OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 6 NOVEMBER 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR INFORMATION
1.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – Contravention of Tree Preservation Order TPO664;
Umgeni
To report the outcome of a prosecution for contravention of a Tree Preservation
Order.
A number of trees at the property known as Umgeni at Cley-next-the-Sea are
protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made by the District Council in 2000.
This is an “Area Order” which protects mixed broadleaved trees growing in an area to
the south of Umgeni, including a sycamore tree. It is a criminal offence to wilfully
damage a tree protected by a TPO.
On 31 August 2007 the Council’s Landscape Officer received information that a fire
was burning under a tree at Umgeni. He attended the property but was initially
unable to gain access so visited a neighbouring property where he was able to see
the remains of a fire smouldering at the base of a sycamore tree. The lower trunk of
the tree had been badly burnt by the fire.
It was apparent that damage had been caused to a protected tree and the matter
was reported to the Council’s Legal Services Manager with a view to prosecution.
The owner of the property, Lady Rathcavan, was interviewed under caution in the
presence of her solicitor as was another person known to have undertaken gardening
work at the property. A prosecution was commenced and the case listed for an initial
hearing on 1 September 2008. The case was adjourned until 27 October to allow the
defendant to obtain an arboricultural report. The report indicated that the sycamore
was infected with Honey Fungus and that this fungus was prevalent at the property.
It could not be established with certainty that the tree was or was not infected at the
date when the tree had been damaged by fire in August 2007.
Following receipt of that report the Council was asked how it wished to proceed with
the prosecution. The matter was reported to this Committee on 9 October as a
matter of urgent business, to enable a decision to be made in advance of the
scheduled Court hearing on 27 October. In accordance with the resolution of the
Committee (minute 168, 9 October 2008) a formal written caution was prepared for
signature on 17 October and comprises an admission of an offence under Section
201 and 203 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that is wilfully damaging by
fire a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
The signing of the caution brings the prosecution to a conclusion.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Committee notes the outcome of this case.
Source: (Roger Howe, Extn 6016 - File Reference: TPO 664)
Development Control Committee (West)
1
6 November 2008
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BLAKENEY - 20080946 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at The Habit
Back Lane for Mr R Daley
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :15 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20050917 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of dwelling
Approved, 27 Jul 2005
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of a two-storey dwelling (including rooms in the roof space) with
appearance, landscaping and layout for consideration.
Original plans showed the proposed dwelling located adjacent to the northern
boundary of the site, with the two-storey part of the dwelling measuring
approximately 6.3m x 12m and 8.7m in height, and the single-storey lean-to to the
south measuring approximately 4.5m x 10m and 5.3m in height. The flat sedumroofed car port would extend a further 11m to the west measuring some 5.4m wide
and 2.8m high.
The dwelling would be sited at the location of an existing garage, and a further
outbuilding would be retained for garden storage in the south-eastern corner of the
site.
The materials proposed are brick, flint, pantile and timber cladding.
Amended plans have been received removing a look-out element, balcony and
glazed doors on the eastern elevation and showing levels across the site. The height
of the principal element was proposed to be reduced by approximately 0.3m.
Further amended plans have been received reducing the ridge height of the dwelling
by a further 0.5m approximately, by reducing the pitch of the roof from 47.5° to 42.5°,
omitting the 'look-outs' in the roof space, reducing the height of balcony buttresses,
and alterations to the fenestration of the gables on the east, west and south
elevations.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
6 November 2008
PARISH COUNCIL
(Original comments) - Object on the following grounds:
It is quite clear from the plans that this is not a two-storey building as shown on the
plans. It is in fact three-storeys and we therefore object very strongly to this
misleading detail. This proposal is too high. Three-storeys are not in keeping with the
area, and the property should not exceed two-storeys.
(Comments on first amendment) - Object. It is quite clear from the plans that this is
still not a two-storey building, meaning that the lower (second floor) will overlook
neighbouring properties. It is in our opinion in fact a three-storey building, and we
object very strongly to this misleading detail. This proposal remains too high, threestoreys are not in keeping with the area, and the property should not exceed twostorey.
Comments awaited on second amendment.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twelve letters of objection have been received, three of which are from one objector,
two from another and one letter has been received from a representative acting for
an objector raising the following points:
1. Highway safety.
2. No consultation carried out with neighbours regarding access over existing
driveway.
3. Too high.
4. Obtrusive.
5. Too large and imposing for the area of the site.
6. Second storey not necessary as does not provide any accommodation but is a
viewing medium which will affect the privacy of the neighbouring houses.
7. Design not in keeping with the advice given in the Design Guide.
8. Over designed.
9. Incongruous 'flying buttresses', look out floor, and 'green roof'.
10. The proposed design sits uneasily with the Arts and Crafts design of the
neighbouring Whitefriars.
11. If the application is not withdrawn I would urge your Committee to refuse
permission.
12. The design lacks an understanding of the local characteristics and would fail to
integrate with the immediate environment.
13. Detrimental to the attractiveness of this part of Blakeney.
14. No right of access to the privately owned road running south and west to Back
Lane.
15. Plan does not show services.
16. The plot abuts onto the private drive that is for the exclusive use of The Music
Room, Doelen House, North Lea and Moonrakers.
17. No consultation carried out with neighbours by the applicant.
18. Concerns over loss of Beech tree and Horse Chestnut as the 'lookout floor and
green roof' will overlook and invade the privacy of surrounding properties.
19. Overlooking, directly intruding neighbours' privacy to south.
20. Question whether permission should be given for any construction unless the
eaves height is lower than two-stories.
21. Would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
22. Out of character with immediate area.
23. Inconsistent with North Norfolk District Council's conservation and planning
policies as well as current Government Guidance.
24. Concerns over impact of the garage upon the health and survival of the trees at
the front of the site.
25. Its alien form would be detrimental both to the visual attractiveness of 'White
Friars' and the wooded setting of the general surroundings.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
6 November 2008
26. There is an ongoing dispute with regards to access from this site as originally
considered the outline approval 20050917.
27. The current application assumes access to the private lane which in fact is solely
for the use of five houses (Doelen House, Moonraker, The Music Room, North Lea
and Reef House).
28. Legal access can only be obtained from the north boundary of the property which
would require fundamental redesign of layout.
29. It is believed that a Design and Access Statement should be submitted prior to
giving any formal consent.
30. Deep concern locally over development in immediate area of Back lane.
31. Local residents feel let down.
32. Have placed trust in council to protect the nature of this area.
33. Only access to this plot is via Whitefriars, there are not two accesses.
34. In exceptional circumstances for any vehicle that is unable to access the
Whitefriars site under the arch can the access to the south of the plot be used?
35. Concerns over loss of any other trees to provide access.
Eleven additional letters of objection have been received, one of which is from an
objector's representative, regarding the most recent amended plans reiterating the
previous objections and raising the following points not already reported:
1. Intrusive and infringes considerably on the privacy of the dwelling to the north at
Whitefriars.
2. Amended plan of section misleading as the sight lines do not show the fact that
they are directly overlooking the back garden of No.3 Whitefriars.
