OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 5 FEBRUARY 2009
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.
BRISTON – Tree Preservation Order (Briston) 2008 No.14 Turkey Farm,
Norwich Road
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at the above site.
Background
The woodland was planted following significant and prolonged complaints regarding
odour nuisance from the turkey farm. The tree planting forms part of the dust
suppression system and was the result of expert advice the farm received when the
Environmental Health service was considering formal action with regard to the
abatement of a statutory nuisance.
The need for a TPO arose from a pending application to the County Council for two
new reservoirs on the neighbouring Stody Estate, which requires an access road
through the woodland on the western side of the turkey farm.
After receiving representations from the public, a Landscape Officer met the
Landscape Consultants responsible for the scheme to discuss its impact on the local
area. It was apparent that trees in the wooded area would have to be removed to
accommodate an access road. A replanting scheme to mitigate any tree loss and to
maintain the effectiveness of the woodland with regard to screening odour and dust
was recommended. The Landscape Consultants expressed reluctance to any new
planting in this area. Given that the amenity of the area was under threat a Tree
Preservation Order was served.
The Order was served on 28 November 2008.
Consultation
Environmental Health consider that the woodland should be retained in its current
form, since any tree loss would have a negative impact on odour and dust levels.
Representations
Support for the Order:Forty three letters of support have been received from local residents concerned that
any loss of tree cover will result in increased dust and odour and will be detrimental
to health and local amenity.
Objections to the Order:Two letters of objection have been received, one from the owners of the site, Bernard
Mathews Ltd, and one from the agent acting on behalf of the Stody Estate (copies of
these attached at Appendix 1).
Development Control Committee (West)
1
5 February 2009
The agent for Stody Estate states in his letter that it had been agreed with the
Landscape Officer that the removal of the trees would not have an adverse affect on
the effectiveness of trapping dust and odour and it was further agreed that additional
trees would be planted to maintain the existing density. The letter also states that it
has been made clear to the Council that the proposed access road will have a
negligible effect on the odour and dust benefits of the plantation.
Objections to the TPO are made on the following grounds:
1. The proposed loss of trees will have no impact on the screening of the turkey farm
from any viewpoints and have no adverse impact on the effectiveness of trapping
odour and dust.
2. As the planting is a planning requirement it is already protected.
3. An ecological report as part of the Environmental Statement states that due to the
density of the trees in the plantation there is no biodiversity as there is no ground
cover.
4. The TPO effectively frustrates normal good management of the younger
woodland.
The owner of the site objects on the following grounds:
1. Unnecessary: There are adequate covenants in place including protection of
widespread felling by the Forestry Commission. No TPO had been placed on
previously. The planning proposal provides ample time to determine any conditions.
2. Burdensome and potentially costly: The TPO places a formal charge over the land
which requires the owner to apply formally for removal of any tree both at a fee and
time cost. This is inappropriate in relation to woodland. There is a legal threat from
the Council regarding the trees on the property and this imposes an intolerable and
unnecessary burden. Under the TPO the Council are required to investigate
complaints regarding works to any individual trees at a time cost.
3. Disproportionate: An emergency TPO can be granted if there is seen to be an
immediate threat of trees being damaged; this is clearly not the case. The 3m
roadway involves the removal of a minimal number of trees, perhaps tens compared
with over seven thousand covered by the TPO.
Where is the science that establishes the comparative effect of say, a 10 metre tree
screen compared with a 60m screen in controlling dust and odour? A United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) paper on windbreak establishment and
management indicates that air turbulence caused by a screen is the key element and
not thickness. The owner suggests that “if removal of trees is so critical why were
access paths designed into the site when 100% planting could have been required”.
4. Inappropriate: Why doesn’t the TPO cover all trees on site and not just the ones
included in the Stody proposal? Has the Forestry Commission been contacted
regarding the TPO? The TPO can be overridden by planning permission, as such
the TPO purely adds administrative burden on all parties. Does the Council have a
policy to impose TPOs on all woodland/screening schemes?
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:1. There was no agreement with the Landscape Officer regarding odour, dust and
replanting and there has been no correspondence from the agent making it clear that
the proposed access road will have negligible effect on the dust and odour benefits of
the plantation.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
5 February 2009
2. The TPO has been placed on the woodland to protect amenity in relation to dust
and odour not visibility. The planting is protected by planning conditions attached to
the planning permission for the turkey farm but the owner can apply to revoke or vary
a condition. The TPO ensures long term management.
3. The ecological report stating that there is no “Biodiversity” in the plantation does
not take account of all levels or aspects. Only the ground below the trees is
considered.
4. The woodland TPO does not frustrate normal good management of younger
woodland but ensures appropriate management.
5. The Forestry Commission is only consulted when more that four cubic metres of
timber are felled per quarter.
6. No TPO had been placed on the site previously as there was not considered to be
a threat.
7. Government TPO Guidelines state that a Local Planning Authority may consider it
expedient in the interests of amenity to make a TPO to protect trees on land before a
planning application is made.
8. A woodland TPO is considered as a last resort when it is served to prevent poor
management.
9. The current conditions associated with the planning permission for the turkey farm
require the owner to go through exactly the same application procedure as he does
under the TPO. The Council has to investigate complaints regarding felling in the
same way. The Woodland TPO, although permanent, is more flexible than the
planning conditions, as work can be submitted as a long-term management plan.
10. This is not an emergency TPO. According to Government TPO Guidelines, it is
not necessary for the risk to be immediate: in some cases the LPA may believe that
certain trees are at risk generally from development pressures.
11. To accommodate a 3m roadway an 8m wide cutting, 100m long will be required,
involving felling in the region of 250 trees.
The USDA paper also states that ammonia is the gas of greatest concern to the
poultry industry and plants have the ability to absorb aerial ammonia. In a study
trees reduced the amount of ammonia downwind by 46% in summer. More trees in
the screen would mean that more ammonia is absorbed. The Environmental Health
Service is of the opinion that the tree belt should be retained in its current form.
12. An access track was incorporated into the woodland design to aid its
management.
13. The other trees on the site are not under threat and are protected by the
conditions attached to the associated planning permission. If the owner applied to
remove these trees then the Council would consider placing a TPO on them.
14. The Forestry Commission has been consulted on this TPO.
15. The TPO does not stop development. It is used to protect amenity. If a TPO is in
place it provides the Council with more opportunity to achieve any mitigation.
16. The Council will only serve TPOs when it considers there may be a serious threat
of loss of amenity.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
5 February 2009
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
-Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
-Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
It is considered that proper procedures were followed when serving the Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
It is considered that the trees have a significant impact on the local environment and
its enjoyment by the public.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case, Extn 6142 - File Reference: TPO No.14)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
SCULTHORPE – 20070398 Conversion of barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; Cranmer Hall Creake Road Cranmer for Robbie Wright
Builders
The Committee is asked to give further consideration to this application in the light
of changes to Development Plan policy following the adoption of the North Norfolk
Core Strategy on 24 September 2008.
Background
At the meeting of Development Control Committee (West) on 22 May 2007 it was
resolved that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve the
application for conversion of the barn to two units of holiday accommodation:
This delegated approval was subject to:• The receipt of a satisfactory Ecological Survey.
• Investigation as to whether or not the appropriate notices had been served on
third parties and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Copies of the Committee Report and Minutes of the 22 May 2008 are attached at
Appendix 2.
Since that meeting a final report in respect of Protected Species (Bats and Barn
Owls) prepared by Philip Parker Associates dated 25 October 2008 was submitted
on 24 November 2008. The Council’s Landscape Officer has subsequently
Development Control Committee (West)
4
5 February 2009
confirmed that that the report is satisfactory and recommends the imposition of a
number of conditions on any planning permission. In addition the Landscape Officer
points to the fact that as part of the English Nature licensing procedure, during the
consideration of the decision to grant planning permission, the Local Planning
Authority is required to have regard to the Habitats Directives and confirmation is
required that the development satisfies Regulation 44(2) (e) and 44(3) (a) of the
Conservation (Natural Habitats &c. Regulations 1994) in that there is no satisfactory
alternative to this site and that the development is of overriding public interest.
In addition, since the meeting a letter has been received from the applicants’
planning consultant confirming that the applicants have a right of way over the
driveway to reach their site and as such there is no obligation to notify any other
current parties to the covenant.
Since the time of the decision the former saved North Norfolk Local Plan policies
against which the application was assessed have been superseded by the North
Norfolk Core Strategy containing Development Control policies, which was adopted
on 24 September 2008 and it is necessary for the Committee to consider the
application against these policies.
Appraisal
It is not considered that there are material changes in policy that would significantly
affect consideration of matters relating to the principle of the conversion of the barns
to holiday accommodation (saved North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 29), the conversion
of the listed building (EN 8), or the design (EN 4). However, Policy EC 9 Holiday and
Seasonal Occupancy Conditions requires, in addition to the barn being used solely
for holiday occupation and not as a sole or main residence, that the holiday
accommodation is made available for commercial let for at least 140 days a year and
that no let should exceed 31 days. In addition a register of lettings/occupation and
advertising should be maintained at all times and made available for inspection to an
officer of the Local Planning Authority if required.
Having advised the applicant’s agent of this policy change, in response he has
indicated that the imposition of planning conditions to implement EC9 of the new
policies is not considered to be reasonable at this stage, when the application was
made, negotiated, and determined entirely by reference to the Local Plan policies in
force at that time. Indeed, given the wording of the Minute of the decision on 22 May
and the subsequent issue of the listed building consent, it is reasonable for the
applicant to conclude that the decision exists and only awaits an administrative
process once the bat survey report had been accepted.
In respect of the Habitats Directives, whilst there are other barns within North Norfolk
which would lend themselves to conversion for holiday accommodation they are not
within the ownership of the applicant. The conversion and preservation of the barn
would be a sustainable form of development which would secure its future for this
and future generations.
In balancing the new material considerations that have arisen, it is therefore
considered that Committee should take into account the following:
1. The resolution made by Development Control Committee (West) on the 22
May 2008, that in accordance with Local Plan polices that Head of Planning
and Building Control be given delegated authority to approve the application
subject to the receipt of further information and the imposition of appropriate
conditions;
Development Control Committee (West)
5
5 February 2009
2. The resolution made by Cabinet on 2 June 2008 regarding the determination
of planning applications “on hand” upon receipt of the final binding report in
respect of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy; and
3. Article 6 of the schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the right to a fair
civil determination).
Summary
The proposal has been considered against Development Plan policies (i.e. Saved
North Norfolk Local Plan Policies 5, 13, 21, 25, 29, 36, 37, 39, and Local
Development Framework Core Strategy Policies SS 1, SS 2, SS 4, EN 4, EN 6, EN
8, EC 2 and EC 9 and Saved North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 29).
