested that Members refer to the guidance
Development Control Committee (West)
3
3 January 2008
notes as a convenient explanation of the requirements which are recommended as
forming this Council’s local list. The guidance notes explain for what type of
proposals and in what circumstances each requirement will be necessary.
Reference is also made to the relevant LDF Core Strategy Policies and National
Planning Guidance associated with each requirement.
All but two of the recommended requirements are ones which are included in the
Government’s national list of local requirements. The exceptions are an energy
efficiency statement and a sustainable construction statement. These are included
as they relate to specific current policy requirements in the LDF Core Strategy.
However, it is questionable whether the inclusion of additional requirements such as
these, which are not included in the national list of local requirements, will comply
with legislation being introduced for purposes of validation. Clarification will be
sought from the Government Office during the consultation period.
Conversely, it is not recommended that the North Norfolk list comprises all of the
requirements referred to in the Government’s recommended list.
Those
requirements not recommended to be included in the North Norfolk local list are
referred to in Appendix 1 with the reasons for their exclusion. Members may wish to
consider whether they agree with these requirements being omitted from the North
Norfolk list and indeed whether they agree with all the requirements that are being
recommended.
It should be noted that the Government guidance states that authorities should
review their lists every three years. Consultation should take place on any
amendments unless they are of a minor nature.
Proposed Consultation Arrangements
This report is also to be considered by the Development Control Committee (East) on
10 January 2008. Following agreement by both Committees on a draft local list for
North Norfolk it is recommended that a six week period of consultation is undertaken.
It is recommended that the following are consulted and that details of the consultation
are posted on the Council’s website:
• Norfolk Association of Town and Parish Councils
• Commission for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE)
• Environment Agency
• Natural England
• County Highway Authority
• Local Planning Agents
The next planning agents’ meeting is arranged for 22 January 2008 when the
proposed local list will be the main topic for discussion.
The current intention is to report back to Members in March on the response to the
consultation exercise with a view to adopting formally the local list of requirements for
North Norfolk in time for the mandatory use of the standard planning application
forms on 6 April 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members agree to the requirements referred to in Appendix 1 as forming
this Council’s list of local requirements for consultation purposes and that
consultation is undertaken in accordance with the arrangements referred to in
this report.
Source: (John Williams, Extn 6163 - File Reference: One App)
Development Control Committee (West)
4
3 January 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.
BLAKENEY - 20071556 - Erection of first floor extension to annexe; Rodmell
Westgate Street for Prof N Affara
Target Date :03 Dec 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
The addition of a pitched roof to existing detached flat roofed garage/annexe to
provide two bedrooms and a shower room.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous Committee meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object. Overdevelopment of the site resulting in two individual and totally separate
dwellings. The plot is only suitable for one. Highways/access concerns - the only
entrance/exit point is on the corner of a heavily congested street which houses the
Spar shop/post office. Indeed the access point is located on the same site as the
entrance to the shop's storage facility. Further vehicles trying to access the property
would add extra burden and congestion.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - I have reservations about the acceptability of this
proposed significant extension of what presently appears to be single room
accommodation.
Any additional vehicular generation at this location being undesirable due to the
restricted visibility available at the access onto Westgate/High Street and limited
available on-site parking/manoeuvring facilities.
However, notwithstanding the above, should your Authority be satisfied that the
proposal relates to ancillary accommodation only and a condition is appended to any
consent notice restricting the use accordingly, I feel any objection would be difficult to
sustain in the circumstances.
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 (West)
5
3 January 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
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).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
2. Highway safety and convenience.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to enable Members to visit the site.
The application site lies at the western edge of the Conservation Area on land
designated as residential in the Local Plan. The present annexe is a modern flatroofed structure situated approximately 2m to the front/side of the present dwelling.
Immediately to the north of the annexe is a commercial storage building which shares
an access onto Westgate Street with the application property.
The proposed development would raise the height of the structure from
approximately 3m to a new ridge height of approximately 6.5m. All new external wall
sections are to be of black stained horizontal boarding and clay pantiles are
proposed for the roof. The resulting building would be more visible from Westgate
Street than the present structure but the appearance would not be inappropriate. The
appearance and character of this part of the designated Conservation Area would be
preserved in compliance with Local Plan Policy 42. The development would relate
satisfactorily to all surrounding properties.
The enhanced annexe accommodation would generate no additional requirement for
off-street parking providing it continues to be used solely for purposes which are
ancillary to and in connection with the existing dwelling. Members will note that
County Council Highways are raising no objection on this basis.
The proposals accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes which
are incidental to the use of the property as a dwellinghouse and shall not be used as
a separate dwellinghouse.
3) No development shall be commenced until precise details of the clay pantile to be
used in the construction of the roof of the building have been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall then be
constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
3 January 2008
4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that
Order) no further window shall, at any time, be inserted in the west elevation of the
development hereby permitted.
REASONS:2) The close relationship of the proposed accommodation and the existing dwelling is
such that two separate dwelling units would not be appropriate in terms of Policy 13
(a)(x) of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) 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.
4) To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy 13, criterion (a) (x) of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan as amplified by
paragraphs 3.31-3.36 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4.
BRISTON - 20071520 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide one and
a half storey living accommodation and double garage; Acorn Lodge Macks
Loke for Dr and Mrs Brueggemann
Target Date :27 Nov 2007
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion and extension of an existing garage to provide one and a half
storey additional living accommodation and double garage.
The proposed extension would be located to the east of the existing dwelling and
measure approximately 5.5m in length, 8m in width and 5.8m in height to the ridge of
the roof. The extension would be constructed approximately 1m from the boundary
with the neighbouring dwelling to the east.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wyatt having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact upon neighbouring property.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received of which a copy is contained in Appendix 2
raising the following points:
1. There will only be approximately 4m between extension and The Tin House
adjacent.
2. Two windows in the lounge and one in the main bedroom will look directly on to
the extension at close proximity.
3. Will impact on the quality of living.
4. An existing high hedge already creates loss of light to The Tin House, but a hedge
can be discussed between neighbours the garage extension is final and absolute.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
3 January 2008
5. If a garage were to be built within 1m of the boundary this would further darken the
lounge of The Tin House.
6. It will block out any additional light.
7. Concerns over noise and pollution as garage will be so close to main windows of
The Tin House.
8. Loss of privacy as garage window will look directly into the windows of The Tin
House.
9. Overlooking.
A letter has been received from the applicants in response to the objections raised. A
copy of the letter is contained in Appendix 2 and relates to the proximity of the
neighbouring property to the application site, loss of light, noise and pollution and
loss of privacy where the applicants have advised they could remove the garage
window.
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
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).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Briston where extensions to
dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle providing they are appropriate
in terms of their relationship to nearby properties and accord with other policies in the
Local Plan.
The proposed garage extension would be located to the east of the existing dwelling,
adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring property of No.25 Macks Loke, which
is also known as The Tin House. There is an existing high hedge along the eastern
boundary of the site which would need to be removed in order to erect the extension
and allow pedestrian access to the rear of the property. There would be a window to
the garage in the eastern elevation of the proposed extension facing the neighbour
who has three windows facing the application site which are to a living room and
bedroom.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
3 January 2008
The distance between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property to the
east would not comply with the basic amenity criteria. The recommended distance in
the basic amenity criteria is 9m. The actual distance would be approximately 4m,
which is a shortfall of 5m.