3. Contravenes the guidance in the Blakeney Village Design Statement.
4. Fenestration not sympathetic.
5. Loss of trees against the intent of having a Conservation Area and reduces the
amenity of the community.
6. Due to local precedents concerns over development complying with planning
restrictions.
7. Inappropriate reduction in height/scale.
8. 5% reduction is totally insignificant.
9. Impact of building remains the same.
10. Large beech tree is perfectly healthy and is a dominant factor in the overall
character of the area.
11. Overdevelopment of this part of Blakeney.
12. Existing land had a Section S2 Agreement on it.
13. The proposal has an eaves height of over 25% to that visible of its nearest
neighbours. Wall height to eaves height of The Habit 3.3m, Reef House 3.97m,
proposed dwelling 5m.
14. Adjustment to noise has little impact when the walls are already out of scale and
overbearing.
15. Seasonal loss of leaves between Reef House and the site means possible to
view into the new dwelling.
A further lengthy letter of objection has been received from a local resident regarding
the recently received amended plans, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1.
One letter of support has been received from a local resident.
An illustration and email has been submitted from an objector's representative acting
for an objector stating that the illustration shows the height comparison between The
Habit and the proposal, and lack of planting possible between the new dwelling and
northern boundary in stark contrast to this part of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
6 November 2008
A letter has been received from a representative acting of applicant requesting that
Members are aware of the contents of the letter before making a decision. A copy of
the letter in full is attached as Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - (Original
comments) - The proposed three bedroom dwelling replaces a former garage on the
northern boundary of the site. An existing access is to be used from Back Lane. The
form and character of the proposed dwelling reflects the mixed style of surrounding
development and is appropriate. At approximately 114sq.m, the building footprint will
occupy a substantial part of the plot but it is in keeping with the size of the other
properties in the vicinity.
The use of brick and flint with elements of timber cladding gives variety to the
elevations and reclaimed pantiles for the roof are in keeping with the prevailing
vernacular. A green sedum roof over the car port will help to blend the built form with
the surrounding mature vegetation. Proposals for an existing garage to be
refurbished and converted into garden storage are acceptable.
The roof of the main house and the lean-to section are dominant, particularly to the
north and south elevations. This could be mitigated by bringing the lean-to in under
the eaves of the two-storey element.
At 8.7m, the height of the proposed dwelling does give rise to some concern both in
terms of how the building will site within the landscape and also overbearing with
adjacent properties. Some reduction in height would be preferable.
With some lowering of the roof height and realignment of the lean-to roof this
development would be appropriate within its mature landscape setting and the wider
Conservation Area. With the suggested amendments Conservation and Design
recommend this application for approval with conditions regarding confirmation of the
colour of the stain finish to the cladding and aluminium doors and windows, and use
of reclaimed pantiles.
(Comments on first amendment) - The amended plans have addressed earlier
concerns of height and mass. The roof height has been lowered by 329mm, achieved
by digging the ground floor deeper into the site and reducing floor to ceiling heights.
While it is not a substantial reduction in height, together with the tapered roofline, it
does site the dwelling more successfully into the plot by reducing the mass and siting
it lower into the ground. With these amendments the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has no further objections to this application and recommend it
be approved subject to appropriate conditions.
Awaiting comments on second amendment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
the imposition of conditions regarding erection of protective fencing during
construction for remaining trees, driveway constructed using a 'no dig' method and
retention of trees, shrubs and hedgerow on the site for ten years.
County Council (Highways) - I would be grateful to receive an additional plan from
the applicant indicating where the proposed dwelling vehicles would access onto the
public highway at Back Lane. In addition as the dwelling would be located upon a
private road I would be grateful if the applicant could also show the achievable
visibility splays onto the access points. The minimum visibility splays are received at
25m x 2m x 25m for roads where vehicles travel at 20mph. On receipt of the
additional information, I would be grateful for the opportunity to comment further.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
6 November 2008
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on Conservation Area.
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
5. Impact on trees.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for negotiations to be
carried out with the agent in respect of the height of the dwelling.
The Committee may recall that the principle of the erection of a dwelling on this site
has already been established under outline planning permission 20050917, where
means of access were also agreed.
The site is located in a residential area off Back Lane where there is a wide variety in
the type of designs, scale and materials of dwellings. It is not therefore considered
that the general design and materials proposed would be out of keeping with or have
a significant detrimental impact on the appearance of the area. As there is a mix of
development in the immediate area it is not considered that there is an overriding
local distinctiveness in this part of Blakeney. However, the materials proposed are in
keeping with the more traditional form of development elsewhere in the village. In
view of this the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy EN 4 of
the Core Strategy and Local Plan Policy 13.
It is considered that the proposal raises no significant issues in respect of the
Blakeney Village Design Statement.
The Committee will note the original comments received from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager. Following these comments an amended plan was
received reducing the overall height of the dwelling and the 'lean-to' roof was
realigned. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had no objection to
these amendments.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
6 November 2008
Following deferral by Committee in order for negotiations to be carried out with
regards to the height of the dwelling a further amended plan has been received
reducing the ridge height of the dwelling by some 0.5m giving a total reduction in the
overall height by approximately 0.8m. The pitch of the roof has also been reduced
the 'look outs' in the roof space have been omitted, the balcony buttresses reduced in
height and the fenestration in the gables on the east, west and south elevations have
also been altered. Subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager it is considered that the proposal would preserve the
appearance and character of the Conservation Area, and would accord with Policy
EN 8 of the Core Strategy and Local Plan Policy 42.
Officers' concerns regarding the close proximity of the first floor balcony and look-out
in the roof space of the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling and the
neighbouring dwelling known as 'The Habit' to the north east of the site have been
addressed. Amended plans show that the balcony has been removed and glazed
doors at first floor level are replaced with a window, removing the look-out, but
retaining the glazing. It is therefore considered that this improves the relationship of
the proposed dwelling with the 'The Habit', and as amended would not have a
significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of 'The
Habit'.
The proposal would comply with the basic amenity criteria in relation to other
neighbouring dwellings and is considered to be acceptable in this respect. There are
a number of mature trees in and around the site which would provide some
screening. Along the southern boundary of the site there is a hedge approximately
1.8m in height for the majority of its length with a high wall to the very eastern end.
There are also a number of trees along this boundary. The neighbouring dwelling to
the south known as 'Reef House' is located at a higher ground level than the
application site. However, due to the positioning of windows in the southern elevation
of the proposed dwelling, the distance between the two properties and the boundary
treatment it is considered that there would be a satisfactory relationship with 'Reef
House'. The west and north elevations of the proposed dwelling would face the
driveways and parking areas of the remaining neighbouring properties.
The Committee will note the comments from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager regarding the removal of the beech tree, to which there is no
objection.
The Highway Authority has requested more information regarding the access.
However, the access was approved as part of the outline planning permission
reference 20050917, when deeds submitted by the applicant's agent showed the
main access to be via Whitefriars and the secondary access to be used solely for
vehicles which could not negotiate the arch at the entrance to Whitefriars. The agent
has confirmed that the rights to access the land are stated in the deeds.