Whilst the policies contained within the LDF Core Strategy now outweigh those of the
former saved North Norfolk Local Plan for Development Control purposes, there are
material circumstances, namely that, the application was submitted before receipt of
the Inspector’s binding report and discussions with the applicants were well
advanced to the extent that a resolution to approve had been made by the
determining authority with only matters of clarity and detail outstanding at the time of
the Committee resolution of 22 May 2008. Whilst the policies against which the
proposal had been assessed have been superseded, the applicants are entitled to
expect their application to be determined fairly in accordance with the resolution
made by the Combined Committee on 10 April 2008. As such, even in light of the
identified material consideration (adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy), and the
introduction of Policy EC 9, approval of the application, subject to the imposition of
conditions, is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with
planning law.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Source (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 – File reference 20070398)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
STODY – 20071823 – Continued use of part of dwelling as one unit of holiday
accommodation; 1 Green Farm Barn The Green Hunworth for Mrs P A
Hoskison
Reconsideration of an undetermined planning application for the continued use of
part of dwelling as one unit of holiday accommodation.
Background
The Committee will recall that this application was considered at the meeting on 9
October 2008 (copy of report and minutes attached at Appendix 3) at which it was
resolved to give delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to
approve the application subject to the Highway Authority confirming that it did not
have an objection to the proposal.
A response from the Highway Authority was received on 13 January 2009 confirming
no objection, subject to the existing two car parking spaces being kept available for
parking purposes. (See copy of response at Appendix 3).
Development Control Committee (West)
6
5 February 2009
However, a further letter of objection has been received from a neighbour, which has
raised the following issues:1. The applicant is continuing to let out the property as a holiday home despite not
having formal approval.
2. The applicant cannot show that she has been trading for 10 years to be able to
obtain a certificate of lawfulness.
3. Traffic associated with the development is seriously blighting their lives.
4. Although she should have 2 car parking spaces for the dwelling, the applicant
currently only has one as the garage is full and cannot be used for parking.
5. The two spaces obtained under licence from the Stody Estate are never used by
the tenants.
6. Parking on the village green is an offence.
7. There is clearly insufficient space to park both vehicles associated with the
dwelling and the holiday let on-site.
8. Often their right of way is blocked and cannot gain access to their garage.
The application has been referred back to the Development Control Committee
(West) for further consideration at the request of Councillor Mrs L Brettle in view of
the fact that the application does not provide for appropriate levels of car parking and
impact that this would have on the amenity of the neighbours.
Key Policy Issue
The key issue is compliance with adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy CT6
and whether the proposed development would engender any highway safety
concerns.
Appraisal
The Council’s adopted parking standards require two vehicle parking spaces for both
the existing dwelling and the holiday unit, i.e. four in total. The applicant can provide
two vehicle spaces on site. The applicant has also secured four spaces on land
belonging to Stody Estate. However, use of this land is only granted on a short-term
basis and its retention in the long-term for vehicle parking cannot be guaranteed.
The applicant therefore has a shortfall of two parking spaces and the application is
therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy CT6.
However, notwithstanding the concerns regarding lack of parking provision and the
associated impact on the amenity of adjacent neighbours, given the most recent
consultation response from the Highway Authority, without highway support refusal
based on a lack of parking and impact on highway safety would be difficult to
substantiate in this instance.
It is however considered necessary to require the garage and courtyard parking
space to be retained for parking purposes at all times and a condition imposed to this
effect.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including a
requirement that the application retains both the courtyard and garage parking
spaces for parking purposes at all times.
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 - File Reference: 20071823)
Development Control Committee (West)
7
5 February 2009
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
GREAT SNORING - 20081674 - Erection of agricultural building; site at
Thorpland for Mr R Perowne
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :03 Feb 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of an agricultural building consisting of a grain store and drying
facility.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor T Moore having regard to the scale of the proposal and
potential highways impact.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection on the following grounds:
1. Increased traffic through Great Snoring.
2. Thorpland Road unsuitable for heavy traffic.
3. Adverse impact on unspoilt country lane.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
the implementation of bund and landscaping proposed and retention of exiting tree
belt.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to grain drying system being installed in
line with submitted plans and details.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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)
8
5 February 2009
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the landscape.
2. Impact on highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside designation where development required for
agriculture is acceptable in principle.
The height, bulk, scale and materials of the proposed building are considered
acceptable and it is well screened from the street. Furthermore, given its siting away
from residential dwellings, no impact on neighbouring amenity is involved. The
proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy EN 4.
The agricultural building is to be sited in the south-west corner of an agricultural field
on the east side of Thorpland Road. The building would be well screened from the
road and from the south by existing tree belts. The application also includes a new
tree belt and bund on its northern side. The proposal is not therefore considered to
have any adverse impact on the landscape and is therefore considered to comply
with Policy EN 2.
In respect of the impact on highway safety, comments are still awaited from County
Council (Highways) Authority.
Subject to no objection from the Highway Authority, the proposal is considered to
comply with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Highway
Authority and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
HIGH KELLING - 20081193 - Residential extension to care home of four, twoperson and eight, one-person single-storey units; Pineheath Nursing Home
Cromer Road for Pineheath Nursing Home
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :08 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Parish Boundary Consultation Area
Contaminated Land
Tree Preservation Order
Development Control Committee (West)
9
5 February 2009
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19792210 - Day hospital extension
Approved,
19900299 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use to nursing home
Approved, 15 May 1990
20030085 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions for additional
bedrooms
Approved, 05 Mar 2003
20051905 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of twelve sheltered housing
units
Withdrawn, 30 Jan 2006
20060821 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey extension to
provide supported accommodation of the elderly and erection of detached gatehouse
and wardens lodge
Refused, 18 Aug 2006
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to extend the existing care home by providing four two-person and eight oneperson single-storey units attached to the eastern end of the existing building.
All matters reserved for subsequent approval with the exception of means of access.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Conflict with Core Strategy policies.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application as it goes against planning policy.
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicant's supporting statement is attached at Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
Bodham Parish Council - No comments received.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Plans appear
inaccurate and some trees are shown in the wrong position. An arboricultural method
statement will be needed in certain areas (trees 39 and 40 in respect of parking area
and trees 27 and 26 in respect of demolition of the outbuilding).
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the use being ancillary to the
main nursing home and subject to the imposition of conditions.
Environmental Health - Advisory note regarding contamination.
Planning Policy Manager - Awaiting comments.
Strategic Housing - If the occupants of the new units will receive a contract for a care
package as opposed to tenancies or being owner occupiers then I am happy to
accept that the units are an extension of the existing care home rather than dwellings
and I therefore do not feel it would be appropriate to request an affordable
contribution.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
5 February 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
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).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of principle of this form of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Highway safety.
3. Impact on trees.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within an area designated as Countryside where Policy SS 2 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy would allow extensions to existing
businesses as well as community services and facilities that meet a proven local
need. Independent residential development would conflict with policy. In principle,
therefore, provided that the proposed development is an extension to the existing
care home and the accommodation remains ancillary to the use of the site, the
principle of the development would accord with Development Plan policy. The
applicant has indicated that the units would remain ancillary and this could be
secured by planning condition and/or Section 106 Obligation.
In respect of access, subject to the use of the units remaining ancillary to the existing
care home, the access being as proposed in the submitted drawing and subject to
the imposition of conditions requiring exact access/egress and parking details, the
proposal would accord with adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy CT 5.
In respect of impact on trees, the site is subject of a Tree Preservation Order which
protects a significant number of important trees on the site. The submitted plans do
not show in enough detail the potential impact upon trees. However, given that the
Development Control Committee (West)
11
5 February 2009
application is in outline form with means of access only for consideration at this
stage, the Committee need only consider whether the applicant has satisfactorily
demonstrated that twelve units can be accommodated on the site. Further
information would be required at reserved matters stage and officers consider that
there is sufficient space to provide an extension to the existing care facility without
causing harm to protected trees.
In summary, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, it is considered that
the development would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and the
making of a Section 106 Obligation regarding occupancy of the units.
6.
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20080329 - Erection of thirty-eight dwellings; land off
Grove Road for Melton Constable Country Club
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :02 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
Large Village
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19941558 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of 8 bungalows and
122 houses
THE APPLICATION
The application as originally submitted sought the erection of 40 dwellings. This was
subsequently reduced to 38 dwellings on a site area of 1.17ha.
Amended plans received on 10 November 2008, whilst retaining the previous layout
of 38 dwellings increased the number of affordable units from 15 to 19. These would
provide for a mix of house types consisting of 7 x 2 bed houses, 8 x 2 bedroom flats,
3 x 3 bed houses and 1 x 4 bed house (affordable units) and the remaining 13 x 3
bedroom houses and 6 x 4 bedroom houses, being market housing.
In addition the site area was increased through the inclusion of part of the garden of
The Spinney to accommodate an attenuation basin, but a further amended plan
received on 8 December 2008 deleted what was an indicative layout for the
attenuation lagoon from the application.
An area of open space, having a site area of approximate 1,275sq.m, is proposed
fronting Grove Road, whilst a smaller area to the rear of the site would provide
approximately 560sq.m of further natural green space.
The main access to the site would be from the Briston Road junction, where visibility
improvements are being proposed.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
5 February 2009
At this stage permission is only being sought for the access and layout with all other
matters reserved for future consideration.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection to amended plans dated 17 May 2008 or to the further amended plans
dated 10 November 2008.
REPRESENTATIONS
Representations of objection:
Fifty-seven letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):
1. Proposal is contrary to Policy 3 of the Local Plan which limits the number of new
dwellings.
2. The proposal runs counter to a number of planning policies including the principle
of development, pollution, noise and light pollution, environment and landscape
quality, conservation areas, housing and sport and recreation.
3. The number of proposed dwellings is too dense for the site, 12 - 16 would be
acceptable.
4. Inappropriate siting of dwellings within close proximity of the industrial estate.
5. The loss of the green space would have a detrimental impact on the quality of life.
6. The loss of the bowling green would be a great shame.
7. The site has been used as common land for at least 20 years and qualifies to be
protected as common land.
8. It is considered that with the exception of the gas works site the land has been
used for recreational purposes since the days of the railway and should remain as
such.
9. The Melton Constable Community Trust believes that the area should be reserved
as a village green.
10. Due to the existing lack of through traffic Melton Street, Colville Road and Grove
Road are used in the evenings by children on skateboards and bicycles.
11. There is significant local opposition with the population in opposition being at a
ratio of 3:1.
12. The green space proposed within the development would be totally inadequate.
13. Would reduce the amount of places for children to play.
14. It is not safe for children to cross the main road to use the other playground to the
north of the village.
15. Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that there is the potential here to
create higher quality amenity space and to increase the biodiversity of the vicinity.
16. Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that "the site is one of the key
open spaces within the Conservation Area".
