OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 5 MARCH 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.
This item was deferred at the meeting on 5 February 2009 to enable Members to visit
the 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
5 March 2009
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).
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 10metre 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?
Development Control Committee (West)
2
5 March 2009
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
5 March 2009
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.
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 5 Mar Cttee)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
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 application was deferred at the meeting on 5 February 2009 to enable the
Committee to visit the site.
The Committee will recall that this application was also considered at the meeting on
9 October 2008 (copy of report and minutes attached at Appendix 2) when 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
5 March 2009
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 2).
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 applicants
currently only has one as the garage is full and cannot be used for parking.
5. The two spaces obtained under license 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.
Following the Committee meeting on 5 February a further letter of representation was
received from the applicant’s agent, referring to the decision made by the Committee
on 9 October 2008 to delegate approval of this application. A copy is attached at
Appendix 2.
The application had been referred back to the Development Control Committee
(West) for further consideration at the request of Councillor 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 that Authority’s support
refusal based on 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 for a condition to be
imposed to this effect.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
5 March 2009
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including a
requirement that both the courtyard and garage parking spaces are retained for
parking purposes at all times.
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 - File Reference: 20071823 Stody(2))
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
EDGEFIELD - 20090073 - Retention of replacement livestock building; Blackhall
Farm Chapel Hill for G W Harrold and Partners
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :23 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Nats Zone (Wind Turbines)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070988 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of land and buildings from
agricultural to equestrian
Approved, 07 Nov 2007
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks to retain a replacement livestock building which measures
25.95m x 32.15m. Three pig unit buildings were demolished and replaced with one
pig building to approximately the same footprint.
The existing site access and hardstanding are to be used.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Inappropriate to use Local Member Protocol since tenant of the farm is a relative of
the Member.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:
1. The new building is a substantially different footprint to the original building and
disproportionately high.
2. The building is approximately 15 metres from Blackhall Farm House and its height
is causing a loss of light to the residential property.
3. The security lighting is causing a loss of privacy to the neighbouring residential
property.
4. The applicant and agent should have known that permission was required for the
building.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
5 March 2009
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from Blackhall Farm House (dwelling to the northeast) on the following grounds:
1. Security lighting is a nuisance
2. The size of the barn is considerably higher and larger than the previous three pig
buildings.
3. Loss of natural light as a result of the size and proximity of the building.
4. Potential increase in volume of traffic
5. Level of manure generated and stored on the site.
6. Increased water run off.
7. Open waste unit and three feed bins have been installed.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - On the basis that this is a building to replace existing
buildings used in conjunction with the pig business carried out on the site, there are
no highways objections.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of a condition advising
that no extractor or ventilation system shall be installed unless a scheme for noise
and odour control has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
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 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).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Landscape impact.
2. Siting and design.
3. Impact on adjacent residents.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside Policy Area where development for agricultural
purposes is acceptable in principle subject to protecting the character of the
countryside and complying with more detailed assessment criteria.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
5 March 2009
The piggery building has replaced three buildings with one large building on the
same footprint. The farm building is located within a cluster of farm buildings on the
southern side of Chapel Hill. The building is of an appropriate height, bulk and scale
for its intended use and materials and colour are considered appropriate. Given its
appropriate scale and design, its siting within an existing cluster of farm buildings and
the screening to the wider landscape to the north-west and east, the proposal is
considered to have no adverse visual impact on the wider landscape.
In terms of impact on the amenities of occupiers of the adjacent dwelling, whilst the
building is of a fairly substantial height, at 4.4m to the eaves and 7.35m to the ridge,
given its siting and orientation and the relative location of the adjacent residential
property approximately 30m away, no adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers
of the dwelling is considered in terms of loss of light or outlook.
In terms of the issue of security lighting, further details are awaited from the applicant
as to the position, type and use of the lighting. However subject to a condition
restricting its use (perhaps a sensor and timer) and level of illumination, it is
considered that no adverse impact on the amenities of the adjacent dwelling would
result.