However, despite the shortfall in the basic amenity criteria it is considered that the
relationship between the two properties would be acceptable, as the window facing
the neighbouring dwelling would be to a garage and a 2m high fence could be
erected along the boundary which would obscure views between the properties.
Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling to
the east. The applicants have offered to delete this window from the scheme but
Officers do not consider it necessary.
Furthermore, it is considered that the scale and design of the proposed extension
would be in keeping with that of the existing dwelling.
It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable and accords with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no window or opening shall be inserted in the first floor of the
eastern elevation of the development hereby permitted unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Materials to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan, as amplified by paragraphs
3.31-3.36 of the explanatory text.
3) In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily
with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk
Local Plan.
5.
FAKENHAM - 20071589 - Erection of two semi-detached single-storey
dwellings; land at 9 The Drift for London and Norfolk Developments Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :10 Dec 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
See also 20071590 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20051715 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings
Refused, 26 Jan 2006
Appeal Allowed, 20 Jun 2006
Development Control Committee (West)
9
3 January 2008
THE APPLICATION
Subdivision of residential curtilage and erection of two semi-detached bungalows to
the rear of an existing bungalow in a tandem arrangement accessed by a private
drive leading from The Drift. This application seeks approval of all reserved matters
except access pursuant to the outline permission granted on appeal under reference
20051715.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Lisher having regard to the following planning issues:
1. The Drift is an unmade private road which is unsuitable to accommodate further
traffic.
2. The present agreement with the developer of the housing site opposite will result
in only part of The Drift being improved. Allowing further development will only
exacerbate problems on the remaining unmade section. The whole road should be
made up.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from a nearby resident (summarised):
1. Dwellings are too close to neighbours and disused railway line.
2. Geese in neighbouring garden could cause nuisance to the occupiers of the new
dwellings potentially infringing the human rights of their owners.
3. The site has a history of problems with rodents.
4. Construction traffic will further degrade the surface of the Drift and should be
restricted to the northern route.
5. A contribution should be sought from the developer for the adoption of the
southern section of The Drift.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - I have no objection to this proposal, the principle of the
development already having been established on this site by a previous outline
application (20051715).
Conditions relating to access, visibility splays and parking were appended to the
outline permission which was granted at appeal.
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Development Control Committee (West)
10
3 January 2008
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on neighbouring properties.
2. Highway safety and convenience.
APPRAISAL
This site is designated as residential in the Local Plan and benefits from an outline
permission for two single-storey dwellings allowed on appeal in 2006. Means of
access was the only detailed matter approved at outline stage. The current proposals
would result in two bungalows in the approximate position of the dwellings shown on
the indicative plan which accompanied the outline application. The access and
turning arrangements remain unchanged except for the introduction of a pair of
garages sited at the edge of the approved turning area within the site.
The current proposals envisage a pair of two-bedroom bungalows in red brick with
roofs of clay pantile. The design of the buildings and the proposed materials are
considered appropriate as is the relationship to neighbouring dwellings. Existing
hedges/fences are to be retained on the party boundaries. The proposals comply
with the Local Plan Basic Amenity Criteria in all respects including garden sizes.
The comments raised by the nearby resident are noted, but since outline permission
has already been granted for the development of the site a refusal based on the
principle of the development cannot now be substantiated. Similarly in the absence of
any objection from County Council Highways or any relevant conditions on the
outline permission and since the access arrangements for the development have
already been approved on appeal it is not considered that it would be legitimate to
require a developer contribution to fund the adoption of the remaining unimproved
section of the private road serving the site.
The proposal accords with Development Plan policy and is recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) The external materials to be used on the development hereby approved shall be in
full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Prior to the first occupation of either of the dwellings hereby approved the access
and parking area shall be hardsurfaced in accordance with precise details which shall
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
beforehand. Thereafter these areas shall be permanently retained as such to the
satisfaction of 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 other alteration to the either of the
dwellings hereby approved (including the insertion of additional windows in external
walls and roofs) shall take place unless planning permission has been first granted
by the Local Planning Authority.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
3 January 2008
5) Prior to the first occupation of either of the dwellings hereby permitted details of
the proposed means of waste disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. Waste disposal shall thereafter be undertaken in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to
retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the
approved development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) To ensure safe access to the site and to minimise noise and disturbance to
neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North Norfolk
Local Plan.
4) The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
5) To protect nearby residents from smell and airborne pollution in accordance with
Policy 16 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan as amplified by paragraphs 5.215.26 of the explanatory text.
6.
FAKENHAM - 20071590 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of two semidetached dwellings; land at 9 The Drift for London and Norfolk Developments
Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :10 Dec 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20071589 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20051715 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings
Refused, 26 Jan 2006
Appeal Allowed, 20 Jun 2006
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of bungalow and erection of two semi-detached three-bedroom two-storey
dwellings with walls of red brick and roofs of red clay pantiles. The rear wall of the
proposed dwellings would be set on the same alignment as the rear wall of the
existing bungalow. Rear gardens of approx 12.5 m depth would be provided for each
dwelling. Two parking spaces are proposed to the front. The point of vehicular
access would be shared with that serving the proposed development to the rear (see
application 20071589).
Development Control Committee (West)
12
3 January 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Lisher having regard to the following planning issues:
1. The Drift is an unmade private road which is unsuitable to accommodate further
traffic.
2. The present agreement with the developer of the housing site opposite will result
in only part of The Drift being improved. Allowing further development will only
exacerbate problems on the remaining unmade section. The whole road should be
made up.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from a nearby resident (summarised):
1. Dwellings are too close to neighbours and disused railway line.
2. Geese in neighbouring garden could cause nuisance to the occupiers of the new
dwellings potentially infringing the human rights of their owners.
3. The site has a history of problems with rodents.
4. Construction traffic will further degrade the surface of the Drift and should be
restricted to the northern route.
5. A contribution should be sought from the developer for the adoption of the
southern section of The Drift.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - With consideration of the previous Highway response to
development to the rear of this site (20051715) and the subsequent appeal
inspector's comments in relation to that application I have no objection to this further
proposal.
Append standard conditions to secure satisfactory construction of access, provision
of a 2m parallel visibility splay and provision/retention of the proposed off-street
parking.
Environmental Health - Append standard conditions requiring prior approval of refuse
storage arrangements and external lighting.
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
13
3 January 2008
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on neighbouring properties.
2. Highway safety and convenience.
APPRAISAL
This site is designated as residential in the Local Plan. Outline permission was
granted in 2006 to build two bungalows in the rear garden. The reserved matters
application submitted pursuant to this permission is currently under consideration
(see report above).
This application seeks permission to demolish the present bungalow and replace it
with two dwellings in addition to the two for which permission is being sought to the
rear (see application reference 20071589, also on this agenda). The appearance of
the dwellings would not be out of keeping within this frontage of mixed architectural
styles. Impact on neighbouring properties is acceptable and the development
complies with the Local Plan Basic Amenity Criteria throughout.