17. Proposal seems to be at odds with Council's own Conservation Area Character
Appraisal.
18. The proposed amenity space should be linked with a foot/cycle path to the Lomax
development.
19. The alterations to Melton Street and Grove Road would result in the potential loss
of car parking spaces.
20. Increased traffic would also increase noise and disturbance.
21. A Traffic Impact Assessment should be carried out so that the implications can be
fully assessed.
22. Already a lack of car parking in the village.
23. There is already a car parking and congestion problem particularly outside the
Doctor's surgery.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
5 February 2009
24. A recent traffic survey by residents shows in excess of 3,500 vehicle movements
per weekday.
25. Would place extra strain on the infrastructure of the village where access for
emergency vehicles is already difficult.
26. Development would erode the character of the Conservation Area.
27. The development would alter the original historical plan form of the village linking
it to the parish of Briston.
28. The proposed development would spoil the unique character of the surrounding
street scene.
29. Would increase the demand for primary school places, which is already at
bursting point.
30. Would place extract pressure on an already busy Doctor's surgery.
31. Increased pressure on local sewage system.
32. The development would cause further drainage problems, increasing flood risk in
the area.
33. There are natural springs on the site which would be affected by the
development.
34. The development could affect the biodiversity of the site, where Great Crested
newts have been recorded.
35. Negative environmental impact on Burgh Beck stream, which feeds the River
Glaven.
36. Part of the site was a gasworks and the land is contaminated.
37. Disturbance of the contaminated land could pose a considerable health risk.
38. Electricity supply in the area is already erratic.
39. The development would exacerbate the water pressure problems already
experienced in the area.
40. The refurbishment/renovation of the Melton Constable County Club should be no
justification for allowing this development to proceed.
41. The construction works would result in significant noise and disturbance.
42. Loss of local distinctiveness, Melton Constable is a unique Railway village.
43. Would destroy the 'small village atmosphere'.
44. Noise and disturbance from Industrial Estate would affect properties.
45. Some of the industrial units operate 24 hours a day.
46. Existing bank adjacent to the residential estate could result in overshadowing of
properties.
47. No assessment of local need in terms of open space, sports and recreational
facilities has been carried out.
48. Local Authority should avoid erosion of recreational space.
49. Loss of open space only natural barrier between historical village and Lomax
development.
50. The biodiversity of the open space benefits the people of Melton Constable.
51. The Ecological Assessment is wrong to dismiss the site as being of low value at
the Parish/neighbourhood level and misses key species of flora and fauna and is
therefore of questionable value.
52. Insufficient consideration has been given to the possible contamination risks
associated with the prior uses of the site and fails to comply with the requirements of
PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control.
53. Questions the validity of the Flood Risk Assessment as some of the data used
dates back to 2004, prior to the ponds on the adjoining site being filled in.
54. A more modest scheme for a maximum of dozen houses might be a route that
could be pursued.
55. Revised application does not address concerns raised at the previous meeting of
the Development Control Committee.
56. Reservations regarding the accuracy and value of the Ecological Survey.
57. The biodiversity of the open space benefits the people of Melton Constable.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
5 February 2009
58. The construction of an attenuation pond in the grounds of The Spinney is not the
solution to the drainage problems.
59. The proposed attenuation basin could affect adjoining hornbeam trees and other
trees in the vicinity of the basin.
60. It is difficult to see how the attenuation pond will cope with large volumes of water
during prolonged periods of rain.
61. The proposed dwellings lack adequate amenity area which would increase the
need for further allotment space, which has not been addressed.
62. Dwellings at the south and west ends of the site will lack exposure to direct
natural light which is a contributing factor with "seasonal affective disorder" (SAD).
63. Build next to Astley School and instead build a car park on this site.
64. Bowling greens are nationally under threat and the development would result in
the loss of an important local asset.
65. What safeguards are there to ensure that the affordable housing will be
delivered?
66. The attenuation basin should be considered as a separate application.
In addition a petition signed and addressed by 154 individuals has been received
who feel that the development would adversely affect access to services, result in a
significant increase in traffic, affect access for emergency services and result also in
the loss of what is considered to be the last area of open space.
A letter has been received from the River Glaven Conservation Group which raises
concerns that toxic substances associated with the former use of part of the site as a
gas works could, through spring activity on the site, affect the Burgh Beck, which is a
tributary of the River Glaven. They therefore suggest that the risk needs to be
assessed both during and after the construction stage of the development.
A letter has been received from village green campaigners in which they wish to
bring to the Council's notice that, following significant support in Melton Constable a
village green application has been made to Norfolk County Council.
Four letters have been received from a local resident the first of which includes "A
Schematic Analysis of possible Groundwater Movement and Contamination bearing
on the Grove Road site", which seeks to construct a schematic model to assist
discussion of contamination and ground water issues on the site. The second letter
together with accompanying sketches and calculations seeks to identify the fact that
there would be a lack of direct sunlight to the proposed dwellings on Plots 28, 29, 30
37 and 38, particularly in the period November through to January. The third
suggests that there is not a proper understanding of controlled water across the site,
and the identification of contamination does not take into account those areas that
might be expected to be contaminated. The final letter provides calculations which
the correspondent suggests demonstrate that the site allocated for the attenuation
feature is insufficient to accommodate the basin and there is insufficient drop across
the site. Also that the basin would present a hazard to life.
A Traffic Study of Briston Road and Grove Road, between 28 November and 5
December 2008, prepared by 5 local residents, has been received by the Local
Planning Authority, attached as Appendix 5, which they feel demonstrates the
negative impact of the proposed development and highlights the need for a formal
traffic survey.
Two letters have been received from the Melton Constable Community Association
the first of which was accompanied by 111 Postcard Questionnaires which had been
distributed in Melton Constable between 4 - 5 December 2008. The questionnaire
Development Control Committee (West)
15
5 February 2009
sought responses to five questions and in response 96 residents believe the land off
Grove Road should remain a community resource, 101 believe open access to green
space is important for our village now and in the future, 102 oppose the application
for 38 houses, 3 support the application for 38 houses, 74 support community
ownership of the site, to finance Country Club repairs. In addition 24 of the
questionnaires had additional comments, which are included in the representations
above.
The other letter contained representations of objection from 64 members of the
association, which makes the following comments, (summarised):
1. The application should be considered against the adopted Core Strategy policies
and not outdated policies contained in the Local Plan, which would reassure our
members that the Council are prioritising the sustainable future of our community.
2. Reiterates objections of residents in terms of loss of access to
safe/green/amenity/reaction and play space, increased traffic and attendant risks,
loss of character in a Conservation Area.
3. Public consultation exercise initiated by the applicant was minimal and poorly
advertised.
4. Traffic assessment by the Key Individual Network, working in partnership with
Norfolk Constabulary Safer Neighbourhoods team suggests that traffic movements at
this junction may present matters of concern to children on their way to school and
patients accessing the surgery.
5. When considered against the Core Strategy policies residents consider the
development does not:
a) Demonstrate protection and enhancement of the landscape, and settlement
character or protect setting or views in the Conservation Area.
b) Retain existing important landscaping and natural features, create safe
environments addressing crime prevention and community safety, preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the historical landscape.
c) Remove traffic hazards to life and property along narrow Victorian streets.
d) Does not adequately replace the six car parking spaces which would be lost, as a
result of inclusion of yellow lines.
e) A dense housing development does not enhance the open character or
recreational use of the land.
f) The expected nature and volume of traffic generated by the plans has not been
sufficiently monitored.
g) The settlement has more than met its responsibly in affordable housing in this
area.
h) Does not meet the affordable housing requirement of 50% affordable.
6. Members of the Community Association believe that Community-focused project
would bring more long term benefits for the village and surrounding areas. The Core
Strategy ties in the priorities of our community today, and development of any kind
should adhere to the new policies.
An e-mail has been received from a local landowner in support of the Community
Land Initiative at Melton Constable in which he makes the following comments,
(summarised):
He considers that it would be a shame to lose this area of amenity land at the heart
of the village, especially as many residents want a green space that will allow a
sense of community to be maintained. If the Community Association could acquire
the land and they have not ruled out its purchase, they have a chance to create
something that would benefit the whole village for years to come.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
5 February 2009
Representations of support:
Twelve letters of support have been received from local residents, including six who
state they are members of the Melton Constable County Club, which make the
following comments:
1. There is a need for more affordable housing in the area, especially for young
people.
2. The village has two very large playing fields already for children to play.
3. The development of the site would improve the appearance of an untidy area.
4. The development would provide extra car park spaces which are greatly needed to
accommodate existing houses.
5. The additional traffic would make very little difference considering there is already
a lorry route through the village.
6. The additional traffic would be mitigated by the provision of off-street car parking
which is long overdue.
7. The development would be in keeping with the historic and heritage nature of the
village and the Conservation Area.
8. The development of the site would help to secure the future of the Melton
Constable County Club, which provides a place for people of all ages to socialise.
9. Development would help to resolve current drainage problems.
10. The open space would leave a large area to satisfy the needs of those who want
such an area.
12. Will bring more people into the village supporting shops, industries and clubs.
13. North Norfolk needs affordable housing and Melton has the right infrastructure.
In addition 124 letters of support have been received from members of the Melton
Constable County Club, in the form of a standard letter which states that the
signatory believes the application has a number of positive attributes for the village.
A letter has also been received from consultants attached to which is a petition in
support of the application signed and addressed by 50 individuals who feel the
development would provide many benefits for the village and wider community.
Representations from applicant's agent:
A letter has been received from consultants who seek to clarify some of the issues
raised:
For the avoidance of doubt the whole site is in private ownership and there are no
third party rights over any of the site.
All the discussions we have had to date with Norfolk County Council Highways
Department indicated that the measures proposed will satisfy their requirements and
therefore there is no objection to the application on those grounds.
The planning application includes a partial solution for car parking for existing
residents by providing additional off-road spaces totalling 15 units for existing
residents. We would also point out that there are 3 parking lay-bys being created on
Grove Road which will add a further 9 parking spaces for the public that are not
available now. The extra spaces and lay-byes will significantly contribute to a
reduction in on-street car parking.
We are aware of the concerns of Briston Parish Council regarding a footpath link
between this site and the existing Lomax Development and we are happy to remove
the footpaths proposed if it is considered to be inappropriate. The intention was to
enable nearby residents to gain access to a wider area of public open space and to
provide safer footpaths and cycle routes to the school.