In respect of the impact on the highway, on the basis that this building replaces
existing buildings used in conjunction with the existing use of the site as a pig farm,
County Council Highways have advised no objection.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal is therefore
considered to comply with relevant policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the response of the applicant and to
imposition of conditions including the use of the security lighting.
4.
HOLT - 20081565 - Erection of workshop and display building and use of land
for display and manufacture of timber buildings; The Poultry Farm Cley Road
for Thaxters Custom Made Buildings Ltd
Target Date :26 Jan 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside Policy Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20032064 - (Full Planning Permission) - Use of land as public car park
Approved, 09 Feb 2004
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a workshop and display building and use of the land for the
display and manufacture of timber buildings.
Four poultry sheds would be removed and replaced with the proposed buildings and
workshop and display areas.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
5 March 2009
The existing access to the site would be used and the parking area would be
relocated to the southern side of the access.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor High having regard to the following planning issue:
The nature of the use of the site and its potential impact on the surrounding
residential area and highway network.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection subject to a personal permission of the A1 use to the applicant and that
a Section 106 Obligation be entered for the cost of white and yellow lines along the
adjacent highway.
REPRESENTATIONS
Forty-six letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. Impact of increased traffic on Holt Town centre.
2. High Street/New Street junction not suitable for large commercial vehicles.
2. Inappropriate siting of retail/commercial site outside of the designated retail area.
3. Noise unacceptable in a residential area.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - While the replacement
buildings are unobtrusive and understated, there are concerns relating to the
commercialisation of the site at this clear point of entry into the countryside from the
town. Security fencing and gates, advertising signage, increased vehicular traffic,
including delivery vehicles would all contribute to visual intrusion into the rural
landscape which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is not
therefore appropriate for this context and location contrary to Policies SS 2, EN 1, EN
2 and EN 4.
County Council (Highways) - No objection to access.
Further comments awaited on the wider highway impact.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
Planning Policy Manager - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Control Committee (West)
9
5 March 2009
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of commercial development in this location.
2. Impact on local highway network.
3. Impact on the amenities of nearby residents.
APPRAISAL
The site is a former poultry farm, with a number of prefabricated agricultural buildings
still on the site. It is located on the east side of Cley Road with residential dwellings to
the south and an area characterised by countryside to the north.
It is located within the Countryside policy area where there is a general presumption
against new build employment generating proposals unless there is a particular
environmental or operational justification for such a location.
In this instance, the proposal relates to the relocation of a business from Old Station
Way, which lies within the development boundary of Holt onto a site currently
containing a number of redundant chicken sheds. However, no environmental or
operational justification for a countryside location has been put forward by the
applicant and, without such justification, the proposal would be considered contrary
to Policy SS2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
In respect of impact on the amenity of nearby residential dwellings, comments are
awaited from Environmental Health in terms of potential noise impacts from the use
of tools on site in the manufacturing of the sheds and Committee will be updated
orally.
In respect of highway safety considerations, County Highways have not raised any
objection in respect of parking provision and the proposed access is considered
acceptable with regard to visibility splays. Further comments have been requested in
respect of the wider traffic impact of the development, particularly at key junctions
within the town and in light of significant on-street parking along Cley Road during the
main tourist seasons. Committee will be updated in respect of this matter.
In design terms, the proposal would involve the demolition of poultry sheds and
replacement with retail buildings, workshop and timber yard. The replacement
structures are considered to have limited height, bulk and scale covering
considerably less floor area and which could potentially improve the visual
appearance of the site.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
5 March 2009
However, in respect of landscape impact, there is concern that the proposal would
result in parking and display areas at the front of the site which would result in
commercialisation of the site at a point which is considered to be a clear point of
entry into the countryside. As such, the combination of security fencing and gates,
advertising signage and increased vehicular traffic are considered to have a
cumulative impact which would detract from the special qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and which would fail to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would be
contrary to Policies EN 1, EN 2, EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
In summary, whilst further consideration of noise issues and impact on the highway
network is still awaited, the proposal is contrary to the core aims of Policy SS 2 which
seeks to limit development in the countryside to that which requires a rural location.