Subject to no objection from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager to
the second amended plans, the proposed development is considered to be
acceptable and would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager and the Parish Council and no other new
grounds of objection following re-consultation and re-advertisement on the
most recently amended plans, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
6 November 2008
3.
EDGEFIELD - 20081041 - Erection of two semi-detached two-storey dwellings;
land rear of 8 Rectory Road for Mr M Neale
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :02 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
See also 20081042 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of two semi-detached two storey dwellings. All matters are
reserved.
It is the intention of the applicant that these proposed two dwellings would be
affordable homes funded by the proposal for the erection of four dwellings at Sands
Loke, Edgefield, for consideration under application reference 20081042.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Proposal for social housing.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. The development is outside the village envelope.
2. The access route is inadequate because Rectory Road is a narrow country road
and more cars travelling along Rectory Road would cause traffic problems.
3. The proposed development is too large for the area of the site.
4. The two dwellings are opposite a bungalow known as 'Abbeyfield' and would be 7ft
higher than the bungalow. The occupant of the bungalow would suffer a loss of
privacy, light and air.
5. There is currently a problem with drainage in Rectory Road and the road floods
from time to time. Any further development would overload the drainage system.
6. The owners of neighbouring properties, Blue Haven and Abbeyfield feel that the
proposed soakaways were not acceptable because any surface water from the new
properties would run into their gardens. During recent heavy rainfall the whole garden
area flooded causing sewage to 'come up' and any extra water would cause
problems.
7. Both properties have a connection to the mains sewer and the pipe work crosses
the land upon which it is proposed to build the houses and may be disturbed during
any development.
8. There are long eared bats in Rectory Road that use the land upon which it is
proposed to build.
The District Council has in the past been forceful in rejecting applications for
dwellings outside the village envelope and the Parish Council hopes it will do so on
this occasion.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
6 November 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the
following points:
1. Overlooking.
2. Loss of amenity.
3. Loss of privacy.
4. Noise pollution.
5. Sewage problems.
6. Soakaways unsuitable.
7. Flooding.
8. Would be well within 1km of the other development of nine units proposed.
9. There is a colony of Long Eared bats around the area of the proposed
development.
10. There are existing parking problems on Rectory Road, insufficient parking.
11. Increase in traffic.
12. Has a need been proven for these dwellings.
13. Segregation between executive style homes and affordable homes.
A copy of the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application is
contained in Appendix 2 which explains the background to the application, relevant
policies and description of development.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions
regarding the vehicular access and parking and turning areas.
Strategic Housing - Object. A copy of the comments are contained in full in
Appendix 2.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Development Control Committee (West)
9
6 November 2008
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Impact on Conservation Area.
4. Highway safety.
5. Trees.
APPRAISAL
This application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy.
Under the Core Strategy the site is located within an area designated as countryside
where there is a general presumption against residential development.
The applicant is proposing that these two dwellings would be for affordable housing
which may be considered acceptable in the Countryside policy area subject to
meeting a number of criteria.
However, the Committee will note the comments of the Strategic Housing Enabling
Officer (see Appendix 2) who objects to the proposal. No discussions have taken
place with Strategic Housing to establish what requirements there are for affordable
housing in this location. Nor would it appear from the information submitted with the
application that consideration has been given to how the dwellings would be
managed and occupied as affordable housing for the life of the property, in the way
that properties managed by a Registered Social Landlord are. The District Council
would look to secure affordable housing units as housing to rent from a Housing
Association, but no information has been submitted by the applicant to confirm that
this is the case. It is not therefore considered that the applicant has provided
assurances that the dwellings would meet the exception site policy requirement to be
provided to people in local housing need, at an affordable cost, in perpetuity.
Under Policy HO 3 of the Core Strategy the site adjoins an existing group of ten or
more dwellings. However, affordable housing would only be permitted provided that
the site is not located within a 1km radius of any other scheme which has been
permitted under this policy. It has been indicated by Strategic Housing that there is
land in the ownership of North Norfolk District Council at the end of Rectory Road
which might be suitable for a scheme of approximately nine affordable dwellings.
Therefore this application if approved would affect the ability to be able to deliver this
scheme.
Under these circumstances it is not considered that the proposal would comply with
Policy HO 3 of the Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
6 November 2008
Furthermore, it is not considered that the erection of two houses in this location
would have an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring dwellings. To the west
of the site are bungalows, which are also located at a lower ground level than the
site. Whilst all matters are reserved at this stage, it is considered two-storey
dwellings would have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy and amenities of
the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, particularly to the west, by way of
overlooking and overbearing impact. It is also considered that any first floor windows
on the eastern elevations of the proposed dwellings would look directly into the rear
gardens of the dwellings to the east to the detriment of the privacy and amenities of
the occupiers.
Due to the secluded nature of the site and location within an already developed area
it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character of the Conservation
Area.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the
proposal.
At the time of writing this report the comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager were awaited regarding the loss of trees on the site and the
possible presence of bats.
It is not considered that the proposal accords with Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated refusal on the following grounds, together with any other grounds
that may be received following consultation with the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Landscape):
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 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside
Policy SS 3: Housing
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside
Policy EN 4: Design
The applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for the erection of two
affordable dwellings and has failed to provide assurances that the dwellings would
meet the exception site policy requirement for provision to people in local housing
need, at an affordable cost, in perpetuity.
Furthermore, it is considered that from the information provided in the Design and
Access Statement and the indicative plans that the proposed dwellings would have a
poor relationship with the neighbouring dwellings to the east and west of the site by
way of overlooking, loss of privacy and overbearing impact to the significant
detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings.
Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to the above Core Strategy
policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
6 November 2008
4.
EDGEFIELD - 20081042 - Erection of four detached dwellings; land rear of
Belmont House Sands Loke for Mr M Neale
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :03 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
See also 20081041 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19880630 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Construction of two detached dwellings
with garages
Refused, 12 May 1988
Appeal Dismissed, 03 Apr 1989
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of four x four bedroom detached dwellings. All matters are
reserved.
It is the intention of the applicant that the proposed dwellings would provide the
required funding for the two proposed semi-detached dwellings at Rectory Road,
Edgefield for consideration under application reference 20081041 which the applicant
is proposing as affordable housing.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Proposal connected to social housing application.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. The development is outside the village envelope.
2. The access onto Sands Loke and then Norwich Road is inadequate.
3. There is no vision splay thus making access onto Sands Loke difficult.
The District Council has in the past been forceful in rejecting applications for
dwellings outside the village envelope and the Parish Council hopes it will do so on
this occasion.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Contrary to terms of the Conservation Area and aims of the Development Plan for
the area.
2. Highway safety.
3. Increase in traffic.
4. Poor access.
5. Protected species on site such as barn owls, turtle doves protected under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
6 November 2008
6. Concerned over potential impact upon on-mains drainage for four additional
houses.