The comments raised by the nearby resident are noted. However, it is not considered
that there are any justifiable reasons to refuse permission given the satisfactory
design and relationship to neighbouring properties. In the absence of any objection
from County Council Highways and bearing in mind the relatively minor nature of the
proposed development (one additional dwelling) it is not considered that it would be
reasonable to require a developer contribution to fund the adoption of the remaining
unimproved section of the private road serving the site.
The proposal accords with Development Plan policy and is recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be in
full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Prior to the first occupation of either of the dwellings hereby permitted the
vehicular access shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council
residential access construction specification for the first 5m into the site as measured
back from the near edge of the adjacent carriageway.
4) Prior to the first occupation of either of the dwellings 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.
5) Prior to the first occupation of either of the dwellings hereby permitted the
proposed access and on-site parking area shall be laid out and demarcated in
accordance with the approved plan. They shall be retained thereafter for those
specific uses.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
3 January 2008
6) Prior to the first occupation of either of the dwellings hereby permitted the access
and parking area shall be hardsurfaced in accordance with precise details which shall
have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing
beforehand.
7) Prior to the first occupation of either of the dwellings hereby permitted details of
the proposed means of waste disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. Waste disposal shall thereafter be undertaken in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to
retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the
approved development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy 147 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) 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.
6) To ensure safe access to the site and to minimise noise and disturbance to
neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North Norfolk
Local Plan.
7) To protect nearby residents from smell and airborne pollution in accordance with
Policy 16 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan as amplified by paragraphs 5.215.26 of the explanatory text.
7.
HIGH KELLING - 20070888 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Far End
Vale Road for Mr and Mrs G Rudd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :20 Jul 2007
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
See also 20070889 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061284 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two dwellings and one unit of
holiday accommodation
Refused, 04 Oct 2006
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of a two-storey dwelling, with means of access, layout and
landscaping only for consideration. Appearance and scale are reserved matters.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
3 January 2008
It is proposed that the dwelling would be located to the north-west corner of the site.
An amended plan has been received showing the site accessed off Warren Road,
rather than Bridge Road/Vale Road.
A further amended plan and tree survey have been submitted to show the position of
the trees in relation to the driveway.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Following deferral of the application at the last meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response was received regarding the plans as originally submitted.
With regard to the amended plans the Parish Council object on the same grounds as
the previous application 20061284 including the following:1. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
2. Open Space.
3. Does not enhance the area.
4. Concerns over access to Warren Road.
5. Oak tree at the proposed Warren Road entrance would have to be felled, we
object to this.
6. Infill/ backland development.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twelve letters of objection have been received from local residents, five of which are
from one objector, two from another and a further two from another objector, raising
the following points:1. The village does not need any more housing.
2. Query whether the services will cope with extra dwellings.
3. Will adversely affect the tranquil nature of the area.
4. Question the need for further holiday accommodation.
5. Only access should be Bridge Road, not Vale Road or Warren Road.
6. Vale Road and Warren Road are privately owned.
7. Construction traffic should be from Bridge Road.
8. A sum of money should be set aside to restore Warren Road following
construction.
9. Infill.
10. This is a garden. How can it be classed as a brown field site?
11. The Councils own Local Plan designates that small villages will have no infill, this
is your core strategy.
12. The previous application for development of this garden was unanimously turned
down because of this policy.
13. Loss of trees.
14. Increase in noise disturbance.
15. Loss of privacy.
16. Impact upon residential amenity.
17. Loss and impact on wildlife.
18. Trees subject to Tree Preservation Order.
19. Traffic noise from access running to rear of properties.
20. Highway safety.
21. Will detract from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty status.
22. Set a precedent for future development.
23. Not needed, already an abundance of unoccupied properties.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
3 January 2008
24. Access at the junction with Warren Road and Warren Close is an accident
waiting to happen.
25. Due to noise and pollution a substantial and aesthetically pleasing fence should
be erected to rear of 11 Warren Road and to side of driveway of 12 Warren Road.
26. Existing homes predominantly single-storey.
27. Development in this area is contrary to an Area of Outstanding natural Beauty.
28. Infringement of human rights.
29. Questions to answer regarding the ownership of the strip of land to be used as
access.
30. Request a site meeting.
31. Incomplete as to layout and access.
32. Contrary to Policy.
33. Adverse amenity issues for adjoining properties.
34. Uncertainty as to the scale and footprint of the dwellings in a precious woodland
environment.
35. Under estimated highway access and safety issues both of the junction with
Bridge Road and of the junction of Warren Road and Warren Close.
36. Further threat to trees and woodland areas.
37. Inappropriate two-storey dwelling.
The agent has confirmed that it is intended to retain the oak tree adjacent to the
Warren Road access. The access would be stopped off at a point 'A' marked on the
amended plan and no vehicle would be allowed to travel further than that point to
avoid any damage to the trees. The plot would be enclosed by a 1m and 2m high
fencing so that the only access would be via Warren Road. A tree schedule has also
been submitted confirming which trees are to be retained and which are to be
removed in relation to this plot.
A further tree survey has been carried out and amended plan submitted to show the
position of the trees in relation to the proposed driveway. The agent has also
confirmed that it is not the intention to stop up permanently the Vale Road access.
The agent has submitted an amended plan seeking to provide a solution to the
access of the site by a fire appliance, taking into consideration the tree protection
constraints.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Original comments):The application follows previous discussion about the suitability of the site for
development in respect of the extensive tree cover and the presence of a Tree
Preservation Order on the site. There is no objection to the proposed development;
however in order to protect the trees on the site the plan illustrating the location of the
dwelling needs to be accompanied by a Tree Survey which accounts for the numbers
of trees on the plan. Conditions required regarding protection of trees during the
course of construction and retention of the trees shown on the approved plan.
Comments on first set of amended plans: No objection to the amended plans subject
to the same conditions as requested in original comments as well as a condition
specifying a no-dig driveway and submission of an acceptable plan showing the drive
in relation to the oak tree, and that the driveway should be at least 1m from the tree.
Comments on second set of amended plans: No objection subject to conditions as
specified above.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
3 January 2008
County Council (Highways) - Original comments: Although the means of access is
referred to in the Design and Access Statement as being from Bridge Road only, this
is not included within the ‘red line’ of the application. Additionally there should be no
possibility of vehicular access being from Vale Road and I would therefore ask that
the applicants' agent demonstrate how this is to be achieved.
Comments on amended plans: I note that the intention is to serve this proposed
dwelling from Warren Road with restrictions imposed by mature trees meaning that
vehicles will have to reverse to, and from Warren Road to park within the site
curtilage. Crucially it is indicated that the intention is to permanently close the existing
access to Vale Road to both this proposed dwelling and the existing dwellings on the
site, 'Far End' and 'Edgewood'. This being the case I have no objection to the
granting of permission subject to a condition confirming that access to this dwelling is
from Warren Road only and that vehicular access to 'Far End' and 'Edgewood' is
from Bridge Road only and that the Vale Road access is permanently stopped up.
Further to the agent's comments that the Vale Road access would not be
permanently stopped up the Highway Authority has advised that unlike the dwelling
proposed under application reference 20070889, this part of the site could
realistically be isolated so vehicular access could only be taken from Warren Road.