Furthermore it is considered that the use of the site with its associated fencing,
signage and traffic etc would commercialise this site to the detriment of the wider
countryside, Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to
Policies EN 1, EN 2, EN 4 and EN 8. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated refusal on grounds of conflict with Countryside development policy,
adverse impact on AONB, detriment to the appearance of the Conservation
Area and subject to any further issues raised by outstanding consultees.
5.
HOLT - 20090002 - Conversion of stable to two-storey dwelling and erection of
two two-storey dwellings; rear of 27 High Street for C T Baker Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :01 Apr 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Primary Shopping Areas
Town Centres
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of a stable to a two-storey dwelling and the erection of two x
two-storey dwellings.
There is an existing stable adjacent to the listed building to the north-west which
would be converted to form a two-bedroom dwelling. The existing offices and storage
areas would be demolished and two x two-bedroom dwellings built on the same
footprint. Small courtyard gardens for each dwelling are provided.
Pedestrian access would be taken from a private track off the highway with no
vehicular parking provision.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Managing Director of the applicant company is a Member of the Council.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
5 March 2009
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - The means of escape are unacceptable. The bedroom at
first floor over the courtyard is unacceptable as the window discharges over a
conservatory and down into an enclosed yard. Additional internal escape provisions
should be introduced to compensate for this. Furthermore the enclosed courtyards
offer no alternative means of escape for occupants in two units. In the event of fire
occurring in living/dining rooms in either unit, occupants could become trapped.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
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 CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on highway.
2. Parking.
3. Residential amenity.
4. Impact on the adjacent listed building.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
5 March 2009
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated town centre, primary shopping area and
Conservation Area. The principle of new residential development is considered to be
acceptable in this location under Policy SS 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy, subject to satisfactory compliance with other relevant Development Plan
policies.
The compact form of the proposal is broadly in keeping with the form and character
of this part of Holt with its close knit development. The scale and massing of the
proposed buildings generally relate sympathetically to the surrounding buildings but
further comments regarding design and visual appearance/impact of the proposal in
the Conservation Area are awaited from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager.
In respect of residential amenity issues, whilst the close relationship between the
proposed dwellings would replicate other similar situations within the town the first
floor bedroom window to unit two would create an unacceptable degree of
overlooking into the private garden area to unit three to the south east. This element
of the proposal would therefore have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the
proposed dwelling to the south east and is therefore contrary to the aims of Policy EN
4. In addition, the layout of the dwellings and private amenity space is of concern to
the Building Control Manager in respect of means of escape given that the layout and
enclosed rear courtyards would provide insufficient means of escape for units two
and three; this matter would need to be rectified in order to secure compliance with
the Building Regulations and is likely to require design changes.
In terms of the provision of outdoor amenity space, small courtyard style gardens
would be allocated for each of the three dwellings although the applicant has not
indicated how this would be provided for unit 1 without causing detriment to the
amenity of the other units and, in any event, the amenity space provision does not
comply with the Design Guide standards. Whilst location within a Conservation Area
can be, in some circumstances, a justification for relaxation of standards where the
character of the area would be preserved or enhanced, in this instance it is
considered that the lack of amenity space manifests itself as a direct result of
overdevelopment of the site.
In respect of the impact on the adjacent listed building, comments are awaited from
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. However given that the existing
stable adjoining the listed building is to be retained and converted to form a dwelling,
it is considered that no adverse impact on the fabric or character of the listed building
is likely to result.