7. Believe it is disingenuous to link this application with a possible application for
affordable housing at Rectory Road. This application should be considered on its
own merits.
8. Site is outside development area.
9. The proposed four bedroom houses would not meet affordable housing needs.
10. Inaccurate site plans.
11. Previous application on this site was rejected.
12. Narrow track off Sands Loke unsuitable for emergency vehicles, delivery lorries.
13. Sands Loke is privately owned. It could not be guaranteed that future owners
would allow it to be used in perpetuity.
14. Drainage problems.
15. To link this development with the proposed affordable housing development at
Rectory Road is a form of bribery.
16. Unsuitable village for affordable housing.
17. No school for young families.
18. The proposed dwellings would have an adverse effect on the character and
appearance of the surrounding area and would not enhance the village and would be
detrimental to the quality of the countryside.
19. Would have a detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the
neighbouring properties.
A copy of the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application is
contained in Appendix 2 which explains the background to the application, relevant
policies and description of development.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection. This proposal is sited on land which
presently serves as a horse paddock accessed between the properties of Belmont
House and Fairfield. The means of vehicular access to Norwich Road (B1149) for the
proposed new dwellings is via the existing private track known as Sands Loke which
already serves three dwellings and farm buildings at the end of the Loke. Visibility at
the access onto The Green is adequate. If approved condition requiring access, on
site car and cycle parking, turning and waiting area prior to first occupation and to be
retained thereafter for those uses.
Strategic Housing - Object. A copy of the comments are contained in full in
Appendix 2.
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)
13
6 November 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Impact on Conservation Area and Area of High Landscape Value.
4. Impact on highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy. Under both
the North Norfolk Local Plan and the Core Strategy the site is located within an area
designated as Countryside where there is a general presumption against residential
development.
The plans are only indicative, but the Design and Access Statement states that the
dwellings would be four-bedroom houses. This would not comply with Policy HO 1 of
the Core Strategy regarding dwelling mix and type as at least one of the proposed
four bedroom houses would be required to have no more than 70sq.m in floor area
and have no more than two bedrooms.
There are no details regarding the design, scale and positioning of windows.
However, it is considered that four suitably designed dwellings could be
accommodated on this site and have an appropriate relationship to neighbouring
dwellings. Owing to the secluded nature of the site and location within an already
developed area it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character of the
Conservation Area.
There is a long access track leading to the site which runs in between two properties.
It is considered that the intensification of the use of this access track could have a
significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the neighbouring
dwellings by way of noise and disturbance. The Committee will note that the Highway
Authority has raised no objection.
Whilst it is considered that the size of the site is sufficient to accommodate four
dwellings and that subject to a suitable design the relationship to neighbouring
dwellings could be made acceptable the proposal does not comply with the saved
policies of the Local Plan or the policies contained in the Core Strategy as there is an
objection in principle to residential development in this location.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
6 November 2008
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 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside
Policy SS 3: Housing
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside
The applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for the erection of four
dwellings in the Countryside policy area where there is a general presumption
against residential development.
The proposal would be prejudicial to the District Council's Development Strategy,
which is designed to impose severe restraint upon new residential development in
the countryside in order to direct housing growth to specific and sustainable
locations.
The proposal would also be contrary to Policy HO 1 of the Core Strategy regarding
the mix and type of dwellings proposed as at least one of the proposed four bedroom
houses would be required to have no more than 70sq.m in floor area and have no
more than two bedrooms.
Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to the above Core Strategy
policies.
5.
FAKENHAM - 20081239 - Erection of two dwellings and extension of restaurant
to provide toilets; 14 Holt Road for Minara Enterprises
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :16 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19910029 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from shop and warehouse to
restaurant
Refused, 21 Feb 1991
19910438 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from shop and warehouse to
restaurant (revised application)
Approved, 10 Jun 1991
19930795 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from Indian restaurant to
Indian restaurant with living accommodation at first floor level
Approved, 13 Jun 1994
19951082 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of one room for retail use (Class
A1)
Approved, 16 Nov 1995
19960152 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of additional room to retail
Approved, 04 Apr 1996
Development Control Committee (West)
15
6 November 2008
20060653 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey extension
Approved, 12 Jun 2006
20080791 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two flats and extension of
restaurant to provide toilets
Withdrawn, 04 Jul 2008
THE APPLICATION
Consists of two elements, the first relating to a single-storey extension and alteration
to the restaurant to provide improved ground floor toilet facilities. The extension
would be approximately 6.4m wide and 3.3m deep.
Second element proposes the erection of a pair of semi-detached two-bedroomed
dwellings, which would have pedestrian access off a public footpath linking Norwich
Road with Holt Road. The dwellings would have a combined footprint of 67sqm, a
height to eaves of approximately 5.4m and a height to ridge of approximately 7.5m.
The eastern elevation of the dwellings would front the public footpath running
between Holt Road and Norwich Road. The dwellings would be set back
approximately 1m from the edge of the footpath behind a proposed new 1.8m high
brick wall and railings (2m high brick piers). Each dwelling would have a front door,
bedroom window and 'conservation' roof light in the east elevation with the southern
dwelling also having a ground floor window serving the kitchen. The northern and
southern gable elevations would each have one window at ground floor level.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received. Summary of comments:
1. Concerned about loss of light as a result of proposed houses.
2. Will reduce afternoon sun into our property, which we are entitled to receive.
3. The application should be refused.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - No objection in respect of emergency vehicle access.
Community Safety Manager - Awaiting comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle due to close location of parking
and the town centre location. Concerned about the lack of access to the site for
construction, emergency and delivery vehicles.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to imposition of conditions regarding
extract systems.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
6 November 2008
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
Further consideration to this issue will be given at the meeting.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
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. Principle of residential development and extension to restaurant in this location.
2. Impact on amenities of neighbours.
3. Impact on form and character of the area.
4. Parking and highway safety.
5. Impact on setting of adjacent listed building.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting to allow Committee to visit the site.
The site is located within the designated town centre within which the principle of
extending the existing restaurant is acceptable subject to satisfactory compliance
with Core Strategy policies.
In respect of the proposed two new dwellings, Policy SS2 states that residential
proposals will be permitted where they do not result in the loss of shops or other
main town centre uses and where they are compatible with other relevant Core
Strategy Policies.
In respect of the proposed extension to the restaurant, subject to the imposition of
conditions, it is not considered that the extension would have any adverse impact on
the amenity or form and character of the area. Subject to the use of appropriate
external materials, the proposed extension would comply with Core Strategy Policies.
With regard to the proposed semi-detached dwellings, the proposal would not result
in the loss of shops or other main town centre uses and is therefore acceptable in
principle.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
6 November 2008
The properties would not have a direct highway frontage, being set back behind the
former DIY store on Norwich Road and No.16 Holt Road. Nonetheless, a two-storey
building would still be clearly visible from Norwich Road and, to a lesser degree, from
Holt Road and it would sit adjacent to the Grade II listed Prospect House. The views
of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager have been sought in respect of
the impact on the setting of the adjacent listed building. Committee will be updated
orally in respect of this matter.