A letter from the applicant's agent accompanied the amended plans of 10 November
2008 together with a full Ecological Survey. This referred to the fact that the site area
had been increased to include an attenuation lagoon. Also a number of alternative
Development Control Committee (West)
17
5 February 2009
layouts had been considered following the meeting of the Development Control
Committee (West) on 22 May 2008, however the position of the open space had
been arrived at following extensive discussions with planning officers prior to the
submission of the original application and that moving the open space to the north
eastern edge of the site would not satisfy adopted policies relating to the distances
between dwelling and open space/play areas. Furthermore whilst there are drainage
issues at the north eastern end of the site which will be resolved if development
occurs this would not be mitigated if it remained as open space. In addition they also
consider that there is a significant advantage in linking the proposed open space to
the Lomax development that adjoins the site, which could not be achieved if the open
space was relocated.
A further letter and amended plan received from the applicant's agent on 8
December 2008 requests the removal of the attenuation lagoon from the application
at this stage. The reason for this is that, whilst there is a strong possibility the lagoon
would be sited in this location, its inclusion seems to be causing confusion at this
stage, when in line with the condition suggested by the Environment Agency. It would
need to be subject of detailed design at the reserved matters stage, including
calculations and a full tree and ecology survey which would need to be agreed with
the Local Planning Authority and the Environmental Agent.
A further letter from the applicant's agent states that his clients have a long standing
involvement in the village dating back to the 1960s, when they bought all the former
railway properties. They wish to continue to invest in the village hence the current
application which would allow the village to expand and in particular, offer an
opportunity to those less able to buy or rent in the private sector the ability to have an
affordable property in the village. To this end they wish to increase the level of
affordable housing on the site to 50% of the 38 dwellings, 19 in total.
An e-mail from the applicant's agent, received on 14 January 2009, in response to
the comments from the Council's Countryside and Parks Manager states that as the
application is being determined under the Local Plan rather than the emerging Local
Development Framework the proposal meets policy as to open space provision. As
such, although the applicants have made the unprecedented gesture of increasing
the level of affordable housing they feel that this is sufficient and do not intend to
make further payments for play areas. In addition he points to the fact that the dire
financial position of the Country Club is very real and that there is every chance that
it will close unless planning permission is granted and income generated from a sale.
Other correspondence:
A letter has been received from Lomax Homes Limited which confirms that in
principle they would be willing for some form of "link way" from their site to Grove
Road.
CONSULTATIONS
Briston Parish Council - (Original comments) - Objects to the application on the
following grounds:1. Even with the provision of an additional 23 parking spaces for existing residents it
is doubtful if there would be any improvement on the current parking situation within
Melton Constable.
2. Grove Road would have difficulty in coping with the extra traffic and the junction
with Grove Road/Briston Road is not adequate to deal with the additional traffic.
3. The proposal would put added strain on surface water/sewage system.
4. Grove Road is prone to flooding and part of the site is known to be marshy.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
5 February 2009
The Parish Council in a subsequent letter has also indicated whilst they are in the
process of agreeing the transfer of the public amenity areas within the adjacent
Lomax development they consider that in the event of the Grove Road site being
approved that in 'principle' the link between the two amenity areas would not be
advisable.
Comments in respect of amended plans, 17 May 2008 - Reiterated their previous
objection.
Comments in respect of further amended plans, 10 November 2008 - Continue to
object mainly due to the enormous amount of additional traffic the scheme would
generate on Grove Road and the B1354 Briston/Fakenham Road.
Anglian Water - Consider that the existing network system has adequate capacity to
supply the development, however suggests that the developer should take measures
to achieve water efficiency. In addition they would require a condition relating to their
assets which are close to or cross the site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - (Original
comments):
Are concerned regarding the impact of the development on the setting of the existing
built form, and in particular the historic railway village which lies at the heart of the
Conservation Area.
Most importantly the open areas to the south of Grove Road form the setting to the
Conservation Area as was highlighted in the recent document, 'Melton Constable
Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals', North Norfolk
District Council 2007. Accordingly they consider very careful consideration needs to
be given to the location and impact of the proposed housing. The views towards and
out of the village from the site are significant and this open area does provide the
backcloth or foreground to the village in landscape terms. However, they consider
that this does not preclude the possibility of development.
The existing historic core of terraces is of high density. Any new development on the
site concerned should pay regard to this issue and to the very distinct form, scale and
character of the Conservation Area. This could be achieved through building design
and density. Whilst noting that some illustrative elevations have been submitted and
welcome the attempt to reflect local distinctiveness in any new housing; however it
will be important at the detailed stage to ensure that building design is
complementary in style rather than mere 'pastiche'. Any new development should not
undermine the integrity of the built historic fabric which was very much 'of its time'.
The use of modern materials and building methods in any new build would be
compatible with the Victorian architecture by demonstrating contemporary techniques
and materials.
In respect of the traffic management proposals the widening of Grove Road and
provision of a footway along the application site frontage is acceptable, as are the
minor alterations to provide a visibility splay at the junction with Fakenham Road and
Melton Street. Therefore provided a substantial amount of open landscape is
retained along Grove Road, whereby the setting and context of the historic village
can be appreciated, there is no overriding objection to this proposal.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Original comments):
No objection to the proposed tree removals provided that detailed landscape
proposals include replacement tree planting. Furthermore a significant lime on
Briston Road should be retained. It is understood that the submitted plans indicate
that visibility splays can be achieved without removal of these trees.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
5 February 2009
The Norfolk Biological Records Centre has records of Great Crested Newts in the
Melton Constable area, and the site could be potential foraging habitat for the newts
with breeding ponds nearby. 'The trees and hedgerows that are also to be removed
could provide other suitable ecological habitat.' It is therefore recommended that an
ecological survey is carried out prior to determining the application to identify any
protected species and other ecological information inline with the recommendations
of PPS9.
Comments in respect of amended plans, 17 May 2008 - It is recommended that
further survey works is carried out to ascertain the full ecological impact of the
development on protected species as required by PPS9.
Comments in respect of further amended plans, 10 November 2008 - The bat and
reptile survey dated October 2008 is acceptable and the mitigation and enhancement
details should be a condition of any approval. However the survey does not cover the
additional area of The Spinney which has now been included in the site. Any
development in this area could have a significant impact on the row of Hornbeams
trees which divides the site and Burgh Beck, a tributary of the River Glaven, rises in
this area which could contain protected species. Therefore at the reserved matters
stage if any development is to take place in this part of the site a full Arboricultural
report including Arboricultural Implication Assessment and subsequent Methods
Statement together with a full Ecological survey to take account of protected species
and biodiversity issues would need to be submitted.
County Council (Highways) - (Original comments) - Requires additional information in
respect of the layout of the turning heads, car parking, size of garages and lay-bys
etc. In addition, they require the existing footpath on the north side of Grove Road
between the site and the Briston Road to be widened to 1.8m.
Comments in respect of amended plans, 17 May 2008 - The four bedroom dwellings
do not comply with County Council requirement for three car parking spaces. The
retention of the Lime tree within the visibility splay is acceptable. The County Council
could not sustain a refusal on the grounds of access to the site and do not require
improvements to the existing footpath. However would be seeking waiting restrictions
at the Grove Road/Briston Road junction and conditions relating to construction
traffic.
Environment Agency - (Original comments) - The site lies within Flood Zone 1, the
lowest risk zone. Whilst the site is outside the floodplain the development could
generate significant volumes of surface water. As such surface water drainage will
need to be addressed in the form of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). To ensure that
the additional surface water generated by the development can be managed without
increasing both on-and off-site flood risk.
They therefore object on flood risk grounds until such a time that a satisfactory FRA
is submitted.
In respect of contaminated land no objection subject to the imposition of an
appropriate condition requiring the submission of a full contaminated land survey.
Comments in respect of the Flood Risk Assessment received 8 May 2008 - The
Flood Risk Assessment adequately addresses the Environment Agency's concerns
at the outline application stage and as such withdraw their objection. However prior
to the commencement of any works would require a scheme for the provision and
implementation of surface water drainage to be submitted and agreed in writing.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
5 February 2009
Comments in respect of amended plans 10 November, 2008. As there have been no
other changes to the application no further comments.
Environmental Health - (Original comments) - Due to the springs in close proximity to
the site further information is required on surface water disposal methods. In addition
require the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to contaminated land, lighting
and noise, together with details of refuse storage areas.
Comments in respect of amended plans, 17 May 2008 - Confirm that the Flood Risk
Assessment overcomes previous concerns and have no objection subject to the
imposition.
Comments in respect of further amended plans, 10 November 2008 - No objection
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
G P Practice - Awaiting comments.
Planning Obligations Co-ordinator (County Planning) - Require contribution in respect
of Primary and High School provision and also library provision and fire service.
North Norfolk Primary Care Group - It is not considered that the proposed
development would impact hugely on local primary care services.
Planning Policy Manager - (Original comments) - The Local Plan was adopted in
1998 and in some areas of policy might be regarded as out of date. In the intervening
years the Government has published a number of new policy statements and the
Authority is in the process of replacing the current Local Plan with the Local
Development Framework (LDF). It could be argued that emerging policies more
accurately reflect Government thinking and hence ought to be afforded more weight.
The LDF does not propose to alter the development boundary of the village and the
site will continue to be designated as part of a residential area. Therefore, given that
the proposal includes 40% affordable housing, under both the current Local Plan and
the emerging Core Strategy, should it be approved, there is no in principle objection
to residential development of this site.
There is a high demand and a high level of need for housing in the District. The East
of England Plan requires that the Authority provide for the erection of a minimum of
8,000 dwellings in the period 2001- 2021. Development of unidentified sites (windfall)
has been providing approximately 370 dwellings per year since 2001. This will need
to increase to around 424 per year to ensure the 8,000 dwellings are built within the
plan period. A Strategic Market Housing Assessment prepared for the Authority by
Fordham research suggests that there is substantial demand for new dwellings and a
need for in excess of 900 affordable dwellings per year.
The emerging LDF will therefore seek to provide for a general increase in housing
provision for the rest of the plan period and in order to do this, will be identifying
specific sites for house building (residential allocations). However, the Site Specific
Proposals document which will allocate these sites is unlikely to be adopted until
2009/10 and in the interim windfall development, such as that proposed on this site,
will comprise the main source of new dwellings. District-wide there is currently a fairly
large 'stock' of planning permissions and a further 400-450 dwellings which are
recorded as under construction. However in the absence of land allocations, or an
increase in windfall development rates, it seems unlikely that the number of dwellings
built each year will reach the required figure of around 424 until specific new
allocations are made.
PPS3 requires that Local Planning Authorities identify and maintain a five year land
supply. This should comprise sufficient specifically identified sites to accommodate
five years worth of the annual requirement (in the case of North Norfolk 5 years x 424
Development Control Committee (West)
21
5 February 2009
dwellings = 2120 dwellings) where it is clear that development can and will take
place. Currently the Council can identify sufficient sites to provide an approximate 4.7
years supply. In the absence of a full 5 year supply PPS3 requires that planning
authorities should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having
regard to the policies of the PPS including:Achieving high quality housing.
Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting housing
requirements.
The suitability of the site for housing, including environmental sustainability.
Using land effectively and efficiently, and ensuring the proposed development is in
line with planning for housing objectives and does not undermine wider policy
objectives.
The current position in respect of housing supply and needs, the absence of a full
five year land supply, and the advice in PPS3 does not favour a restrictive approach
towards housing provision. The Core Strategy therefore suggests that allocations of
up to 50 dwellings may be appropriate in Briston and Melton Constable reflecting the
relative sustainability of the two settlements, which together have a broad range of
day to day services and facilities.
In light of the above there is no strategic policy objection to the proposal.
The proposal should also comply with Policy 13 (design and setting of development),
Policy 42 (should preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area,
including consideration of the impact that the proposed highway works may have on
the prevailing character of the area), Policy 105 (provision of public open space), and
Policies 147 and 153 (access and car parking). Some account should also be taken
of the emerging policies of the Core Strategy particularly EN 6 in respect of energy
efficiency and how the proposed layout of development may impact on this.
In respect of Open Space provision the proposal meets the requirements of the Local
Plan which for developments of this size requires the provision of a LAP (Local Area
of Play). I am however aware that there are local concerns in relation to the provision
of 'usable' open space in this part of the village. In this regard it would be preferable
to link the proposed open space on this site with that on the adjacent Lomax scheme
to make a more usable area (the Lomax scheme includes the provision of a LEAP
immediately adjacent to the open space proposed on the current application). A
footpath connection between the two sites is also desirable. However account should
also be taken of the Melton Constable Character Appraisal which identifies this site
as an open space.
Comments in respect of further amended plans, 10 November 2008 - The North
Norfolk Local Plan has now been superseded by the North Norfolk Core Strategy
which was adopted by the Council in September 2008 following which time all new
planning applications should be considered against the provisions of the Core
Strategy. The Council has however resolved that:
For all applications 'on hand' upon receipt of the final binding report there will be
presumption that they will be determined in accordance with the Core Strategy
although for a short time some weight will continue to be attached to the Local Plan
where in the Council's opinion this is justified by the provisions of Article 6 of
Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act (the right to a fair civil determination).
The policy context for determining the application has therefore shifted from the Local
Plan, to the Core Strategy, with some weight (although probably limited weight) being
attached to the provisions of the former Local Plan. In my view the application should
be considered as follows:
1. Assess the proposal against the policies of the Core Strategy.
2. Where the proposal does not comply with the Core Strategy consider if it would
have complied with the Local Plan.
3. If it would have complied with the Local Plan determined how much weight to
attach to this.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
5 February 2009
The site is located within the development boundary of Melton Constable as defined
in the Core Strategy, is designated as part of a residential area on the adopted
Proposals Map, and is within Melton Constable Conservation Area. Residential
development of the site is acceptable in principle (Policy SS 3) provided it complies
with a range of Development Control policies.
The proposal appears to comply with Policies H0 1, H0 2, and H0 7. Compliance with
Policies EN 2, EN 8 and EN 4 are matters of judgement and are for others to
comment.
The proposals do not fully comply with policies CT 2 or CT 6 in that there is a small
deficiency of public open space (approx 200sqm shortfall) and car parking spaces. In
relation to car parking the proposal would need to provide a further seven spaces to
meet the required standards of the Core Strategy in relation to the larger four bed
house types. This deficiency is extremely modest and in itself would not in my
opinion justify refusal of the application. Furthermore, the proposal would have
complied with the car parking standards of the former Local Plan. If the deficiency is
considered to be significant, and it should be noted that adjacent streets are heavily
parked, this would appear to be easily rectified by reducing the number of larger units
proposed.
Similarly the deficiency in public open space is modest and the revised approach
included in the Core Strategy provides for the possibility of open space needs being
addressed in a number of ways including improvements to existing nearby facilities.
The Countryside and Parks Manager will be able to provide advice on this issue.
There is a high demand and a high level of need for housing in the District. The East
of England Plan requires that the Authority provide for the erection of a minimum of
8,000 dwellings in the period 2001-2021. Development of unidentified sites (windfall)
has been providing approximately 370 dwellings per year since 2001. This will need
to increase to around 424 per year to ensure the 8,000 dwellings are built within the
plan period. A Strategic Market Housing Assessment prepared for the Authority by
Fordham research suggests that there is substantial demand for new dwellings and a
need for in excess of 900 affordable dwellings per year.
The emerging LDF will therefore seek to provide for a general increase in housing
provision for the rest of the plan period and in order to do this, will be identifying
specific sites for house building (residential allocations). However, the Site Specific
Proposals document which will allocate these sites is unlikely to be adopted until
2009/10 and in the interim windfall development, such as that proposed on this site,
will comprise the main source of new dwellings. District-wide there is currently a fairly
large ‘stock’ of planning permissions and a further 400-450 dwellings which are
recorded as under construction. However in the absence of land allocations, or an
increase in windfall development rates, it seems unlikely that the number of dwellings
built each year will reach the required figure of around 424 until specific new
allocations are made. This is particularly the case in the current down turn in the
housing market.
In light of the above there is no strategic policy objection to this proposal.
Strategic Housing - Supports the application subject to the applicant meeting the
Council's affordable housing requirements in terms of affordability and tenure mix.
Comments in respect of further amended plans, 10 November 2008 – Supports the
application for 50% affordable housing in line with the Core Strategy and confirms
that having looked at the housing need for Melton Constable/Briston that a small
number of larger affordable family homes within the scheme would be acceptable,
giving a total of 19 affordable dwellings.
As part of a Section 106 Obligation the applicant would need to agree to the transfer
of the completed affordable units built to an agreed standard and at an agreed cost to
a Registered Social Landlord at a level which requires no grant subsidy. In addition
Development Control Committee (West)
23
5 February 2009
the Section 106 would also need to specify the amount, type, mix of affordable
dwellings, and may set out a phasing requirement to ensure the affordable housing is
begun and completed at appropriate stages in the development.
North Norfolk Safety Community Partnership - Makes suggestions which should be
incorporated into any application for full planning permission.
Comments in respect of further amended plans, 10 November 2008 - Makes
suggestions in respect of security of parking courtyard public lighting.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Based on Policy CT 1 of the Local Development
Framework there would be a need for 2093sq.m of open space of which 360sq.m
could be dedicated to children's play.
The layout provides for 1835sq.m of open space amounting to 87% of what would be
ideally required however in my view this level of open space provision is reasonable.
I note that the proposal complies with the open space requirements set out in the
Local Plan.
Dedicated children's play space already exists to the north of Fakenham Road and
also at Meadow Road which are both within the prescribed limit of 800m walking
distance. The facilities are also in fair condition. The only disadvantage is that
walking to the play areas from the new development would mean crossing the B1354
which can be busy at times. In practical terms it would not be feasible to provide play
facilities on site due to the close proximity to dwellings. Use of the play area would be
likely to cause potential annoyance to some residents. In my view a contribution for
off-site provision to enhance existing play areas, or to make further provision on the
Lomax development to the South, where the open spaces could contain a play area
more effectively should be sought. An appropriate level of contribution would be
£18,000.
There is no need to provide for allotments because the neighbourhood is already well
supplied in this respect.
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
North Norfolk Safety Community Partnership's comments have been passed to the
applicant's agent.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control Policies (adopted 24
September 2008)
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 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).
Development Control Committee (West)
24
5 February 2009
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 3: Large 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 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 56: Affordable Housing on Large Housing Sites (specifies criteria for affordable
housing provision in residential developments).
Policy 105: Playing Space in New Housing Developments (refers to playing space
requirements).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of acceptability of residential development.
2. Affordable housing and mix of development.
3. Layout and impact on Conservation Area.
4. Car parking.
5. Highway safety.
6. Open space and play area provision.
7. Protected species and habitat.
8. Flood risk.
9. Site contamination.
10. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 22 May 2008 to
allow Officers to negotiate with the applicants in respect of the position of the open
space, number of units, car parking and the position of the attenuation lagoon. In
addition, following the receipt of comments from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager the applicant was asked to provide a full Ecological Impact
Assessment of the development on protected species as required by Planning Policy
Statement 9.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
5 February 2009
Since the application was last considered by the Committee, changes in
Development Plan Policy have occurred and new policies are now in force following
the adoption of the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008 which
supersede the policies of the former North Norfolk Local Plan for development control
purposes, against which the application had previously been assessed.
Whilst this application was 'on hand' upon receipt of the final binding report and there
is a presumption that the application should be determined in accordance with the
Core Strategy policy, it is considered that some weight should continue to be
attached to the Local Plan as the applicant’s are entitled, in accordance with Article 6
of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act (the right to a fair civil determination), to
expect their application to be determined fairly.
1. Principle of acceptability of residential development
The site is located within the development boundary of Melton Constable as defined
in the North Norfolk Core Strategy and is within the Melton Constable Conservation
Area. Residential development of the site is acceptable in principle in accordance
with Policy SS 3, subject to complying with other Development Plan policies,
including the provision of affordable housing.
As indicated in the original comments from the Planning Policy Manager, the Housing
Needs Survey identified a high need for affordable housing across the District, which
was reinforced by the Strategic Market Housing Assessment prepared for the
Authority, which suggests that in excess of 900 affordable dwellings are required per
year. Furthermore, North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy SS 3 suggests that allocations
of up to 50 dwellings may be appropriate in Briston and Melton Constable, which are
defined as Service Villages, reflecting the relative sustainability of the two
settlements, which together have a broad range of day to day services and facilities.
2. Affordable housing and mix of development
The Council's Strategic Housing Section has indicated that the provision of 19
affordable dwellings, representing 50% of the total is acceptable and the mix of
dwelling types including a small number of larger affordable family homes within the
scheme would be acceptable in this location and would comply with Policy HO 2 of
the Core Strategy.
However a requirement of the Core Strategy is that in terms of the dwelling mix and
type, Policy HO 1, 40% of the units should be 2 beds or smaller with an internal floor
space of no more than 70sq.m and also for 20% of the dwellings to be adaptable for
occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled. In this particular case the proposed
layout provides for 15 two bedroom units, which, when rounded down, complies with
the 40% requirement. However two of the units would potentially have internal floor
areas in the region of 80sq.m. Given that this is an outline application the design and
internal layout of all of the two bedroom dwellings could be reconsidered at the
reserved matters stage in order to ensure compliance with HO 1.