In respect of highway safety considerations, comments are still awaited from County
Council Highways. In accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy, the proposed development would require six vehicle parking spaces and
three cycle spaces. Holt has parking problems on account of both the lack of
sufficient spaces and the location of car parks, creating town centre congestion and
conflict with pedestrians. With no proposed designated parking spaces for the three
dwellings, the proposal would exacerbate this problem. Policy CT 6 allows for
flexibility in the required parking standards if it would enhance the character of the
Conservation Area in town or village centres. The views of the Highway Authority are
considered to be critical in determining the acceptability of the under-provision of
parking spaces in this case.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
5 March 2009
In terms of sustainable construction and energy efficiency, the proposal would
comply with Policy EN 6 subject to it being built to meet a two star rating under the
Code for Sustainable Homes.
In respect of the dwelling mix and type, all proposed dwellings would have two
bedrooms and unit three would have an internal floor area of 70sqm. The proposal
therefore complies with Policy HO 1.
In summary, it is considered that the development proposed would amount to
overdevelopment of the site and would result in an unacceptable impact on the
residential amenity of the occupiers of unit three regarding overlooking and a lack of
amenity space, contrary to Policy EN 4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Whether additional reasons for refusal are recommended will depend on the
response of outstanding consultees.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated refusal on the grounds that the proposal would amount to
overdevelopment of the site and would result in an unacceptable impact on the
residential amenity of the occupiers of unit three, together with any additional
reasons raised by outstanding consultees.
6.
HOLT - 20090053 - Use of land for siting of Victorian Gallopers; North Norfolk
Railway, Holt Station Cromer Road High Kelling for Miss Jones
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :17 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside Policy Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks use of land for siting of Victorian Gallopers.
Times of operation would be based on the North Norfolk Railway timetable. Proposed
to be open to public only between school Easter holidays and mid-September and
between 10am and 5pm on any day.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Noise impact on local residents and Kelling Hospital.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection. Request that the site is cleared after the season.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Highly intrusive noise of organ playing at very regular intervals.
2. Loud noise of hooter being regularly sounded.
3. Additional noise generated by the fairground ride was an intolerable intrusion.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
5 March 2009
4. Impossible to sit in gardens or open windows during warm summer days, due to
noise of organ and hooter.
5. Environmental Health advised that a statutory nuisance was likely to have been in
existence.
6. Serious reservations regarding recommendations for noise reduction in noise
assessment.
7. Concerned that even though further measures may be implemented to reduce
noise, there may still remain unacceptable residual levels of noise.
8. Unlikely that the noise from the intermittent sounding hooter would be abated by
the ride being sited further down the track and the organ re-orientated.
9. Unacceptable and urge the Council not to grant a permission in the terms sought.
10. Last year the operation of the Galloper ride caused noise disturbance within a
residential area of an intensity which would have warranted proceedings for statutory
nuisance.
11. The noise assessment accepts that proposed sound baffling measures might be
expected to achieve certain results rather than claiming a particular result is
guaranteed.
12. The sound baffling efficiency of rolling stock on an intervening railway siding must
be open to question.
13. The sound baffling measures proposed are presently of unproven efficiency and
it would be unsafe to grant a permission even subject to conditions that these
measures be implemented, in the hope that their effectiveness proved up to
expectations.
14. Can realistically only be assessed in operation.
15. If temporary permission granted sound baffling measures that would need to be
actioned on land belonging not to the applicant but another party need to be resolved
in watertight ways.
16. Hours of operation and dates would need to be tightly defined.
17. If noise levels dip below the level needed to take action to remedy a statutory
nuisance does not conclude that a further permission would be appropriate.
A supporting statement has been submitted by the applicant and is contained in
Appendix 3.
A supporting letter has been received from the General Manager at the North Norfolk
Railway.
CONSULTATIONS
High Kelling Parish Council - Object on grounds of unacceptably within the AONB,
detrimental impact on amenity of nearby residents regarding noise and impact on
Kelling Hospital.
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Environmental Health - Initial comments: It is proposed that the carousel organ is reorientated to face North West. I would agree that this would be likely to achieve a
reduction in noise levels and is to be welcomed. However, I do have concerns that
this action alone may not be sufficient to protect residential amenity.