In respect of impact on the amenity of neighbours, the closest residential neighbour
is No.21 Norwich Road (Prospect House) which has a number of windows in the
west elevation at ground, first floor and second floor level which look onto the
application site as well as No.16 Holt Road to the north. The proposed dwelling
would be located approximately 3.2m west of No.21 Norwich Road and the
properties would be separated by the existing pedestrian footpath.
Whilst the ground and first floor windows in the proposed southern dwelling would
line up approximately with the position of three existing windows at ground, first and
second floor level in No.21 Norwich Road, given that the ground floor windows of
No.21 Norwich Road already suffer loss of privacy from the public footpath (evidence
of the use of obscure glazing and net curtains) and the fact that the first floor window
is entirely obscure glazed, it is not considered that the proposed dwellings would
result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of No.21 Norwich Road.
Furthermore, the existing second floor window is situated above the height of the
proposed dwelling and overlooking from the proposed property would not therefore
be possible.
Regarding the
Norwich Road,
afternoon onto
significant loss
situation.
issues of loss of daylight and sunlight for the occupiers of No.21
whilst the approved dwellings would result in some shadowing in the
No.21 Norwich Road, it is not considered that this would result in a
of sunlight or daylight, particularly when compared with the existing
The applicant is not proposing to provide parking facilities for the two residential
units. The Core Strategy would normally require two spaces for a two-bedroomed
dwelling but states that these standards may be reduced in designated town centres
if justified by improved accessibility. Given that the site is located within the town
centre where there is access to public transport and shops and services and the fact
that there are car parks available nearby that could, in principle, meet the parking
needs of the dwellings, it is considered that refusal based on the under provision of
vehicle parking spaces in this location would be difficult to justify. The Highway
Authority has not raised any highway safety objections but has raised concern about
the lack of direct vehicular access for construction, emergency and delivery vehicles.
The Building Control Manager has been consulted in respect of access and
Committee will be updated orally.
With regard to the impact of the existing public footpath and any associated crime
and disorder implication, the views of the Community Safety Manager have been
sought and Committee will be updated orally.
In summary, whilst the principle of extending the restaurant to provide improved toilet
facilities is considered to be acceptable, further consideration is required in respect of
the impact on the adjacent listed building, means of access for construction and
emergency vehicles and consideration of any crime and disorder implications.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
6 November 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager or the Community Safety Manager and subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
HIGH KELLING - 20081357 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 60 Pineheath
Road for Mr S R Telfer-Smith
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Nov 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside Policy Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080359 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace
Refused, 29 Apr 2008
20080825 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace
Refused, 11 Jul 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two-storey dwelling. All matters are reserved apart from layout
and means of access.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of planning history
and Core Strategy policy issues.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object, still believes this application to be infill and therefore against policy and the
new Local Development Framework.
REPRESENTATIONS
A supporting letter from the applicant has been submitted with the application
explaining the background to the proposal and is contained in Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - The Highway Authority has previously sought to
discourage further development served from the surrounding network of private unsurfaced road, where visibility back onto a heavily trafficked section of Principal
Route (A149) is restricted.
However, it would appear that a number of consents have been granted contrary to
the Highway advice offered, both by your Authority and at appeal, and accordingly an
undesirable precedent has been set. I note however that the previous planning
application 20080825 was refused.
With reference to the above comments I therefore have no further response in
relation to this present application.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
6 November 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy 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 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 policy area.
2. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Impact on trees.
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee refused application 20080359 in April 2008 on the grounds that the
siting of the dwelling would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the form and
character of the area and that the development would be readily visible from the
open countryside to the north and would be detrimental to the character and
appearance of the area which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
A further application was submitted under reference 20080825. The plans had been
revised slightly by moving the proposed dwelling 2m further to the south of the site
and by indicating additional planting to the northern corner of the site. It was
considered that the changes proposed by the applicant had still failed to demonstrate
that the dwelling could be sited without causing harm to the surrounding area and
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This application was refused in July 2008 on the
same grounds as 20080359.
Since the refusal of application 20080825 the applicant has had informal discussions
with Officers regarding the reasons for the previous refusals as explained in the
applicant's supporting letter contained in Appendix 3.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
6 November 2008
The applicant has now attempted to address the previous reasons for refusal by
submitting a revised scheme for a two-storey dwelling to be sited to the north west of
the existing dwelling, thus moving it from the rear to the front of the site in line with
existing development.
It is considered that this overcomes the objection regarding the form and character of
the area. At the time of writing this report the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager's comments were still awaited but it is considered that the re-siting of the
proposed dwelling would significantly reduce the visual impact on the open
countryside and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site to the north west of
No.64 has a number of trees adjacent to the site which are subject to a Tree
Preservation Order. There are no trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order on the
applicant's site and it is considered unlikely that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact on the trees on the neighbouring site.
In accordance with the submitted plans the proposed dwelling would be located
approximately 3m further back than the front elevation of No.60. However, the
proposed dwelling would maintain the form of development along this part of
Pineheath Road. The proposed dwelling would be located to the north west of No.60,
minimising any potential for loss of light or overshadowing. The proposed dwelling is
shown to be approximately 4m from the conservatory on the western elevation of
No.60. However, as all matters are reserved apart from layout and access the actual
scale and appearance of the dwelling are for future consideration. Subject to careful
consideration regarding design, scale and positioning of windows at the reserved
matters stage the proposed dwelling would have an acceptable relationship to the
neighbouring properties.
Therefore subject to no objection from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager it is considered that the proposal would overcome the previous objections.
A further issue has, however, arisen since the last application was refused in that the
Core Strategy has been adopted.
Under the policies contained in the Local Plan High Kelling was designated as a
Selected Small Village and the site located within the residential policy area where
appropriate residential development that enhanced the character of the village was
considered to be acceptable.
Under the adopted Core Strategy High Kelling no longer has a development
boundary, but is designated as Countryside under Policy SS 2, where new residential
development is not acceptable.
In accordance with the Cabinet resolution of 2 June 2008 Section 155 b) all
applications submitted after receipt of the final binding report will be determined in
accordance with the policies of the Core Strategy unless there are material
considerations that would suggest otherwise.
In this case, however, in view of the planning history relating to this site and the
ongoing discussions which had been taking place with Officers since the refusal of
the last application in July, prior to receiving the Inspector's Final Binding Report it is
considered that there are material considerations as to why the application should be
determined in accordance with the saved Local Plan policies rather than the Core
Strategy.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
6 November 2008
Subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and
no objections being received following the expiry of the site notice it is considered
that as the application would have been acceptable under the saved Local Plan
policies and discussions had taken place between officers and the applicant since
refusal of the last application these are material considerations that would mean that
the application should be approved as an exception to the policies contained in the
Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections being received from
outstanding consultees, prior to the expiry of the site notice and the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
7.