3. Layout and impact on Conservation Area
As far as the layout of the development is concerned, this would be divided into two
elements separated by an area of open space. The introduction of two terraces
fronting Grove Road, together with the remaining layout of the site, would reflect the
distinctive form and character of Melton Constable, whilst the provision of the open
area would provide an area of public open space and would contribute to the overall
setting of the development. It is therefore considered that the development as
proposed would preserve the character and appearance of the Melton Constable
Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
5 February 2009
4. Car parking
Each dwelling would be provided with two car parking spaces, either in the form of
open parking, or a combination of a garage and parking space, served off the access
roads. In addition, at the western end of the site adjacent to the industrial estate 15
car parking spaces would be allocated for the use of existing residents in Melton
Street and Colville Road. Grove Road itself would be widened and 3 x 18m long
parking bays would be provided.
In response to the amended plans received on 17 May 2008 the Highway Authority
raised concerns in respect of the size of the garages proposed and the fact that the
allocation of two car parking spaces for the four bedroom properties did not accord
with the County Council car parking standards. Although the provision of two car
parking spaces complied with the car parking standards of the former Local Plan the
North Norfolk Core Strategy, Policy CT 6, requires a minimum of 3 spaces for larger
4 bedroom dwellings. As a result a further seven spaces would be required to meet
these standards, which could be rectified by removing the four bedrooms units from
the scheme. However the Planning Policy Manager has indicated that he considers
this deficiency to be extremely modest and in itself not sufficient justification to refuse
the application. This view is supported.
5. Highway safety
In terms of off-site highway improvement works a requirement of the Highway
Authority is that there should be improvements to the junction of Grove Road and
Briston Road, where visibility improvement to the Briston side of the junction and a
reduction in the radius of the junction itself are required. Works to the visibly splay
would require the removal of a small tree, but it is understood that the Highway
Authority would have no objection to the retention of a much larger lime tree. In
addition although the Highway Authority is seeking a widening of Grove Road itself it
has confirmed that it no longer requires a widening of the footway to the north side of
Grove Road to 1.8m and for the existing footpath in Grove Road to be linked to the
junction or Briston Road. In addition it no longer requires a 20mph zone with
associated traffic management measures in Colville Road, Melton Street and Grove
Road.
Upon re-consultation the Highway Authority has confirmed that the traffic
management measures are no longer required and it is satisfied that the existing
road network in the vicinity of the site is adequate to serve an additional 38 dwellings.
6. Open space and play area provision
A further area of concern to local residents is the loss of open space and the informal
amenity area. Until recently, although in private ownership, the eastern part of the
site has been used as informal recreational space and the parking of cars by local
residents, whilst the area at the western end of the site, which is in the ownership of
the County Club, is used as a bowling green. The development as proposed would
provide for an area of open space of some 1,275sq.m at the centre of the site and a
smaller area of approximately 560sq.m to the rear of the site which would provide
further natural green space, giving a total area of 1835sq.m. The Council's
Countryside and Parks Manager has indicated that under the Core Strategy, Policies
CT 1 and CT2 the open space requirement would be 2,093sq.m of which 360sq.m
could be dedicated to children's play. However given that the proximity of the open
space to the proposed dwellings he does not consider that it would be feasible to
provide play equipment on site, and also recognises that the existing play areas have
the disadvantage of being on the north side of the B1354 which means crossing a
busy road. As such he suggests that a financial contribution of £18,000 should be
made to either enhance existing play areas or explore the possibilities of further
provision.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
5 February 2009
In response as outlined in the representations above the applicants' agent has
indicated that although his clients were prepared to increase the level of affordable
housing to 50% they consider that it would be unreasonable to require a financial
contribution for the provision of play equipment, when under the Local Plan the open
space complied with the requirements and there was no need to provide a financial
contribution. In addition as the land is within private ownership the idea that this area
of open space would be lost if developed is a misconception, as there are no public
rights over the land. However the granting of planning permission would create an
area of open space that could be used by the village which would not be the case if
permission is rejected.
As far as the loss of the existing open space is concerned the draft Melton Constable
Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Proposals suggest that
the site is one of the key open spaces within the Conservation Area. However the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that, providing a
substantial amount of open landscape is retained along Grove Road, whereby the
setting and context of the historic village can be appreciated, there is no overriding
objection to this proposal.
Given the local concerns regarding the loss of 'usable' open space in this part of the
village, the amended plans show a possible link to the proposed open space on the
adjacent ‘Lomax’ site, which is adjacent to the open space proposed on the current
application. However whilst a letter has been received from Lomax Homes Limited
which confirms that in principle they would be willing for some form of "link way"
Briston Parish Council who are likely to adopt the adjacent open space has stated
that it considers that such a link would be undesirable.
Although the total amount of open space complies with the requirements of the Core
Strategy, given the fact that the Council's Countryside and Parks Manager is of the
opinion that the level of open space provision is reasonable, and the provision would
have complied with the requirement of the superseded Local Plan it is not considered
that refusal on the shortfall of open space could be justified. Similarly at the time the
application was previously considered there was no requirement on the applicant to
provide a financial contribution toward the provision of play equipment and it is
considered that it would be unreasonable at this stage to require such a contribution.
In terms of the loss of the existing open space the Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager has no overriding objection and as such it is considered that the
scheme as proposed would accord with the requirement of Policy EN 8. As far as a
possible link to the Lomax site is concerned, whilst the submitted plans indicate a
footpath link, this is not the subject of any agreement. As such the application should
be determined on its merits, based on the amount of open space to be made
available on the site, which as outlined above is considered to be acceptable.
7. Flood risk
An area of concern raised by the Environment Agency is that of potential risk of onand off-site flood risk, which could result from the significant volumes of surface
water generated by the site. Following the submission of a full Flood Risk
Assessment and mitigation measures for the site the Environment Agency has
withdrawn its objection to the development. It requires the submission of a full
surface water drainage scheme at the reserved matters stage and as this is likely to
include the requirement for an attenuation lagoon the amended plan received on 10
November 2008 showed an indicative layout for the lagoon in part of The Spinney,
which is shown as being within the site area. However given the fact that the
attenuation lagoon would need to be the subject of a full survey into its potential
implications on the trees and ecology in that area of the site together with its effects
on the springs a further amended plan was received on 8 December 2008 deleting
any reference to the lagoon at this stage.
Development Control Committee (West)
28
5 February 2009
It is therefore now recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the
submission of a surface water drainage scheme at reserved matters stage, the site
for the scheme having been selected on the basis of its low or moderate impact on
biodiversity.
8. Protected species and habitat
Following local concerns and the fact that records show that the site and nearby
ponds could be a potential foraging habitat for Great Crested newts and that trees
and hedgerows that are to be removed could provide other suitable ecological
habitat, the applicant's agent has submitted a full Ecological Survey, excluding The
Spinney. The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated
that the survey, dated October 2008, is acceptable and the mitigation and
enhancement details should be a condition of any approval.
In respect of The Spinney, at the reserved matters stage, if any development is to
take place in this part of the site a full Arboricultural report including Arboricultural
Implication Assessment and subsequent Methods Statement together with a full
Ecological survey to take account of protected species and biodiversity issues would
need to be submitted.
9. Site contamination
Concerns have been raised by local residents in respect of the contamination of part
of the site occupied by the former gas works. In 2004 a site investigation was carried
out in relation to contamination and extracts of that report have been submitted as
part of the current application. As a result both the Environment Agency and the
Council's Environment Health Division would in the event of permission being
granted require conditions relating to further site investigation and if necessary
remedial measures.
10. Impact on neighbouring properties
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, any development in this area
would have an impact on the enjoyment of the occupiers of existing dwellings, both in
terms of their outlook, possible noise and disturbance and increase in potential traffic
movements. However given the fact that the site is within the development boundary
for Melton Constable, that in general the layout satisfies Development Plan
requirements in terms of basic amenity criteria and open space and would not result
in direct overlooking of neighbouring properties there is considered to be no objection
in principle to the development as proposed.
Conclusion
In summary, although the North Norfolk Local Plan has been superseded by the
North Norfolk Core Strategy, the site remains within the development boundary for
Melton Constable in an area defined as residential where in principle there would be
no objection to residential development. Furthermore the fact that the applicant is
now offering 50% of the dwellings as affordable housing means that this would
comply with the requirements of Policy HO 2 of the Core Strategy.
In terms of the layout the applicant's agent has indicated that, whilst consideration
has been given to re-siting the open space, following concerns raised by the
Committee at the meeting on 22 May 2008, they wish the application to be
determined in line with the final amended plans. The Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager has confirmed that the layout is considered to be acceptable
and would preserve the character or appearance of the Melton Constable
Conservation Area in accordance with Policy EN 8 of the Core Strategy, whilst the
layout also satisfies the amenity criteria identified in the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Control Committee (West)
29
5 February 2009
In respect of car parking and access to the site the Highway Authority has indicated
that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions they have no objection to the
scheme, but point out that there is a shortfall in car parking for the four bedroom
units, which is reiterated in the car parking standards contained in the Core Strategy.
However given that all dwellings would have two car parking spaces and that three
18m parking bays would be provided along Grove Road it is not considered that this
in itself would be sufficient to justify refusal of the application.
On the issue of open space although the total amount of open space would comply
with the requirements of the Core Strategy, given the fact that the Council's
Countryside and Parks Manager is of the opinion that the level of open space
provision is reasonable, and the provision would have complied with the requirement
of the superseded Local Plan it is not considered that refusal on the shortfall of open
space could be justified. Similarly at the time the application was previously
considered there was no requirement on the applicant to provide a financial
contribution toward the provision of play equipment and it is considered that it would
be unreasonable to require such a contribution.
On the issue of flood risk the Environment Agency has indicated that it has no
objection at this stage but would require the submission of a full surface drainage
scheme at the reserved matters stage and satisfies the requirement of Policy EN 10
of the Core strategy.
Similarly the Council's Landscape Officer has indicated that the Ecological Survey is
satisfactory, but would require a full Arboricultural Implication Assessment and
Ecological survey in respect of The Spinney at the reserved matters stage.
As such whilst the policies against which the proposal had previously been assessed
have been superseded by the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy it is not
considered that there are significant material changes in policy to warrant refusal of
this application. Furthermore given the fact that the application was submitted, had
been the subject of a site visit by Members and considered by the Committee prior to
the receipt of the Inspector's final binding report on 15 July 2008 it is considered that
the applicant is entitled, in accordance with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998,
to expect the application to be determined fairly. Therefore it is considered that
approval of the application, subject to the imposition of conditions and the making of
Section 106 Obligations, is justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning
law.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to the making of Section 106 Obligations
concerning education, library and fire service contributions and the imposition
of appropriate conditions, including affordable housing.
Development Control Committee (West)
30
5 February 2009
7.
SHERINGHAM - 20081020 - Erection of replacement Salvation Army hall;
Salvation Army Hall Cremer Street for The Salvation Army
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :28 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of the Salvation Army hall and its replacement with a purposebuilt hall.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
(Original Comments) - No objection.
Comments in respect of amended plans - No objection, however Members
expressed disappointment that the amended plan does not uphold the architecture of
Sheringham or resemble the appearance of a church.