This being the case, I have no objection to this application. A condition is required
stating access from Warren Road only and details of a boundary treatment to be
erected around the site should be submitted and agreed preventing any other means
of vehicular access whatsoever to the site.
Building Control Manager - Consideration should be given to provide a turning area
suitable for fire appliances. Also the approach from Warren Road should be a
minimum width of 3.7m and the entrance splayed to allow fire appliances access.
The driveway should be capable of 18 tonne axle capacity.
Further comments - Having re-examined the site plans it appears there are several
existing roads close enough to the sites to enable the local fire appliances to get
within 45m of the whole site. I am therefore happy to retract by previous comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 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 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Development Control Committee (West)
18
3 January 2008
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on trees subject to Tree Preservation Order.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
5. Access and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for Members to visit the
site.
In October 2006 planning permission was refused for the erection of two dwellings
and one unit of holiday accommodation at the same site, on the grounds that the
application failed to provide sufficient information in order for the Local Planning
Authority to assess the likely impact on trees located within an Area Tree
Preservation Order and that the potential loss of significant protected trees would be
detrimental to the appearance of this part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
and to the amenities of the area in general. The proposal was also considered to be
out of character with the predominantly linear form of development in this part of High
Kelling and would fail to enhance its character. Furthermore, the access off Vale
Road directly onto the Cromer Road (A148) was considered unsuited to any further
intensification of vehicular use due to its poor construction, lack of turning facilities
and principally its severely substandard visibility onto the A148.
The current application is for the erection of one two-storey dwelling with a related
application 20070889 for a further single-storey dwelling to the east of the site.
Therefore, the number of units has been reduced and information has now been
provided regarding the trees on the site (in particular their location in order to assess
the impact of the proposal on the trees) and the agent has confirmed that the
proposed dwelling for consideration under this application would be served off
Warren Road.
The site is located within the residential policy area of the selected small village of
High Kelling, where residential development for individual or small groups of houses
(up to four) are permitted providing they enhance the character of the village and are
in accordance with other policies in the Local Plan. The principle of development on
this site is considered acceptable.
The site is also located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is subject to a
Tree Preservation Order and is adjacent to land designated as Open Land Area in
the Local Plan.
The site is well screened on the western and northern boundaries by existing tree
cover and planting. Thirteen trees are to be removed, but the Committee will note the
comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) who
has raised no objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
3 January 2008
In view of the site being well screened by trees and hedging it is considered that
there would not be a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the
occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, as appearance and scale are
matters reserved at this stage it is considered that a dwelling could be carefully
designed taking into consideration the positioning of windows to minimise any impact
on neighbouring dwellings.
Whilst the site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is not
positioned in an isolated location but is within the developed area of High Kelling. It is
therefore not considered that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental
impact on the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the
proposed access off Warren Road, subject to the imposition of conditions.
At the time of writing this report further discussions were taking place with the agent
regarding parking and turning facility on the site for the proposed dwelling. Members
will be updated orally regarding this matter. An amended plan showing the detailed
siting of the proposed dwelling has also been requested.
In summary, subject to no objections from the Parish Council the receipt of the
requested amended plans and the imposition of appropriate conditions it is
considered that the proposal is acceptable and accords with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the High Kelling
Parish Council, the receipt of amended plans in respect of siting and turning
and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
HIGH KELLING - 20070889 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at Far End
Vale Road for Mr and Mrs G Rudd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :20 Jul 2007
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
See also 20070888 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Consultation Area : Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061284 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two dwellings and one unit of
holiday accommodation
Refused, 04 Oct 2006
Development Control Committee (West)
20
3 January 2008
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of a single-storey dwelling proposed to be used for holiday
accommodation, with means of access, layout and landscaping only for consideration
at this stage. Appearance and scale are reserved matters.
It is proposed that the dwelling would be located to the north-east of the site located
behind the neighbouring dwelling known as 'Rosanna' also in the ownership of the
applicant.
An amended plan has been received from the agent showing a revised position of
the new access track linking the proposed dwelling to the existing access track which
leads to Bridge Road, rather than being served by an access from Vale Road. (The
agent has also confirmed that the access onto Vale Road would not be permanently
stopped up.)
A further tree survey has been carried out and the amended plan shows the position
of the trees in relation to the revised position of the access track.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Following deferral of the application at the last meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response was received regarding the plans as originally submitted.
With regard to the amended plans the Parish Council object on the same grounds as
the previous application 20061284 including the following:
1. Open Space.
2. Does not enhance the area.
3. Access across the open space is totally unacceptable.
4. Felling of two trees.
5. Concerns over additional vehicles on a single track.
6. Infill/backland development.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seven letters of objection have been received from local residents, two of which are
from one objector, and two from another raising the following points:1. The village does not need any more housing.
2. Query whether the services will cope with extra dwellings.
3. Will adversely affect the tranquil nature of the area.
4. Question the need for further holiday accommodation.
5. Only access should be Bridge Road, not Vale Road or Warren Road.
6. Vale Road and Warren Road are privately owned.
7. Construction traffic should be from Bridge Road.
8. A sum of money should be set aside to restore Warren Road following
construction.
9. Infill.
10. Loss of trees.
11. Increase in noise disturbance.
12. Loss and impact on wildlife.
13. Trees subject to Tree Preservation Order.
14. Highway safety.
15. Will detract from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty status.
16. Set a precedent for future development.
17. Request a site meeting.
18. Incomplete as to layout and access.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
3 January 2008
19. Contrary to Policy.
20. Adverse amenity issues for adjoining properties.
21. Uncertainty as to the scale and footprint of the dwellings in a precious woodland
environment.
22. Under estimated highway access and safety issues both at the junction with
Bridge Road, and at the junction of Warren Road and Warren Close.
23. Future threat to trees and woodland areas.
The agent has submitted an amended plan in relation to producing a solution to the
access of the site by a fire appliance taking into consideration the tree protection
constraints.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Original comments):
The application follows previous discussion about the suitability of the site for
development in respect of the extensive tree cover and the presence of a Tree
Preservation Order on the site. There is no objection to the proposed development,
but in order to protect the trees on the site the plan illustrating the location of the
dwelling needs to be accompanied by a Tree Survey which accounts for the numbers
of trees on the plan. Conditions required regarding protection of trees during the
course of construction and retention of the trees shown on the approved plan.
Comments on first set of amended plans: No objection to the amended plans subject
to the same conditions as requested in original comments as well as a condition
specifying a no-dig driveway and submission of an acceptable plan showing the
driveway in relation to the existing trees on the site.
Comments on second set of amended plans: No objection subject to conditions as
specified above.
County Council (Highways) - Original comments: A previous application at this
position on this large site 920061284) indicated access to be from Vale Road, a substandard private track with severely restricted visibility onto the A148, this means of
access was therefore considered unacceptable to the Highway Authority. The
present application suggests that access will be from Bridge Road only. However,
this is not indicated within the red line and furthermore, due to the position of the
proposed dwelling I would wish to see some physical barrier permanently erected on
the site to prevent, in any circumstances, vehicular access from Vale Road. The
above requirements should be clearly demonstrated on a suitably amended plan to
allow favourable comment.