RAYNHAM - 20081353 - Variation of condition four of 20040018 to permit
residential occupancy personal to the applicant; Wren Cottage Helhoughton
Road West Raynham for Mr and Mrs Mason
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Nov 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside Policy Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20031895 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of redundant football pavilion to
holiday unit
Withdrawn, 06 Jan 2004
20040018 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of redundant football pavilion to
holiday cottage (including revised access position)
Approved, 16 Feb 2004
20041135 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change external finish to render with painted
finish
Approved, 18 Aug 2004
THE APPLICATION
Is for the variation of Condition 4 of 20040018 to permit residential occupancy
personal to the applicant.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wakefield having regard to the following planning issue:
Material considerations despite being located in the countryside policy area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support. The Council supports this variation because the applicant has lived and
worked locally for a long period of time.
REPRESENTATIONS
A copy of the applicants' supporting statement is contained in Appendix 4 providing
details of the applicants' background, current situation, future plans, why the
applicant is making the application, what the applicant wants to do, what support has
been given along with impact upon the applicants' human rights and a conclusion.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
6 November 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Acceptability of proposal in the Countryside policy area.
APPRAISAL
Planning permission was granted under application reference 20040018 for the
original building on the site to be converted into one unit of holiday accommodation,
and was conditioned as such. This application was determined under the policies
contained in the North Norfolk Local Plan.
As was the case under the policies contained in the North Norfolk Local Plan the
policies contained in the Core Strategy also permit the conversion of buildings in the
countryside into holiday accommodation subject to complying with a number of
criteria.
However, the site is located within the Countryside policy area (Policy SS 2) as
designated in the Core Strategy where there is a general presumption against
residential development.
The current application for consideration is seeking not to remove the holiday use
restriction but to allow a personal permission for the applicants to occupy the building
as a permanent residential dwelling.
Whilst the applicants are requesting that the holiday use restriction is retained, a
personal permission to allow the applicants to occupy the property as a permanent
residential dwelling would be in direct conflict with the policies contained in the Core
Strategy including the District Council's Housing Strategy which is designed to
impose severe restraint upon new residential development in the countryside in order
to direct housing growth to specific and sustainable locations.
It is not therefore considered that the applicant has provided sufficient justification to
warrant a clear departure from policy to allow the applicants to occupy the property
as a permanent residential dwelling in the countryside policy area. The proposal is
not considered to be acceptable and does not accord with the policies contained in
the Core Strategy. Approval would set an extremely damaging precedent for other
cases where personal arguments are advanced with the aim of creating an exception
to policy.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
6 November 2008
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 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside
Policy SS 3: Housing
The applicants have failed to demonstrate sufficient justification to allow for a
personal permission to occupy the property as a permanent residential dwelling in
the Countryside policy area where there is a general presumption against residential
development.
The proposal would be prejudicial to the District Council's Development Strategy,
which is designed to impose severe restraint upon new residential development in
the countryside in order to direct housing growth to specific and sustainable
locations.
Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to the above Core Strategy
policies.
8.
SHERINGHAM - 20081283 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace; land at 7 Norfolk Road for F W Smith (Builders)
Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :29 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19821270 - Erection of detached bungalow
Refused, 08 Nov 1982
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a two/three-bed detached dwelling with rooms in the roof on land to
the rear of No.7 Norfolk Road. The dwelling would have a footprint of approximately
120sq.m and would include an integral garage. The dwelling would have a height to
eaves of 2.5m and a height to ridge of 6.7m (main roof) and 6.2m (lower section over
garage and bed 2) Access would be gained from Norfolk Road via a new driveway
approximately 3m in width that would run approximately 1m east of No.7 Norfolk
Road before curving to the north-west to reach the highway. One parking space
would be retained for No.7 Norfolk Road.
The new dwelling would have a garden depth of approximately 10m and a width of
approximately 13-14m.
Amended plans have been received changing the gable end over the garage to a
hipped end. The front dormer window has also been reduced in size and would be
obscure glazed along with the dormer on the southern elevation which would also be
obscure glazed.
Development Control Committee (West)
24
6 November 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Nelson having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on the form and character of the area.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:
1. Previous proposal refused on this site.
2. This is garden grabbing of the worst kind.
3. Will be detrimental to the character of the area.
4. Will result in overlooking of adjacent properties.
5. The access arrangements will be detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of
No.7 Norfolk Road.
6. A 1.8m high concrete post and panel fence should be erected along the eastern
boundary of the site adjacent the private road.
7. The rear gardens of properties in the area form a green oasis of planting that
makes each garden feel larger.
8. The proposal will result in the loss of a significant green space.
9. Will be detrimental to biodiversity in the area.
10. The dwelling would have a large dwelling in relation to the plot size.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances 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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee (West)
25
6 November 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Impact on amenity.
3. Impact on form and character of the area.
4. Design.
5. Parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential area of Sheringham within which the
principle of erecting a dwelling is considered to be acceptable.
Whilst the site is situated to the rear of No.7 Norfolk Road it is considered that,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the amended design of the
dwelling would not have a significantly adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining
properties.
It is considered that a dwelling in this location would inevitably change the character
of the area. The application site was previously the garden area of No.7 Norfolk
Road. The original site had a density of approximately 14 dwellings per hectare.
Adding a further dwelling would result in a density of the proposed site of
approximately 24 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this is below the density guidelines
recommended by Policy HO 8 (40dph), it is considered that increasing the density of
the site further, would be likely to be significantly detrimental to the character of the
area.
The design of the dwelling reflects the simplicity of design of adjacent properties to
the north. In respect of external materials, it is considered that the proposal would
preserve the architectural character of the area to enable compliance with Policy EN
4.
Suitable conditions are required to ensure that the Code for Sustainable Homes
requirements are met.
Policy CT 6 requires two parking spaces for a 2/3 bed property. The applicant is
proposing an integral garage with space in front of the dwelling, indicated as a
turning area along with space along the length of the driveway. The Highway
Authority did not originally object, but further advice has been sought in respect of
possible turning difficulties.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and subject to no new grounds of
objection from the Highway Authority, the proposed dwelling would comply with Core
Strategy Policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
the Highway Authority and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
6 November 2008
9.
SUSTEAD - 20081174 - Change of use of land to extend scaffolding yard; ACS
Scaffolding The Street for A C S Scaffolding
Target Date :03 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
199900151 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Use of yard and barn for building and
construction business
Approved, 26 Jun 1990
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of land to extend scaffolding yard.
The piece of land measures approximately 30m x 25m. It is disused and overgrown.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Highway safety.
2. Parking.
3. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
4. Expansion of business.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application subject to the applicant providing satisfactory and adequate
parking provision for all vehicles (lorries, employees, cars and visiting vehicles) and
to ensure that all parking of such vehicles is contained within the scaffolding yard
site.
The applicant would also be able to move heavy equipment and lorries further away
from private residential dwellings which we believe will be of benefit to all parties.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from the same objector raising the
following points:
1. Concerned that the proposal would mean more lorries and vehicles.
2. Highway safety.
3. Concerns over expansion of business.
The applicant has provided a supporting statement with the application explaining the
intentions of the proposal, a copy of which is contained in Appendix 5.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection. Although
currently situated in an area of countryside the site appears to be the old garden plot
of the adjacent cottage. The site is well screened by young trees and mature native
hedging which holds the greatest ecological value of the site.