I would welcome the proposed use of a suitable barrier between the carousel and
noise sensitive dwellings to the south and east. I understand that railway rolling stock
may be used. Details of the rolling stock, including photographs if possible and exact
positions are required before comment on their effectiveness in terms of noise
control.
A generator on site in September 2008 was assessed for noise as part of the report
and I would recommend details are submitted to confirm its type.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
5 March 2009
As discussed I would suggest that a temporary permission for a 1 year trial period is
considered if this is at all feasible. This would enable an on site assessment with
equipment running to occur. I would also suggest that controls on hours of use are
attached to limit use of the carousel etc. to daytime hours e.g. 10am to 5pm and to
certain months of the year. I would like to discuss these further.
Further comments have been received reiterating the initial comments and that if a
rolling stock barrier cannot be secured then the Environmental Protection Officer
would have serious concerns as to whether noise levels would be sufficiently
reduced. Subject to securing the rolling stock barrier the Environmental Protection
Officer considers that it would be unreasonable to restrict further the use of the
gallopers to specific days of the week. However, the use of a hooter has been
brought to the attention of officers. This does not appear to have been assessed as
part of the noise assessment. Further information is required from the applicant
regarding this matter. The Environmental Protection Officer would not wish the
application to be approved until further information is received regarding the hooter.
The full comments of the Environmental Protection Officer are contained in
Appendix 3.
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in countryside.
2. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where recreation and tourism
uses are permitted subject to satisfactory compliance with other Development Plan
policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
5 March 2009
The site is also located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but being at
the North Norfolk Railway in High Kelling is well screened from the south, west and
east by mature trees and existing buildings on the site. It is not therefore in an
isolated location and it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact on the setting or special qualities of this part of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Gallopers were in use on the site towards the end of the summer last year, but
complaints were received from local residents regarding the noise omitted from the
organ on the Gallopers.
A noise assessment has been submitted with the application and a number of
attenuation measures have been suggested, such as repositioning the Gallopers
further to the north of the site with the organ facing north-west rather than south,
installing the generator as far as possible to the north of the site with the louvres
facing north to reduce noise levels from the generator to users of the roundabout,
and the use of acoustic screening such as the positioning of railway carriages located
on the track nearest to the Gallopers. The acoustic engineer has advised in the noise
assessment that the approximate height of the organ pipes is 1.7m above ground
level and that it is expected that a 2m high solid barrier would be needed to have any
significant effect in reducing noise levels. It is considered that railway carriages could
achieve this.
However, as the railway is in the ownership of North Norfolk Railway and not the
applicant the proposal to position railway carriages or rolling stock on the track
adjacent to the Gallopers as an acoustic screen for a noise attenuation measure
would need to be secured by way of a Grampian condition to ensure that North
Norfolk Railway kept the carriages and rolling stock in place for the duration of the
use of the Gallopers. At the time of writing this report a plan to indicate the position
and size of the carriages and rolling stock to be used as an acoustic screen is
awaited.
The Committee will note the comments of the Environmental Protection Officer.
Subject to the noise attenuation measures suggested being carried out in full and the
hooter and its use being assessed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection
Officer it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the privacy or amenities of local residents or residents of Kelling Hospital.
However, a one year temporary permission has been suggested in order for the
situation to be monitored.
Subject to no objections from the Environmental Protection Officer regarding the
assessment of the hooter, the submission of plan showing position and sizes of the
rolling stock on the track and imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal would
be considered acceptable and would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to grant a temporary one year permission subject to no
objections from the Environmental Protection Officer regarding the
assessment of the hooter, imposition of conditions to ensure the rolling stock
owned by the North Norfolk Railway is kept in the required position for the
duration of use of the Gallopers, submission of plan showing position and
sizes of the rolling stock on the track and imposition of other appropriate
conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
5 March 2009
7.
SHERINGHAM - 20081716 - Erection of one and a half-storey detached
dwelling; site adjacent, 9 Knowle Crescent for Mr Cook
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080474 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Withdrawn, 25 Apr 2008
20081091 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey/single-storey dwelling
Refused, 15 Sep 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a one-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling.