Comments on amended plans: I note that the intention is to serve this proposed
dwelling from Bridge Road only. Crucially it is indicated that the intention is to
permanently close the existing access to Vale Road to both this proposed dwelling
and the existing dwellings on the site, 'Far End' and 'Edgewood'. This being the case
I have no objection to the granting of permission subject to a condition confirming
that access to this dwelling is from Bridge Road only and that the existing Vale Road
access is permanently stopped up in accordance with a detailed scheme to be
agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Further to the agent's comments that the Vale Road access would not be
permanently stopped up the Highway Authority has confirmed that as the location of
the application site would make it extremely difficult for any planning condition to
ensure access is from Bridge Road only, it is therefore possible for vehicle
associated with this proposed dwelling to use Vale Road. The Highway Authority has
Development Control Committee (West)
22
3 January 2008
previously sought to discourage any further vehicular use of the severely substandard and unadopted Vale Road, this view being recently supported by the
Planning Inspectorate in relation to planning application reference 20051986.
Therefore, as submitted, the application is unacceptable and should be refused on
the grounds that Vale Road, a private unsurfaced track serving the site, is considered
to be inadequate to cater for any further development whatsoever, by reason of its
substandard construction, lack of turning facilities and principally, its severely
restricted visibility onto Cromer Road (A148 Principal Route and Corridor of
Movement). The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions
detrimental to highway safety, contrary to North Norfolk District Council Local Plan
Policy 147. Should an amended application be presented which permanently stops
up any possible means of vehicular access to the application site from Vale Road
then the Highway Authority objection could be reconsidered.
Building Control Manager - A turning area of the current minimum size is needed on
the actual site. The access road should be 18 tonne axle capacity. The width of
access should be 3.7m with consideration of turning provision where access changes
direction and meets Bridge Road.
Further comments - Having re-examined the site plans it appears there are several
existing roads close enough to the site to enable the local fire appliances to get within
45m of the whole site. I am therefore happy to retract my previous comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 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 8: Open Land Areas (protected against general development - reserved for
leisure/recreation 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).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Control Committee (West)
23
3 January 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on trees subject to Tree Preservation Order.
3. Impact on Open Land Area.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
6. Access and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for Members to visit the site.
In October 2006 planning permission was refused for the erection of two dwellings
and one unit of holiday accommodation at the same site, on the grounds that the
application failed to provide sufficient information in order for the Local Planning
Authority to assess the likely impact on trees located within in Area Tree Preservation
Order and that the potential loss of significant protected trees would be detrimental to
the appearance of this part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to the
amenities of the area in general. The proposal was also considered to be out of
character with the predominantly linear form of development in this part of High
Kelling and would fail to enhance its character. Furthermore, the access off Vale
Road directly onto the Cromer Road (A148) was considered unsuited to any further
intensification of vehicular use due to its poor construction, lack of turning facilities
and principally its severely substandard visibility onto the A148.
The current application is for the erection one single-storey dwelling to be used for
holiday accommodation and the related application 20070888 for a two-storey
dwelling to the north west of the site. Therefore, the number of units has been
reduced and information has now been provided regarding the trees on the site (in
particular their location in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the trees)
and the agent has confirmed that the proposed dwelling for consideration under this
application would be served off Bridge Road, and that the Vale Road access would
not be permanently stopped up, as originally thought.
The site is located within the residential policy area of the selected small village of
High Kelling, where residential development for individual or small groups of houses
(up to four) are permitted providing they enhance the character of the village and are
in accordance with other policies in the Local Plan. The principle of development on
this site is considered acceptable.
The site is also located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is subject to a
Tree Preservation Order and the proposed access track is located within land
designated as Open Land Area in the Local Plan.
The site is well screened on the southern and eastern boundaries by existing tree
cover and planting. To the east of the site is a property known as 'Rosanna' which is
also in the ownership of the applicant. The Committee will note the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) who has raised no
objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
The amended plan shows the creation of a new track across the Open Land Area,
which would link up to the existing access track off Bridge Road which serves the two
existing dwellings on the site. The length of the reused part of the track would be
approximately 98m. It is considered that the new track would not have a significant
detrimental impact on the open character of the area. The Parish Council have been
reconsulted on the amended plan.
Development Control Committee (West)
24
3 January 2008
In view of the site being well screened by trees and hedging it is considered that
there would not be a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the
occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, as appearance and scale are
matters reserved at this stage it is considered that a dwelling could be carefully
designed taking into consideration the positioning of windows to minimise any impact
on neighbouring dwellings.
Whilst the site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is not
positioned in an isolated location but is within the developed area of High Kelling. It is
not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental
impact on the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the
proposed access off Bridge Road, subject to the imposition of conditions including
the requirement that the Vale Road access be permanently stopped up. However,
the agent has since confirmed that it is not the intention to permanently stop up the
Vale Road access. The Highway Authority has been reconsulted on this matter and
now object to this application on highway safety grounds.
However, further investigations are being made into the provision of a suitable means
of access to the site. Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
9.
HOLT - 20071748 - Erection of extension; Public Conveniences Albert Street for
North Norfolk District Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :03 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of an extension to the existing public conveniences. The
extension would have a floor area of 12.4sq.m and a ridge height of 4m.
The extension would be constructed of brick under a concrete pantile roof to match
existing and the apex of the gable would be finished with vertical glazing in order to
provide natural light to the interior of the building.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux in the light of the local objections, in particular
in relation to loss of light and anti-social behaviour.
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
3 January 2008
REPRESENTATIONS:
A letter of objection has been received from the owner of the business to the eastern
end of the building concerned that the extension would:
1. Mask view of the premises.
2. Conceal the entrance.
3. Reduce the amount of natural light.
4. Increase the level of anti-social behaviour when the public conveniences are
closed.
A letter of support has been received from a local business, which considers that the
modernisation of the public conveniences is to be welcomed, but has requested that
the opening hours are increased.
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 7: Town and Large Village Centres (broad range of development/uses
encouraged).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 79: Core Retail Areas (limits use of ground floor premises to Class A1, A2 or
A3 uses - shops, offices or food/drink outlets).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 5: Public realm (proposals should enhance the appearance and usability of
these areas).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Control Committee (West)
26
3 January 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Acceptability of the design and appearance of the extension within the Holt
Conservation Area.
3. Impact on car park.
4. Impact on neighbouring business premises.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the Core Retail Area for Holt, at the southern end of the
Albert Street car park. The existing public conveniences have been in use for a
number of years and the proposed extension is intended to upgrade the existing
facilities for users of the town centre. As such the principle of such a use is
established in this location.
Local Plan Policies 13, Design and Setting of Development and 42, Development in
Conservation Areas are pertinent and require that any development should
harmonise with the townscape and preserve or enhance the appearance or character
of the area.
The existing public conveniences are part of a single-storey building under a mono
pitched roof, the eastern end of which is a ladies' hairdressers. The whole building is
constructed of brickwork under a concrete tiled roof and at the present time, although
recessive in its appearance, the building contributes little to the appearance of the
area. The scheme as envisaged, which would involve the projection of a small
extension out from the front of the existing building into the car park, would serve to
improve the appearance of the building and in particular the high level glazing to the
apex would provide the building with a focal point. The proposal would therefore
enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
As far as the impact on the car park is concerned, whilst the extension would reduce
the circulation space in front of the building, it would not result in the loss of any car
parking spaces or affect vehicular movements.