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter has been received from a resident whose property backs onto the site to
which is attached a petition signed by fifty eight other local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. Part of the building is within the Sheringham Conservation Area and could very
easily be renovated.
2. The rebuilding does not afford any car parking and the increased number of
people using the hall would exacerbate existing problems of car parking in this part of
Sheringham.
3. The back wall of our house adjoins the party wall and we are very concerned
about the implication the demolition will have on our lives whilst the works are being
carried out.
4. The raising of the roof would result in a loss of light and privacy.
5. The works would have a detrimental effect on traffic in the surrounding area
particularly pedestrians and vehicles using Co-operative Street, which is one way.
In addition nine letters of objection have been received which raise the following
concerns (summarised):1. The lack of car parking will only contribute to the existing parking problems in the
area, particularly on Sunday morning when vehicles are parked on the pavements.
2. The building, due to its scale and massing will be very overpowering for the
properties immediately to the east and could result in a loss of light and privacy.
3. So many old Sheringham buildings have sadly been lost and the existing building
should be renovated.
4. A new site should be found for the hall in a less restricted area which would have
safe parking for the congregation.
5. The demolition of the existing hall could result in structural problems for adjoining
properties.
6. The demolition would result in significant noise and disturbance.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
5 February 2009
7. Holiday cottages to the east of the site could result in a loss of earnings whilst the
works are undertaken.
8. During construction the development could result in significant traffic disruption
particularly in Co-operative Street, which is one way, and Beeston Road.
9. The proposed new building is in a residential area and will become a more
commercial building instead of a place of worship, causing greater noise and
disturbance to local resident.
10. The Citadel has been part of Sheringham history since 1897 and it would be a
great shame to see it demolished.
11. No structural survey has been submitted in regard of the condition of the existing
building.
One letter of support has been received from a local resident which makes the
following comments (summarised):1. Whilst no doubt suffering some upheaval and inconvenience during demolition and
rebuilding the prospects of a new building for the future is very exciting.
2. The new hall would greatly enhance this area of Sheringham.
Letter received from the Sheringham and District Preservation Society
(summarised):Due to the increased bulk of the building it is considered that it would be more
intrusive and would cut out light to properties to the rear. It is suggested that part of
the building is made more "neighbour-friendly" by siting the rear extension in Cooperative Street through a lowering of the roof. In addition the increased car parking
is unfortunate in this location.
Four further letters of objection have been received in respect of the amended plans
which reiterate the previous concerns of neighbours, but also raise concerns that the
second floor window on the south elevation would overlook windows in the north
elevation of 1 Cremer Street and that the proposed height of the roof line is still far
too high.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - (Original
Comments ) - Raises concerns regarding the scale and massing of the building and
its design in respect of the street scene, particularly when viewed from Co-operative
Street, where it is considered there should be a focal point. Unless these issues can
be addressed he feels unable able to support the application.
Comments in respect of amended plans - Considers that whilst the demolition of the
existing building is unfortunate the revised scheme overcomes previous concerns in
that the building would respond better to its prominent corner location and relates
better to adjacent properties in terms its form and scale. As such it is considered that
it would sit far more comfortably within the street scene, and would preserve the
appearance and character of this peripheral part of the Sheringham Conservation
Area. Therefore there are no longer sufficient conservation or design grounds to
object to the application, but would require the imposition of conditions relating to
materials and detailing of the tower.
County Council (Highways) - (Original comments) - No objection in principle however
requires an amended plan showing the proposed hall outside the highway land.
Comments awaited in respect of amended plans.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the submission of information in
respect of the method of demolition of the existing building and the control of noise
and dust.
Development Control Committee (West)
32
5 February 2009
Community Safety Manager - (Original comments ) - The site is situated in an area
which suffers significant amounts of criminal damage, disorder and anti-social
behaviour, which raises specific concerns regarding ungated recesses and the need
for external lighting around the building. In addition the Community Safety Manager
makes recommendations regarding boundary treatments.
Comments awaited in respect of amended plans.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
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 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 93: New Community Facilities (permissive toward new facilities in defined
settlements, subject to amenity/character, access and parking considerations.
Specifies criteria for new facilities in the Countryside).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Design and impact on the appearance or character of Conservation Area.
4. Car parking and highway safety.
Development Control Committee (West)
33
5 February 2009
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting on 14 August 2008 in order to allow
Members the opportunity to visit the site and Officers time to negotiate further on the
design of the building. An amended plan has been received including a reduction in
the height of the building together with elevational changes.
The site is located within the development boundary for Sheringham and its northern
part is within the Sheringham Conservation Area where in principle, subject to
complying with other Core Strategy policies, there would be no objection to the
demolition of the existing hall and its replacement with a new multi purpose building.
The provision of a replacement community facility as proposed is acceptable in
principle under Core Strategy Policy CT 3.
The existing Salvation Army hall comprises a mix of buildings including a worship hall
and a two-storey ancillary building which together occupy a large proportion of a site,
which slopes gently from west to east towards Beeston Road with the rear of the site
being approximately 1.2m lower than the frontage with Cremer Street. The existing
building has a total floor area of 420sq.m, and the worship hall has a maximum ridge
height towards the rear of the site of 7.5m, whilst the ancillary building has a
maximum ridge height of 8m at the easternmost end of Co-operative Street. At the
present time there is a single-storey lean-to element to the eastern elevation which
abuts properties in Beeston Road, which have small enclosed back yards, facing the
site, with outbuilding and accommodation physically joining the boundary wall. To the
south there is a single-storey blank gable and a further single-storey lean-to adjoining
No.2 Cremer Street.
The proposed hall would have a total ground floor area of 437sq.m consisting of the
main worship hall and band, a secondary hall, kitchen and male and female toilets. In
addition there would be a foyer to the northern western corner of the building with a
staircase leading to the first floor, which would consist of a balcony to the worship
hall, counselling and general office and a musicians room, which would together
have a total floor area of 167sq.m. Elevationally the building would be punctuated by
a square tower with full height glazed panel which would act as a focal point at the
junction of Cremer and Co-operative Street with a further full height glazed opening
to the south western corner of the building in Cremer Street. The walls of the building
would be of red facing bricks, colour washed render and recessed Eternit panels.
Whilst the roof would consist of a combination of red clay pantiles and plain tiles, with
the window frames of a dark blue finish.
The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application indicates that, due
to the fairly poor structural condition of the building together with severe space
limitations, the existing premises are considered to be inadequate for the growing
corps with a desire to expand yet further. The statement also indicates that the
existing worship hall seats 180 people and that on average most Sundays the
congregation is in the region of 150 which during the summer increases, with visitors
bringing the facility to full capacity. In the past 5 years there has been a net increase
in adult and children members by 57 and it is projected that by 2013 the membership
will increase from 257 to 280. The larger premises are required not only to increase
the size of the worship hall but also provide a community hall to cater for both the
elderly and youth and also counselling for those in need of care and support in
Sheringham and north Norfolk.
Development Control Committee (West)
34
5 February 2009
The building as proposed would occupy a similar footprint than the existing premises.
However, owing to the introduction of additional first floor accommodation the overall
floor area would be increased by some 184sq.m. As far as its overall scale and
massing are concerned the amended plans have attempted to simplify the form and
roof structure of the building with a linear form fronting the Cremer and Cooperative
Streets and a square tower, set at an angle of 45 degrees, at the junction of the two
streets forming a focal point. In addition the overall height of the building has been
reduced so that the ridge height of the main body of the building fronting Cremer
Street would be equivalent to ridge height of the existing worship hall. The ridge
height of the ancillary wing abutting Co-operative Street would be approximately 1m
higher than the existing structure at the extreme eastern end.
In addition in order to try and reduce the impact on neighbouring properties to the
east the main worship hall would be sited 1.2 m further from the eastern boundary
than the present hall. In addition, single-storey lean-to elements would be
reintroduced to the eastern and southern boundaries with the eaves height to the
eastern boundary wall being the same as the existing structure.
The proposed scheme would involve the introduction of a new hipped gable end to
the north eastern end of the Co-operative Street element which would extend the
width of the gable approximately 2m further along the eastern boundary of the site
and would also have eaves 1m higher than the eaves of the existing gable. However
the proposed gable would be of a similar width to the gable of the neighbouring
property to the east which it faces across the adjoining alleyway.
Whilst it is clear the building as proposed would still be significantly more bulky than
the premises it would replace, the amended scheme has resulted in a reduction in its
massing, which together with the introduction of hipped roofs and the single-storey
lean-to elements would not result in an undue loss of light or be unduly overbearing
on neighbouring properties to either the south or east. In terms of potential
overlooking of the three-storey flats to the opposite side of Cremer Street, although
the separation distance would be only 8m, the windows facing this direction would
serve a counselling office and the balcony of the worship hall. The only other
possibility of overlooking would be the small rear gardens of Nos.6 and 8 Wyndham
Street, however any overlooking from the first floor windows of the musicians room
would be fairly oblique and as such it is considered the development would not result
in the undue loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings.
As far as any noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties whilst the
development takes place, the Council's Environmental Health section has indicated
that it would require the submission of information in respect of the method of
demolition of the existing building and the control of noise and dust.
In terms of the overall design of the building, at the present time the existing worship
hall with its rendered arts and crafts facade provides an interesting feature in the
street scene, whilst the ancillary building, although much altered, makes for an
attractive corner building when approaching from the west along Co-operative Street.
However given the projected need it is clear than the present facilities cannot sustain
the growth. The Design and Access Statement concludes that, whilst alternative
solutions have been considered, including moving to an alternative site, the
demolition and rebuilding is the only viable option for the applicant. In designing a
new building there are clearly severe limitations, due to size of the site and the need
for additional accommodation, however the proposed building has attempted to
reflect the character of the area both in terms of its scale and appearance. When
viewed from Cremer Street the main hall would have a fairly domestic scale with a
Development Control Committee (West)
35
5 February 2009
ridge height the same as the neighbouring two-storey dwellings to the south, whilst to
the opposite side of the road are three-storey flats. When viewed along Co-operative
Street the elevational treatment and scale would be similar to the building it would
replace. Similarly the choice of materials are intended to reflect those in the
immediate area of the site, which consist of a mix of red facing bricks and render,
and red clay pantiles.
As a result of the submission of the amended plan the Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager has indicated that the building would sit more comfortably in the
street scene and relate better to adjoining properties in terms of its scale and form
and would respond better to its prominent corner location. As a result whilst
remaining of the opinion that the demolition of the existing building is unfortunate it is
considered that, in line with the requirements of PPG15, the new building would
preserve the character and appearance of the Sheringham Conservation Area. As a
result it is considered that the design of the building would comply with Core Strategy
Policies EN 4 and EN 8.