The proposed dwelling would be on a split level, with one bedroom at first floor. Two
car parking spaces are proposed in the front of the site.
The proposed materials would consist of pantiles for the roof, with a red/brown brick
and horizontal Cedar boarding for the external walls.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Bevan Jones having regard to the following planning
issue:
Conformity of the proposal with Development Plan policy.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. Gross overdevelopment of the site.
2. No amenity space.
3. Proposed materials out of keeping with the surrounding area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - This proposal is situated on a private road remote from
the adopted highway and provides two off-street parking places; in light of this I have
no objection to the proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
5 March 2009
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and amenity space.
2. Impact on character of area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
This application has been submitted following the refusal of application reference
20081091 for the erection of a two-storey/single-storey detached dwelling on this
site, was refused on the grounds that the scale and layout of the proposed
development in this location would result in a cramped form of development due to
the limited size of the site which would fail to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the area, and that it was considered that the proposal would have a
poor relationship with the neighbouring dwellings to the east, west and north to the
detriment of their privacy and amenities by way of overlooking and having an
overbearing impact due to the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the east
and west boundaries. Furthermore, it was also considered that the proposal would
fail to comply with the car parking standards in the Core Strategy which require two
car parking spaces for a two bedroom unit, and the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that there is sufficient space to accommodate the required parking and
turning.
The proposal has been revised in that the proposed dwelling has been reduced in
size from a two bedroom unit to one bedroom involving internal alterations to the
layout, the ground coverage of the proposed dwelling reduced from approximately
58sq.m to 37sq.m, two first floor windows on the northern elevation have been
omitted and two car parking spaces would be provided.
However, whilst these revisions have reduced the overall size and bulk of the
property and removed the potential for overlooking to the north, this does not alter
the fact that the size of the site is limited, measuring only approximately 7.4m wide
and between 14m and 16m in length. The submitted plans show that there would
only be approximately 800mm between the proposed dwelling and eastern boundary
and 900mm to the western boundary.
The close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the boundaries of the site and the
neighbouring dwellings to the east and west mean that the development would not
comply with the basic amenity criteria in the Design Guide, there being a shortfall of
approximately 4.5m to the west and approximately 6-8m to the east. Furthermore,
the garden area would not comply with the requirements of the Design Guide which
states that the amenity space should normally be no less than the footprint of the
dwelling on the site. Therefore it is considered that previous concerns regarding
overdevelopment and relationship to the neighbouring dwellings to the east and west
remain.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
5 March 2009
The site is located within the residential policy area of Sheringham where the
principle of appropriate residential development is considered acceptable. However,
whilst it is considered that the previous concerns regarding overlooking and car
parking have been addressed by the omission of windows in the first floor northern
elevation and the provision of two car parking spaces, it is still considered that the
proposal would constitute an inappropriate and cramped form of development which
would not be in keeping with character of the area, and would have an overbearing
impact on neighbouring dwellings to the east and west, due to the close proximity to
the boundaries, to the detriment of the privacy and amenities of the occupiers.
For the above reasons it is considered that the proposal does not accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy SS 3: Housing
Policy EN 4: Design
It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would result in a
cramped form of development due to the limited size of the site which would fail to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.
Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would have a poor relationship with
the neighbouring dwellings to the east and west to the detriment of their occupiers'
privacy and amenities on account of its overbearing impact resulting from the close
proximity of the proposed dwelling to the east and west boundaries of the site.
Therefore, the proposal is considered to conflict with Development Plan policies.
8.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081736 - Continued use of former dwelling as
guesthouse; Boxwood Northfield Lane for Mr Ayres
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :13 Feb 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the continued use of a former dwelling as a guesthouse.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Savory having regard to the following planning issue:
The planning history of the site and highway considerations.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
5 March 2009
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support received from the adjacent property (1 Northfield Avenue)
advising one car is parked in his driveway, which he is happy with currently.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Object on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate visibility splays causing danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway.
2. Proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities, it would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase
in on-street parking, at a detriment to highway safety.
3. The proposal does not incorporate adequate facilities to enable a vehicle to turn on
the site and so enter the highway in a forward gear which is considered essential in
the interests of road safety.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the highway.
APPRAISAL
The property is a detached two-storey dwelling on the southern side of Northfield
Lane. The site has a small parking area to the front of the site (capable of parking
three cars) but with no space for manoeuvring.
The application seeks continued use of the dwelling as a guest house with four
rooms to let and a further three occupied by the family. This application is
retrospective and the applicant has advised that this accommodation has been let for
approximately two years.
No external alterations are proposed and it is considered that no adverse impact on
neighbouring amenity would result from the change of use.
Policy EC 7 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy states that new tourist
development should be located within the Principal and Secondary Settlements. The
principle of a guest house in this location is therefore acceptable subject to
satisfactory compliance with other relevant Core Strategy Policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
5 March 2009
The main issue to consider is the impact on highway safety as a result of the
additional vehicles and parking requirements. County Council (Highways) have
advised that there are highway safety concerns in respect of the available visibility at
the site access. The adjacent property to the west of Boxwood (2a Northfield Lane)
fronts directly onto the highway and obscures visibility such that only 9m from the
central point of the access is achievable (21 per cent of the required standard). The
visibility to the east is approximately 6m to the edge of the property and is also
obscured by a hedge fronting 1 Northfield Avenue (14 per cent of the required
standard). These inadequate visibility splays for the increased number of vehicles
would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway
contrary to Policy CT 6.
There is also a shortfall in parking facilities. Given the letting out of four rooms and
the occupation by the guesthouse owners of the remaining three bedrooms, six
parking spaces would be required. Only three on-site parking spaces can be
achieved, with no on-site manoeuvring. This would result in vehicles having to
reverse either into or out of the site. Reversing manoeuvres at this location would be
dangerous, especially given the restricted visibility. On-street parking as indicated on
the applicant's plan would further obscure visibility from the access onto the public
highway to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal if permitted, would
therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on-street parking to the
detriment of highway safety.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse by reason of lack of on-site parking facilities and adverse impact on
highway safety.
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BARSHAM - 20081751 - Erection of wall/shelter; The Slipper Chapel Grounds
Gray's Lane Houghton St. Giles for R C Diocese of East Anglia
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20081752 - Erection of first floor side extension; Copper
Beech House Church Close West Runton for Ms S Preuss
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081317 - Demolition of garage, erection of detached
annexe and formation of new vehicular access; Emmaus Holt Road for Mr R
Heale
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081659 - Conversion of garage to office/laundry and
enlargement of dining room; Cley Mill High Street for Dr J Godlee
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081660 - Conversion of garage to office and
enlargement of dining room; Cley Mill High Street for Dr Godlee
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (West)
22
5 March 2009
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081714 - Construction of rear balcony; White House
High Street for Mr and Mrs Dennis
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081715 - Construction of balcony and installation of
sliding doors and first floor French doors; White House High Street for Mr and
Mrs Dennis
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CORPUSTY - 20081721 - Erection of single-storey extension and first floor
window; Hall Farm Bungalow Aylsham Road Saxthorpe for Mr and Mrs Mitchel
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081686 - Installation of three telecommunications antennae
and equipment cabin; Anglian Water Tower Holt Road for Telefonica 02 UK
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081673 - Change of use from public house to a mixed use of
public house and private hire vehicle business; The Rampant Horse Inn 3
Queens Road for Mr A Baker
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081711 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 10 Millers
Walk for Mr Bradley
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
FAKENHAM - 20081744 - Erection of first floor side extension; 201 Norwich
Road for Mr and Mrs Ward
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - 20081676 - Erection of grain store and drying facility; Estate
office, Green Farm Holt Road Saxlingham for Albanwise Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - 20081595 - Erection of first floor extension and replacement