In terms of the impact on the neighbouring premises, since the extension would
project approximately 2.3m from the front face of the building and would be at a slight
angle, there would be a degree of masking of the hairdressers business. However, it
is considered that the business premises would still be visible from some areas of the
car park and since there is a pedestrian route through to Albert Street past the
hairdressers the impact on these premises is considered acceptable.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) Before the development is started samples of the facing materials to be used for
the external walls and roof 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) 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
3 January 2008
10.
SHERINGHAM - 20071180 - Erection of twenty-two flats; Central Garage 49
High Street for Mr N J Wright
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :26 Oct 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of all existing structures and construction of 22 flats. All matters of detail
are reserved for future consideration except access. Vehicular access to the site is
proposed via an existing driveway situated between 37 and 39 High Street with
egress proposed from the existing driveway to the south of No.47. The submitted
drawings include indicative proposals for three detached buildings of two and threestorey with 18 off-street parking spaces.
A desk top study regarding contaminated land issues has also been submitted.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control having regard to the possible
future use of the site for retail development as proposed in the Local Development
Framework Site Specific Proposals.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection in principle to residential or commercial purposes but concerns raised
regarding the widths of the proposed access and egress.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters from adjoining and other local residents (summarised):1. Block A will overshadow properties in Co-operative Street. Account should be
taken of the significant difference in levels this side.
2. Development will put further strain on already overloaded drainage system.
3. Proposals envisage inadequate off-street parking for the likely needs of the
occupiers of the proposed flats.
4. Proposals conflict with the retail designation of the site in the Local Development
Framework. Use of this unique site for any other purposes would not be in the best
interests of the town.
5. Site would be best used for a mix of residential and commercial use better
reflecting its town centre location.
6. Demolition of the lock-up garages and the inadequate provision for on-site parking
in the submitted scheme will lead to further on-street parking in the surrounding
streets exacerbating existing problems for local residents.
7. The gyratory access and egress will not work as access point is frequently
blocked.
8. Overlooking of neighbouring properties in Cremer Street.
9. Egress presents danger to pedestrians at busy footway by the 'clock-tower'.
10. Appearance of proposed buildings is too stark and out of keeping with the
traditional pattern of development.
11. What are the arrangements for the storage of refuse containers?
12. Access appears very narrow for its intended purpose.
Development Control Committee (West)
28
3 January 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - It is envisaged that the public combined system can accommodate
foul flows only from the proposed development of 22 dwellings based on a gravity
discharge. Further consideration on capacity would need to be given should flows
require pumping from the site.
There is insufficient capacity in the existing combined system to accommodate
surface water flows and therefore all alternative methods of surface water disposal
must be investigated for the site, including soakaways and other SUDS systems. If
this were not possible any connection to the public combined system would be
subject to heavy restriction.
Should the Council be mindful of granting planning permission conditions should be
imposed requiring i) the submission and approval of a detailed scheme of foul and
surface water drainage for the site and the subsequent construction of the
development in accordance with the approved details and ii) the submission and
approval by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Anglian Water of details
of surface water attenuation for the site.
Building Control Manager - A ground contamination report is needed at planning
stage because of the existing use of the site. Access for fire appliances is awkward.
The egress route is the only suitable way to get appliances within 45m of all of the
flats. The ingress route is of insufficient width.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
lies within the heart of Sheringham town centre. Despite this, however, its backland
nature and mix of temporary structures means that it currently fails to make any sort
of positive contribution to the town's conservation area. As a result, there can be no
Conservation and Design objection to the principle of demolishing the existing
buildings and replacing them with some form of residential development.
That said, the prevailing form and character of the area is very much about fairly
modest buildings arranged incrementally in close-knit formations. It is definitely not
about regimented monolithic structures laid out around the perimeter of sites. Whilst
it is recognised that siting is not a matter to be considered as part of this application it
has to be pointed out that if 22 flats are ultimately to be considered acceptable they
would need to be provided in a far more compatible, additive way. Certainly the
rather functional indicative elevations do little to convince us that the scheme would
preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
In the event of the other consultees being happy with this proposal Conservation and
Design would welcome the opportunity to devise a note for any approval advising
that the units would need to be delivered in an altogether different form.
County Council (Highways) - You will be aware that the Highway Authority has
previously expressed a preference for a car free development on this site.
The provided details of the existing uses and vehicular movements associated with
those uses indicates that this proposal would not be likely to increase the vehicular
use of the poorly located access/egress points onto High Street. Accordingly, and
notwithstanding the above preference, subject to vehicular access only being from
between no’s 37A and 37B High Street and egress being from the south of no.47
High Street I can have no objection to the granting of permission.
The above access/egress arrangement should be suitably conditioned and I would
welcome the opportunity to comment further at the reserved matters stage.
Environment Agency - (Summarised) - Contaminated Land: Object as the land has
the potential to be contaminated and no appropriate site investigation has been
carried out. As a minimum the applicant should produce a desktop study for
consideration by the Local Planning Authority. If the desktop study identifies that
Development Control Committee (West)
29
3 January 2008
contamination may be a problem a full site investigation will be required prior to
determination of the application. If, upon receipt of this information the LPA considers
that the proposals present a significant risk to controlled waters further consultation
with The Environment Agency will be necessary.
Sustainable Development: The development should be carried out in all respects in
as sustainable manner as possible.
Environmental Health - From the initial information provided by the applicant's agent
it is clear that the site potentially contains contaminants. Therefore, a full site
investigation needs to be carried out, including assessment of the risk to controlled
waters. This investigation should be undertaken by a suitably qualified, experienced
and independent person/company.
Please continue to consult with the Environment Agency.
A condition should be attached to any permission requiring the submission and
approval of a scheme for the storage of refuse and the subsequent implementation of
the approved details.
County Council Planning Obligations Co-ordinator - Based on the proposals for 22
dwellings a total developer contribution of £1,100 (i.e. £50 per dwelling) will be
required, this to be paid in one lump sum on occupation of the 10th dwelling.
Planning Policy Manager - The Development Plan is the starting point in the
consideration of planning applications and currently comprises saved Structure Plan
and Local Plan policies. The emerging Development Plan is also a material
consideration and comprises the East of England Plan and the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework. Emerging policy in the Core Strategy has been submitted
to Government for examination, and is presumed to be sound. It is therefore material
to decisions but generally should be afforded less weight than the saved Local Plan
policies.
The Central Garage site lies within the 'Town Centre' as designated in the North
Norfolk Local Plan. Policy 7 allows commercial development and other uses as long
as they are compatible with maintaining retailing as the prime function of each area.
The site is currently used as garage/workshops and therefore residential
development would not detract from retailing as the prime function of that area.
Residential development on the scale proposed would, however, prejudice future
retail redevelopment of the site. Emerging policy in the LDF Core Strategy includes
Policy SS12, Sheringham. This states that between 500 to 750sq.m of new
comparison goods retail floorspace will be accommodated in Sheringham. Suitable
sites for development of new retail floorspace will be allocated in the Site Specific
Proposals document and a suitable central site for a market will be safeguarded.