As far as car parking is concerned, Core Strategy Policy CT 6 requires a minimum of
1 vehicle space for every 10sq.m of floor area, which equates to 60 spaces and 1
cycle space per 20 seats, which equates to 11 cycle parking spaces. The current
building would have a vehicle parking requirement of 42. However, there are no car
parking facilities on the site, with users of the premises either having to walk to the
hall or alternatively use unrestricted on-street parking in the vicinity or use public car
parks. The new facility would potentially increase parking in the area of the site at
certain times and there would be a shortfall of 18 vehicle spaces compared with the
existing situation. Further comments from the Highway Authority have been sought in
respect of amended plans and in relation to the parking space shortfall. Committee
will be updated orally. This is considered to be a crucial issue in the determination of
this application.
In summary, whilst the footprint of the proposed building would be very similar to that
it would replace there would be an increase in terms of its scale and massing,
particularly when viewed from Cremer Street. However views from Co-operative
Street would be very similar to those which already exist. As a result of the
amendments it is not considered that the building would result in a loss of light or be
any more overbearing on the occupiers of properties in Beeston Road than the
present building. In terms of the overall design the Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager considers that the revised scheme would preserve the
appearance of this part of the Sheringham Conservation Area.
In respect of car parking, however, the proposed scheme would require a net
increase of 18 parking spaces compared with the existing premises. On street car
parking and public car parks in the surrounding area are available, but the views of
the Highway Authority are awaited in respect of impact on highway safety and an oral
recommendation will be made on the basis of this assessment.
RECOMMENDATION:An oral recommendation will be made at the meeting.
Development Control Committee (West)
36
5 February 2009
8.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at the next meeting.
As this application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make their representations at the next meeting of the Committee when the
application is discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by the officers at
the meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HOLT - 20081655 - Erection of workshop and display building and use of land
for display and manufacture or timber buildings; The Poultry Farm Cley Road
for Thaxters Custom-made Wooden Buildings Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
An early site visit by the Committee is considered necessary by the Head of Planning
and Building Control in view of the complexity of the planning issues involved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake a site visit in the above case.
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - 20081614 - Construction of beach access steps; Beeston
Regis Caravan Park Cromer Road for Beeston Regis Caravan Park
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - 20081148 - Erection of garage/workshop with studio/hobbies room
above; Apple Garth Langham Road for Mr J Hill
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081549 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling and
replacement garage; Greensholme Wilsons Way for Mr Green
(Full Planning Permission)
BRININGHAM - 20081647 - Continued use of tea-room; Gatehouse Gunthorpe
Lane for Mrs H Duffield
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081619 - Formation of four car parking spaces; Sculpher
Gardens Gladstone Road for Mr Cox
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081629 - Erection of two-storey extension; 95 North Park for Mr
and Mrs Buckley
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081651 - Erection of detached double garage; adjacent 10
Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
37
5 February 2009
FAKENHAM - 20081657 - Construction of pitched roof; Fakenham College
Wells Road for Reserve Forces and Cadets Association
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081411 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions;
The Grove Veterinary Group Holt Road for CVS (UK) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081593 - Erection of two-storey to provide annexe and singlestorey side/rear extensions; 155 Holt Road for Mr S Dawkins
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081658 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Co-Op
Pharmacy, Lidl Retail Park Holt Road for Co-Op Pharmacy
(Illuminated Advertisement)
FAKENHAM - 20081690 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 20041219 to increase opening hours to 8.00am to 12.00 midnight any
day; 25 Bridge Street for Mr A Demir
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - 20081558 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 20060252 to permit alterations to provide additional habitable
accommodation; Orchard House 77 Holt Road for Mr Emmitt
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - 20081602 - Erection of garages with annexe above; Lower
Farm Binham Road for Mr and Mrs Dorricott
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - 20081538 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and access
ramp; 7 Dereham Road for Fisher and Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20081308 - Raising of roof to provide first floor
accommodation and erection of double garage; 9 Avenue Road for Mr M Bell
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20081667 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisements; Ashcroft Farm Hindolveston and 130 Holt Road Field Dalling
for Mr N Holden
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
HINDRINGHAM - 20080959 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings, four twostorey dwellings and two flats; former Bowling Green The Street for Flagship
Housing Group Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071758 - Installation of internal doorways, replacement staircase, ensuite bedrooms, removal of render, re-instatement of window, replacement
door with enlarged window with brick infill below and installation of three
dormers and two rooflights; The Old Rectory Letheringsett Hill for Mr and Mrs
Neech
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (West)
38
5 February 2009
HOLT - 20081145 - Conversion of dwelling to shop (Use Class A1); 7 Bull Street
for Mr A Hyslop
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081601 - Internal alterations, installation of replacement windows to
conservatory and alterations to out- building; The Kings Head 19 High Street
for Mr Wilson
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20081616 - Erection of two-storey side extension and detached garage;
53 Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs O'Sullivan
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081623 - Internal alterations, installation of replacement/additional
windows and erection of single-storey extension; 15 Pearsons Road for Mrs
Wilson
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20081627 - Alterations to outbuilding; 19 High Street for Mr I Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081634 - Erection of first floor extension; Crossways Gresham
Preparatory School Cromer Road for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081692 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial and
professional services); Units 15, 16 and 17 The Secret Garden High Street for
NFU Mutual
(Full Planning Permission)
ITTERINGHAM - 20081387 - Erection of car shelter; Mere Farm Mannington
Matlaske Road Mannington for D and M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - 20081579 - Change of use from convent to single dwellinghouse;
Carmel of Our Lady of Walsingham Cockthorpe Road for Mr Blackwell
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - 20081669 - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of single-storey
extension; Seal Cottage 8 North Street for Mr N P Wykham
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - 20081645 - Erection of replacement single-storey side extension;
The Forge The Street for Mr and Mrs Kokelaar
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20081630 - Removal of windows and doors and
installation of folding doors; The Granary Dairy Farm Melton Park Hindolveston
Road for Dr John Bryden
(Alteration to Listed Building)
RAYNHAM - 20080583 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings and one singlestorey dwelling; land adjacent 1 The Drove West Raynham for Flagship
Housing Group
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
39
5 February 2009
RYBURGH - 20081607 - Erection of 1.5m high gate; 14 Highfield Close Great
Ryburgh for Mr M Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20081661 - Erection of replacement garage; Fridays Barn Coast
Road for Mr and Mrs Harhalakis
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20081624 - Erection of rear conservatory; 14 Creake Road for
Mr and Mrs Haws
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20081668 - Erection of shed; 8 St Nicholas Barn Lynn Road
(name withheld) (Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081500 - Erection of single-storey extension with balcony
above; Seacote, 15 Victoria Street for Mrs Faircloth
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081603 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension to
provide annexe; 27 Pine Grove for Mr McMahon
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081677 - Erection of conservatory; plot 1, 10 Morley Road for
Derek Foreman House Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081679 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 14 Knowle
Road for Mr and Mrs D Dunkley
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20081273 - Reinstatement of stable roof and erection of
office/studio; Willow Tree Printing Brickfield Barn Great Ryburgh Road for Mr S
Harper
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20081633 - Installation of external staircase and door; Red Lion 44
Wells Road for Stiffkey Red Lion Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - 20081733 - Prior notification of intention to restore agricultural
buildings; Manor House New Road Bessingham for Mr Clark
(Prior Notification)
THURSFORD - 20081632 - Erection of two units of holiday accommodation;
plots 13 and 14 North Lane for Mrs Cushing
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20081636 - Erection of single-storey front and side extensions;
School Lodge 4 St. Peters Road for Mr Getley
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081104 - Alterations to and extension of
outbuilding to facilitate conversion to habitable accommodation and provision
of car port and storage area; 35 Dogger Lane for Mr and Mrs J Walker
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
40
5 February 2009
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081105 - Alterations to and extension of
outbuilding to facilitate conversion to habitable accommodation and provision
of car port and storage area; 35 Dogger Lane for Mr and Mrs J Walker
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081628 - Erection of two-storey side extension;
Orchard Cottage Burnt Street for Mrs Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081649 - Erection of rear conservatory; 80 Freeman
Street for Mrs M Dye
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081680 - Infilling part of external elevations; Wells
Health Centre Bolts Close for NHS Norfolk
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081687 - Removal of internal walls and installation
of replacement doors and windows; Unit 1, 69 Freeman Street for Mr N D
Weston
(Alteration to Listed Building)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - 20081270 - Erection of dwelling; The Nest, 142 Fakenham Road for
Mr R Tidman
(Outline Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20081271 - Erection of dwelling; The Nest, 142 Fakenham Road for
Mr R Tidman
(Outline Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20081587 - Continued siting of residential caravan; land at
Sevenacres Thurning Road for Mrs Kidd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081563 - Erection of front conservatory; 1 Toll Bar for Mr and
Mrs Fox
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - 20081337 - Continued use of former garden store as art
gallery; Outbuildings at Warners End Farm School Road Saxlingham for Mr
Barlow
(Full Planning Permission)
PLUMSTEAD - 20081388 - Change of use from one dwelling to two dwellings;
Lupin Cottage 33-34 The Green for Mr D Coupe
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - 20081554 - Erection of first floor/two-storey rear extension;
Bridland Cottage The Street for Mr and Mrs Tester
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
41
5 February 2009
SUSTEAD - 20081626 - Siting of two mobile homes; Little Fen Farm Glen Farm
Lane Metton for Mr D Garramone
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - 20081648 - Continued display of non-illuminated
direction signs; Half Mile both sides of Crossroads Dereham Road for Mrs H
Duffield
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
BACONSTHORPE - 20080751 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling; land
at The Street for C J C Lee (Saxthorpe) Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
12.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
WOOD NORTON - 20071379 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; The Old Fire
Station Foulsham Airfield Foulsham Road for Thomas and Money Haulage
INFORMAL HEARING
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - 20080273 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached double
garage; land adjacent 10 Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Builders Limited
SITE VISIT :- 06 Feb 2009
HEMPSTEAD - 20080555 - Change of use from public house to residential
dwelling; Hare and Hounds Baconsthorpe Road for Mr and Mrs Purkiss
SALTHOUSE - 20080401 - Erection of single-storey earth-sheltered dwelling;
land at Purdy Street for Mr B Williams
SITE VISIT :- 02 Feb 2009
SHERINGHAM - 20071180 - Erection of twenty-two flats; Central Garage 49
High Street for Mr N J Wright
SITE VISIT :- 02 Feb 2009
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20061288 - Erection of first floor rear extension and
conversion of roofspace to two residential units; Premises rear of The Old Mill
Maryland for Mr and Mrs Ward
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BODHAM - 01/013/DEV6/05/003 - Stationing of caravans a boat and depositing
other materials on agricultural land; Windrush Farm Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
and Ms J A Allen
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
42
5 February 2009