I would recommend placing a condition on any permission given requiring the
retention of the hedges on the south, east and west boundaries to a minimum height
of 2m above ground level.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
6 November 2008
County Council (Highways) - Requires confirmation as to whether the proposal will
generate any additional traffic on the C293, and existing and proposed traffic
generation figures for the site. On receipt of the additional information I would be
grateful for the opportunity to comment further.
Environmental Health - No comment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of proposal in Countryside policy area.
2. Impact on rural character of the area.
3. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
4. Highway safety.
5. Parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside policy area (Policy SS 2) as designated in the
Core Strategy. Extensions to existing businesses in the countryside are permitted in
accordance with Policy EC 3 where the extension is of a scale appropriate to the
existing development and would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the
area.
The site is located directly to the south of the existing scaffolding yard, and is
currently overgrown. There is a portable building located adjacent to the western
boundary and to the south of the existing site are the racks in which the scaffolding
poles are kept. The remaining area provides the parking and loading/unloading area
for the applicant's lorries. Car parking is provided on the site adjacent to the road to
the north west.
To the north and north east are residential properties. The eastern boundary of the
site is very well screened with hedging and trees. However, the property known as
'Wendy Cottage' is adjacent to the area in which the lorries park and are
loaded/unloaded.
Development Control Committee (West)
28
6 November 2008
The proposal would more than double the size of the site but is well screened by
hedging on the western, southern and eastern boundaries and a number of trees
which are on the eastern boundary. Owing to the hedging along the western
boundary the portable building and pole racks are also well screened. The
Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who has no objections to the application. It is not therefore considered that
the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area.
The Committee will note that Environmental Health have no comments to make
regarding the application. It is therefore considered that the proposed change of use
would mean that the scaffold storage racks and parking and loading/unloading area
for the lorries would be moved back into the site to the south further away from the
residential properties to the north. It is considered that this would improve the
relationship with the neighbouring dwellings.
The Committee will note the comments from the Highway Authority. This information
has been requested from the applicant as has confirmation of the number of vehicles
using the site and a plan to showing all the vehicles that use the site parked on the
site. At the time of writing this report a response was awaited.
It is therefore considered, subject to no objections from the Highway Authority and
receipt of a satisfactory plan from the applicant regarding the parking of all vehicles
on the site, that the proposal would improve the relationship with neighbouring
dwellings, would be of a scale appropriate to the existing development and would not
have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area. The proposal
would therefore be considered acceptable and accord with the policies contained in
the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Highway
Authority and receipt of a satisfactory plan from the applicant regarding the
parking of all vehicles on the site and imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081196 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land at
Sunnyside Jolly Sailors Yard for Mrs S J Warner
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :08 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071375 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of dwelling
Refused, 12 Oct 2007
20080673 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling
Refused, 18 Jun 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single-storey, 'L' shaped dwelling on what is currently part of
the rear garden area of Sunnyside, with the site having a total area of 198sq.m.
Development Control Committee (West)
29
6 November 2008
The dwelling, the front of which would face east, would have a total floor area of
some 48sq.m, with the main element of the property having a ridge height of 4.5m
and gables to the northern and southern boundaries 5m in width, whilst the rear wing
would have a lower ridge at 4m, and a gable width of 4.2m. The dwelling would be
constructed of red brick under a concrete pantile roof, with uPVC windows and doors.
Access would be from Northfield Way, across land within the applicant's ownership
with car parking for two vehicles to the frontage of the property, whilst to the west
there would be a small enclosed rear garden varying in depth from 10m to 4.5m.
REASON FOR REFERAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Trett on the following planning ground:
Precedent set by the granting of planning permission for a bungalow to the south.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from the owner of the adjoining property to
the south which raises the following concerns (summarised):
1. Loss of amenity and adverse impact on garden area due to the proximity of the
proposed dwelling.
2. The granting of planning permission to the southern boundary of my property
should have no bearing on this application as it would be further away from the
boundary.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy 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 SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 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).
Development Control Committee (West)
30
6 November 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location.
2. Compatibility with the form and character of the surrounding area.
3. Impact on the residential amenity of adjacent properties.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary for Wells-next-the-Sea where in
principle the erection of a dwelling is considered acceptable subject to satisfactory
compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Whilst the form and character of this part of Wells-next-the-Sea is mixed, the
architectural style and appearance of dwellings consists primarily of semi-detached
properties, with long narrow rear gardens. Properties in Jolly Sailor Yard, of which
Sunnyside is in the middle, have gardens in the region of 30m in depth whilst in
Northfield Way dwellings to the north of the site have rear gardens varying in depth
from 30m to 55m. The subdivision of the rear garden of Sunnyside would provide
adequate amenity area for both properties, but it is considered that the proposed
dwelling conflict with the pattern of development in the immediate area of the site,
being set to the rear of properties in Jolly Sailor Yard and Northfield Waye, some
17m back from the edge of the carriageway. As a result the dwelling would relate
poorly to neighbouring properties, appearing somewhat isolated and incongruous,
and would not preserve or enhance the character or quality of the area.
In comparison, whilst planning permission has recently been granted for a bungalow
to the rear of Fairview, Northfield Lane, with access off Northfield Waye this was
considered to be an obvious infill plot being set back only 5m from the edge of the
carriageway, and consistent with the pattern of development in the surrounding area.
As far as the effects of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring
properties are concerned, the only dwellings likely to be affected are those to either
side, the rear gardens of which abut the site. Given the length of the rear gardens,
the small scale of the proposed dwelling and the fact that it would be sited toward the
eastern end of the adjoining gardens it is not considered that the development would
result in any significant overshadowing of either garden or loss of privacy to those
dwellings.