This need for additional comparison goods floorspace in the Sheringham area was
identified in the DTZ North Norfolk Retail and Commercial Leisure Study, 2005,
which has been adopted for the purposes of informing planning policy and
development control decisions. The study found capacity for new comparison goods
floorspace of 3,700 to 7,700sq.m net (depending on trading efficiencies and other
variables) in the Cromer/Holt/Sheringham zone. The Core Strategy divides this up
between Cromer (5,000sq.m) and Sheringham (500-750sq.m).
The Central Garage site and surrounding area is one of few areas in Sheringham
town centre that would appear suitable to accommodate substantial new comparison
goods floorspace. Core Strategy policy EC5 directs new retail and leisure proposals
to Primary Shopping Areas or the next best sequentially available sites in towns. This
site is adjacent to the proposed Primary Shopping Area in Sheringham and is
therefore considered one of the most appropriate sites to accommodate such
development. Development of this site for other purposes could result in sequentially
less preferable sites being allocated/developed. It should be demonstrated that loss
of the site will not prejudice Policy SS12 objectives of expanding the comparison
goods offer in Sheringham.
Development Control Committee (West)
30
3 January 2008
The LDF Site Specific Proposals preferred options document that was consulted
upon in September 2006 identified the site and surrounding land as a 'retail
opportunity site'. It stated that this is a valuable town centre location and
redevelopment for a range of commercial and other uses would expand the
opportunities available in the town centre and improve the townscape. The retail
opportunity site included the telephone exchange, library and shops to the south as
well as the builder's yard to the rear and other land in the area (see page 101). Work
on the Site Specific Proposals document is, however, at an early stage and there can
be no certainty that this site will come forward as an allocation.
The form and design of the proposal is a relevant concern and it is considered that
the proposal as submitted would not comply with existing and emerging polices
seeking high quality design and development that harmonises with the townscape
and general character of the area in which they are sited. Existing Local Plan Policies
13 and 42 are relevant here, along with emerging Core Strategy policies EN4 and
EN8. National guidance in PPS3 and PPS1 also requires high quality inclusive
design. PPS1 states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to
take the opportunity to improve the character and quality of an area should not be
accepted (paragraph 34). PPS3 states that good design is fundamental to the
development of new high quality housing which contributes to the creation of
sustainable mixed communities.
Emerging Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires 45% affordable housing provision on
schemes of 10 or more dwellings. PPS3, Housing, sets a national indicative minimum
site size threshold of 15 dwellings until local thresholds are set (paragraph 29). There
is a high local need for affordable housing and the 2007 Strategic Market Housing
Assessment prepared for the Authority by Fordham Research suggests that in
excess of 900 affordable dwellings are needed per year. Further details are provided
in paragraphs 3.2.6 to 3.2.12 of the Core Strategy. The proposal does not seem to
incorporate any such requirements.
Emerging Core Strategy Policy EN6 also requires that all proposals demonstrate how
energy use and resource consumption have been minimised and that proposals of
more than 10 dwellings include on-site renewable energy technology to provide for at
least 10% of predicted total energy usage. These considerations need to be
integrated from the outset rather than 'bolted on' at the end and we would expect to
see more details on this aspect in an energy consumption statement. This is
supported by PPS22 which states that Local Planning Authorities may require a
percentage of the energy to be used in new residential, commercial or industrial
developments to come from on-site renewable energy development (paragraph 8).
PPS3 says applicants should bring forward sustainable, environmentally friendly new
housing developments and should reflect the approach set out in the forthcoming
PPS on climate change and the Code for Sustainable Homes (paragraphs 12 and
15).
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
3 January 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 7: Town and Large Village Centres (broad range of development/uses
encouraged).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 79: Core Retail Areas (limits use of ground floor premises to Class A1, A2 or
A3 uses - shops, offices or food/drink outlets).
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).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission document):
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Developer contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appropriate use of town centre location?
2. Prejudicial to future options for retail development in the town centre?
3. Impact upon surrounding properties.
4. Impact on the Conservation Area.
5. Highway safety and off-street parking provision.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to enable Members to visit the site.
The application site currently accommodate a vehicle maintenance centre and 37
lock-up garages arranged in terraces. The site is designated in the Local Plan as
town centre and the two driveways serving the site from High Street fall within the
Core Retail Area. Part of the site falls within the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
32
3 January 2008
Local Plan Policy 7 provides for the possibility of a broad range of commercial and
other uses within the designated town centres providing there is no conflict with the
Core Retail policy. In this case there would be no building on those parts of the site
that fall within the designated Core Retail Area. Accordingly there is no conflict with
Local Plan Policy 79. Furthermore it is difficult to argue that the residential
development of this particular site would in any way detract from the attractiveness of
the town centre as a retail area. Accordingly it is considered that the proposals
accord with Local Plan Policy 7.
The application site forms part of the retail area (ROS5) identified in the Local
Development Site Specific Proposals - Preferred Options. However, there is no
certainty that this site will come forward as an allocation and accordingly at this stage
little weight can be attached to the Site Specific Proposals in the determination of this
planning application. In any event the preferred use of the site would continue to be
'for a range of commercial and other uses' to expand opportunities in the town centre
and improve the townscape. In this respect the future policy proposals for the site
restate the current policy requirements as outlined in Local Plan Policy 7.
Members will also note the emerging LDF policies, following the submission of the
Core Strategy for examination. The starting point for the Inspector during the
examination will be that the Core Strategy is presumed to be 'sound'. It should
therefore carry some weight. However, guidance is given on the weight to be given to
the emerging policies in the Companion Document to PPS1. In this case
representations have been received in respect of Policies HO2 and EN6 referred to
specifically by the Planning Policy Manager and Policy EC5 which is related to the
retail element of Policy SS12. The existence of these representations and the fact of
the on-going examination reduce the weight afforded to the emerging LDF.
The agent has, therefore, been asked to respond to the requirements of Policies HO2
(Affordable housing) and EN6 (Sustainable construction). It has also been requested
that his client consider the introduction of an element of retail development on the
ground floor as this site would be appropriate for a mixed development, lying within
the town centre (Local Plan Policy 7) and adjacent to the Core Retail area (Local
Plan Policy 79).
The buildings which currently occupy the site are of no special quality and the
application presents an opportunity to enhance the appearance of this part of the
Conservation Area. Members will note the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager in this respect. Clearly the present indicative proposals
would have to be substantially reworked in order to achieve this objective. Care
would also have to be taken at reserved matters stage to ensure that the
development relates satisfactorily to all neighbouring residential properties, particular
care being needed with regard to the adjoining dwelling to the north which is set at a
lower level than the application site.
In response to initial concerns raised by the Environment Agency regarding potential
ground contamination, the applicant's agent has provided a 'desktop' study for
consideration by the Council's Environmental Protection Officer. The Environmental
Protection Officer has subsequently requested a full site investigation and this is now
being undertaken.
At the time of writing this report further comments from the agent were awaited.