of rear porch; 7 Fakenham Road for Miss E John
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - 20081710 - Alterations and erection of single-storey rear
extension; Dildash House The Street for Mrs Cooper
(Alteration to Listed Building)
GREAT SNORING - 20081712 - Conversion of outbuilding to habitable
accommodation; White House Dilldash Lane for Mr Bushell
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - 20081724 - Internal alterations and conversion of
outbuilding to habitable accommodation; White House Dilldash Lane for Mr K
Bushell
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HIGH KELLING - 20081719 - Construction of raised roof to provide first floor
accommodation of one and a half storey rear extension; Holgate 45 Pineheath
Road for Mr and Mrs Pearce
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
23
5 March 2009
HINDOLVESTON - 20080437 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with detached
garage; 82 The Street for Mr and Mrs Wingate
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081699 - Erection of rear extension to garage and conversion to
annexe; 47 Coronation Road for Mr P Woodhouse
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081727 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 1a Hales Court for
Mrs Roberts
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20090017 - Retention of replacement gate posts, gates and railings; The
Old Rectory Letheringsett Hill for Mr and Mrs R Neech
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - 20081631 - Erection of rear extension; Village Hall The Street
for Kettlestone Village Hall Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT - 20081748 - Alterations to stables to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation; The Stables, Letheringsett Hall Holt Road for R G
Carter Farms Limited
(Alteration to Listed Building)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - 20081707 - Erection of agricultural storage building;
Green Farm The Green for Mr M Daniels
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - 20081737 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Honeysuckle
Cottage West Raynham Road South Raynham for Wensum Pools Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20081063 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 9 Fakenham Road
Great Ryburgh for Mr and Mrs S Judd
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081678 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land adj. 1
Campion Way for Mr and Mrs Mash
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20081731 - Erection of single-storey extension and installation of
replacement roof covering; Curlews Greenway for Mr and Mrs Mills
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - 20081704 - Conversion of part of barn and garage to habitable
accommodation; Plant House Hunworth Hall Stody Road Hunworth for Dr H
Crawley
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - 20081705 - Alterations to garage and part of barn to facilitate
conversion to habitable accommodation; Plant House Hunworth Hall Stody
Road Hunworth for Dr H Crawley
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (West)
24
5 March 2009
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20081178 - Conversion of barns to four dwellings;
Barns at Ivy Farm Cranfield Road for John Ashton's Children's Settlement
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20081723 - Erection of garden shed; 33 Cleaves Drive for Mrs
L Sutton
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081741 - Continued use of land as temporary car
park for 65 days per annum; The Recreation (Football) Field Beach Road for
Wells Next The Sea Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20081735 - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use as
residential dwelling; Mill End Beach Lane for Ms S Jones
(Certificate of Lawfulness)
WEYBOURNE - 20081743 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Birds
Cottage Church Street for Mr Cracknell
(Full Planning Permission)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - 20081212 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage; plot 11
Back Lane for Mr and Mrs Crawley
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20081734 - Variation of conditions: 5, 6 and 7 to planning
reference: 20071847 to provide amended vehicular and pedestrian access
arrangement; site Next to Horseshoe Corner The Street for Ms Lawrence
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081510 - Residential development; land north of Parker Drive
for New Hall Properties
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081693 - Installation of ATM unit; 9 Millers Walk for The Post
Office
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
SWANTON NOVERS - 20081648 - Continued display of non-illuminated
direction signs; Half Mile both sides of Crossroads Dereham Road for Mrs H
Duffield
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Control Committee (West)
25
5 March 2009
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 10 Mar 2009
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BACONSTHORPE - 20080751 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling; land
at The Street for C J C Lee (Saxthorpe) Limited
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 :- 03 Mar 2009
SHERINGHAM - 20071180 - Erection of twenty-two flats; Central Garage 49
High Street for Mr N J Wright
SITE VISIT :- 03 Mar 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
SITE VISIT :- 03 Mar 2009
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS
None.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
5 March 2009