In the light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be
contrary to Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: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 EN 4: Design
A dwelling in the location proposed would relate poorly to properties both in Jolly
Sailors Yard and Northfield Way, being in conflict with the overall development
pattern of this part of Wells-next-the-Sea. The development would not preserve or
enhance the character or quality of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to
adopted Development Plan Policy EN4.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
6 November 2008
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - 20080841 - Erection of first floor/link extension, two-storey
extension, garage and utility room; Janda Coronation Lane for Drs Garside
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081208 - Installation of additional rooflights and raising height
of chimney; The Stable Barn, The Old Rectory 6 Wiveton Road for The Beeston
Group
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081216 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions; 8
Kingsway for Mr J Bryant
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081227 - Erection of store extension; Blakeney Hotel The Quay
for The Blakeney Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081256 - Construction of balcony; Counting House Mariners
Hill for Mr and Mrs Lambert
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081307 - Demolition of section of wall, rebuilding of wall to
lean-to building and construction of temporary roof cover; The Main Barn, The
Old Rectory Wiveton Road for The Beeston Group
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BRISTON - 20080822 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with balcony
and two-storey side extension; Tithe House Tithe Barn Lane for Mr J Eke
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081198 - Removal of three dormer windows and
installation of four dormer windows and two velux windows; Sea Bank Cottage
Coast Road for Professor J Till
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081243 - Variation of condition 3 of planning
permission 20071351 to permit erection of extensions to units 4 and 5; Swan
Lodge Barns Cley Road Holt for Swan Lodge Barn Developments LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081260 - Erection of two-storey extension,
installation of two rooflights and balcony; Lammas Newgate Green for Ms D
Perkins
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20080426 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
20040305 to permit full residential occupancy; Castle Stables The Street
Saxthorpe for Mr and Mrs G J Hodgson
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - 20081235 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension; The
Street Farm House Ramsgate Street for Mr and Mrs J Seymour
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
32
6 November 2008
FAKENHAM - 20081086 - Demolition of outbuilding, alterations and erection of
single-storey extension; Thorpland Hall Thorpland for Mr and Mrs N Savory
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FAKENHAM - 20081202 - Erection of animal feed warehouse and distribution
buildings with ancillary retail counter; plots 4 and 5 New Road Clipbush Lane
for GJL Animal Feeds Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081214 - Erection of dwelling; land rear of Gillham House Wells
Road for Mr and Mrs C Vogel
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081218 - Erection of dwelling; land at Gillham House 12 Wells
Road for Mr and Mrs C Vogel
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081231 - Removal of window, bricking-up of opening and
installation of flue; 2 Red Lion Court Market Place for Mr Lasham
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FAKENHAM - 20081264 - Use of land for siting storage container; Fakenham
Sports and Fitness Centre Trap Lane for Fakenham Bowmen
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080771 - Erection of six residential units, two shops and two
offices; 8 Norwich Street for Mr A Rivett
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081232 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 37 Smiths
Lane for Mr and Mrs E Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20081281 - Erection of two-storey extension incorporating
ground floor annexe; 11-13 Barney Road for Mr M Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - 20081253 - Erection of garage/store; South House
Fakenham Road for Miss E John
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - 20081229 - Erection of front porch; Orchard House The
Common Bale for Mr J Barnes
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - 20080595 - Change of use of barns to four units of holiday
accommodation; Becketts Farm Baconsthorpe Road for Mr J G Seaman
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20081280 - Erection of single-storey building to house medical
gas manifold; Kelling Hospital Cromer Road for Eastern Support Services
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - 20081217 - Erection of conservatory (revised design); Rose
Cottage Home Lane for Mr F Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
33
6 November 2008
HOLT - 20081038 - Display of externally illuminated advertisements; Sts
Stapletons Tyres Station Road for STS Stapletons Tyres Limited
(Illuminated Advertisement)
HOLT - 20081169 - Erection of single-storey extension to kitchen store
(amended design); 1 Shirehall Plain for Mr I Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20081165 - Conversion of redundant barn into holiday dwelling;
Suckers Barn Westwood Lane Great Ryburgh for Mr and Mrs A Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20081171 - Prior notification of intention to erect telegraph pole;
opposite Boreas junction of Coast Road and Cross Street for Openreach
(Prior Approval)
SCULTHORPE - 20081179 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
adjacent Cambria 53 Sandy Lane Fakenham for Mr R Robson-Ridley
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20081269 - Conversion of stables to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Stables The Old Rectory Creake Road for Mrs G Davall
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20081278 - Conversion of stables to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Stables The Old Rectory Creake Road for Mrs G Davall
(Alteration to Listed Building)
SHERINGHAM - 20080394 - Installation of fire escape door and staircase and
two roof windows and front dormer window; 12 High Street for Mr and Mrs
Grey
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081180 - Erection of single-storey front extension and siting
of two portable buildings during construction period; Carlton Lodge 5 Augusta
Street for P E Roos and Associates
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081186 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 6 Beeston
Common for Mr B Mutton
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081221 - Variation of planning permission reference:
20042141 to provide parking space to plot 8, garden gate to plot 5 and removal
of garage walls to plots 4 and 5; 20 Cromer Road for F W Smith Builder Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081293 - Erection of replacement store room and provision
of car parking space; Friends Meeting House Cremer Street for Sheringham
Quaker Meeting
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080638 - Erection of agricultural storage building; The
Piggeries Weybourne Road for Mr P Lowe
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
34
6 November 2008
SHERINGHAM - 20080879 - Erection of rear conservatory and extension and
conversion of outbuilding to provide annexe accommodation; 2 The Rise for
Mr P Ratcliffe
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20081087 - Erection of single-storey extension; 10 Church Street
for Ms N Smith
(Alteration to Listed Building)
THURNING - 20081250 - Continued use of annexe as holiday accommodation;
Burnt House Farm Cottage Craymere Beck Road for Mrs S Whitehouse
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20081192 - Replacement of window with French doors; 11/13
High Street for Mrs E King
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081219 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Garden Cottage Bolts Close for Mr Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081220 - Reinstatement as two separate dwellings
and erection of second floor extension and dormer window; 4-6 High Street for
Mr and Mrs K Sisman
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081223 - Alterations and extensions to facilitate
subdivision to two dwellings; 4-6 High Street for Mr and Mrs K Sisman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081245 - Construction of balustrade (amended
design and materials); 3 Bakers Yard Freeman Street for Mr P Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - 20081190 - Erection of porch and first floor extension; Meads
Folly Foulsham Road for Mr and Mrs Johnstone
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - 20081226 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The Paddocks
Holt Road for Mr K Wright
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - 20080865 - Erection of two, one-and-a-half-storey semi-detached
dwellings and detached garage block; 39 Morston Road for Martin King
Construction
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20081222 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
20061401 to permit take-away service; 179C Fakenham Road for Mrs Chi Ki Lee
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - 20081166 - Erection of cottage style dwelling and garage; land
adjacent to 44-46 Wells Road for Mr and Mrs M Woodhouse
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
35
6 November 2008
LANGHAM - 20081176 - Erection of dwelling and garage; land adjacent Stable
Court, Langham Hall Holt Road for Mr A Burlingham
(Outline Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20081197 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 23 Wells Road for
Mr and Mrs D Foreman
(Outline Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
FAKENHAM - 20080273 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached double
garage; land adjacent 10 Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Builders Limited
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - 01/013/DEV6/06/001 - Change of use of agricultural land for the
siting of caravans for residential purposes; land off Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 28 Oct 2008
BODHAM - 20071223 - Change of use of agricultural land to site for one static
caravan and one touring caravan and the provision of one transit pitch; land
off Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 28 Oct 2008
BRISTON - 20071468 - Retention of storage shed; Emery Wood Craymere Road
for Ms P Rowan
INFORMAL HEARING 19 Nov 2008
WOOD NORTON - 20071379 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; The Old Fire
Station Foulsham Airfield Foulsham Road for Thomas and Money Haulage
INFORMAL HEARING
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
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
HIGH KELLING - 20070983 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Cherry Garth
Cromer Road for Mr P M Plummer
SITE VISIT :- 28 Oct 2008
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071932 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site rear
of 18 Church Street for Ms J Starns
APPEAL DECISION :- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee (West)
36
6 November 2008