RECOMMENDATION:Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
Development Control Committee (West)
33
3 January 2008
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - 20071610 - Installation of first floor window; The Paper
Barn The Street for Ms S Belpin and Mr J Sheer
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - 20071539 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 1 Priory
Crescent for Mr H Wilson
(Outline Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071554 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
20030800 to permit unrestricted residential occupancy; 1, 2, 3 and 5 Garden
Cottages High Street for Mr J W Garner
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071588 - Erection of side extension, porch and conservatory;
Shalom Back Lane for Dr B Singleton
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071594 - Removal of condition 2 of 20030800 to permit
unrestricted residential occupancy; 4 Garden Cottages High Street for Mr and
Mrs N E Buckingham
(Full Planning Permission)
BRININGHAM - 20071413 - Erection of workshop; The Barn Boundary Farm
Swanton Road Gunthorpe for Mr and Mrs Partridge
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20071337 - Erection of replacement single-storey dwelling and
garage; 36 Reepham Road for Ms R Graves
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20071623 - Erection of cart shed storage building; Casa-De-Apedra
Craymere Road for Mr J Curl
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20071570 - Retention of single-storey dwellings as constructed
(amended design in respect of permission 20032112) continued use of land as
domestic curtilage and retention of access; Hall Farm Aylsham Road
Saxthorpe for Mr and Mrs A Mitchell
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20071635 - Erection of attached garage, rear extension and
pitched roofs to side extensions; Lound House Briston Road Saxthorpe for Ms
D Oliver
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071408 - Erection of warehouse, distribution and ancillary
retail sales buildings; land off Clipbush Lane for Travis Perkins Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
34
3 January 2008
FAKENHAM - 20071587 - Conversion of outbuilding to provide staff flat,
storage and staff common room and erection of link extension; 20 Oak Street
for Mr J Martin
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071598 - Erection of side conservatory; 23 Seppings Road for
Mr Marsh
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071527 - Erection of industrial unit; plot 1 Wyman's Way for Mr
and Mrs Warner
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071552 - Erection of two two-storey semi-detached houses; 85
Holt Road for Mr M Azuki
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071618 - Retention of replacement roof including rooflights to
rear extension; 9 Norwich Street for Worstead Properties
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FAKENHAM - 20071692 - Retention of external staircase; 9 Norwich Street for
Mr R Scammell
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071693 - Retention of external staircase; 9 Norwich Street for
Mr R Scammell
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FULMODESTON - 20071633 - Erection of rear conservatory; The Well House 20
Barney Road for Mr Heath and Mr Miles
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - 20071536 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Paxfield Farm
Raynham Road for Mr J S Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - 20071636 - Erection of ten metre high electricity transformer;
Fakenham Garden Centre Mill Road for Messrs G and M Turner
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071549 - Erection of rear conservatory; 6 Norman Cockaday Court for
Mr Fitzsimmons
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071650 - Installation of replacement windows; 37 Cromer Road for
Thurlow Nunn
(Full Planning Permission)
ITTERINGHAM - 20071543 - Conversion of barn to game keeper's
accommodation and erection of hatchery/garage; Game rearing Unit at The
Avenues Mannington Hall Road Mannington for Mr M Harrold
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
35
3 January 2008
ITTERINGHAM - 20071621 - Installation of solar collectors; The Mill The
Common for Mr and Mrs Downs
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20071568 - Erection of first floor side extension and
erection of detached garage; Newhaven Kettlestone Road for Mr S Brightmore
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20071625 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Norfolk
Cottage Cross Street for Ms G Case
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071531 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 66 Beeston
Road for Mr M D Higginson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071632 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 89 Beeston Road
for Waterplace Limited
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
SHERINGHAM - 20071638 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 31 Station
Road for AAH PLC
(Illuminated Advertisement)
SHERINGHAM - 20071189 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage; 2a The Rise for Mrs A Challoner
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071541 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 5 Knowle
Road for Mr and Mrs D Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071645 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 1
Lavender Drive for Mr and Mrs Prior
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - 20071558 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 11 Beck Cottages
Barbers Lane for Mr A Taylor and Ms L Woodall
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - 20071616 - Removal of fireplace surround; Green Farm House The
Green Hunworth for Mr D W Moore
(Alteration to Listed Building)
STODY - 20071626 - Erection of single-storey extension and conservatory;
Hunworth Bell The Green Hunworth for Stody Estate Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - 20071628 - Erection of single-storey extension; Unit 734 Flag
Street Tattersett Business and Leisure Park for Bill Cleyndert and Co Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20071601 - Erection of 1.57m high (maximum) boundary wall;
Berry Cottage 4 Westgate for Mr and Mrs Parrott
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
36
3 January 2008
WARHAM - 20071611 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation and formation of vehicular access; Glebe Barn Wells Road for
L G Harrison and Son
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071604 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling;
Fairview Northfield Lane for Mr D S Hudson
(Outline Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071613 - Erection of building to provide changing
facility; Wells Town Bowls Club Clubbs Lane for Wells Town Bowls Club
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20071214 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace; land at South Cottage The Street for Mrs A
Allard
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20071602 - Use of land for siting two storage containers; land
south of Sheringham Road for Weybourne Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20071648 - Erection of single-storey extension and porch; Summer
Cottage Dragway Glandford for Mr and Mrs Rooke
(Full Planning Permission)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FAKENHAM - 20070673 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; 24 Holt Road
for Mr J Doughty
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071585 - Display of internally illuminated totem advertisement;
former Rainbow Superstore Holt Road for Lidl UK GMBH
(Illuminated Advertisement)
HELHOUGHTON - 20071555 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and
garage; 6 The Street for Mr and Mrs F Bennett
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 01/019/DEV6/07/004 - Breach of condition 2 of planning
permission 20061041 for extension to summerhouse; Umgeni Coast Road for
Lady Rathcavan
PUBLIC INQUIRY
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070922 - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
annexe; Umgeni Coast Road for Lady Rathcavan
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Development Control Committee (West)
37
3 January 2008
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20061674 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The
Garages The Fairstead for Mr and Mrs S W Tart
INFORMAL HEARING 22 Jan 2008
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070134 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The
Garages The Fairstead for Mr and Mrs S W Tart
INFORMAL HEARING 22 Jan 2008
MATLASKE - 20061840 - Conversion of former forge to ancillary residential
accommodation; The Forge The Street for Mr and Mrs Kokelaar
INFORMAL HEARING 08 Jan 2008
SHERINGHAM - 20030991 - Demolition of buildings, including dwellings, and
erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car parking, servicing
and landscaping; land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
EDGEFIELD - 20070871 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Green Farm
Norwich Road for Mr D Sands
STIBBARD - 20070195 - Demolition of conservatory and garage and erection of
replacement extension; Moor End House Moor End Road for Mr and Mrs
Pierce-Roberts
SITE VISIT :- 07 Jan 2008
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BINHAM - 20070309 - Erection of single-storey extension; Old Barn Farm
Bungalow Binham Road Wighton for Mr D Cooke
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
FAKENHAM - 20070836 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 3 Barons Close for
Mr J Wilkinson
APPEAL DECISION :- ALLOWED
HINDOLVESTON - 20070743 - Erection of three dwellings; land at The Street for
Mr Wilson and Mrs Williams
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
38
3 January 2008