OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 8 JANUARY 2009
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION BY COMBINED COMMITTEE
1.
SHERINGHAM – 20080836 – Demolition of bungalow and erection of three oneand-a-half-storey dwellings; 18 Hadley Road, Sheringham for Mr K Welch
To consider whether to grant planning permission for the proposed development
contrary to the advice of Norfolk County Council Highways.
This application was considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on
11 September 2008 (copy of report attached at Appendix 1) when it was resolved to
give delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve the
application, subject to the Highway Authority confirming that it did not have a strong
objection to the proposal.
The Highway Authority subsequently confirmed that it did object strongly to the
proposal. See copy of response and original objection letter at Appendix 1.
The application was referred back to Development Control Committee (West) on 9
October 2008 for re-consideration when it was resolved to give delegated approval of
the application subject to further discussion with the Highway Authority regarding
improving highway safety through the possible provision of a one-way system.
Discussions took place between Officers, the Highway Authority and the applicant’s
agent regarding possible highway safety improvements. Initially these focussed on a
one-way system with all traffic entering from Common Lane and exiting from The
Rise, but such a proposal could not be supported by the Highway Authority given that
this would still require and possibly intensify use of substandard junctions and would
also have to be the subject of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This option was not
therefore pursued.
Alternative highway improvement options were considered including “building out” the
junction with Hadley Road and Common Lane and forcing owners of hedgerows
either side of the junctions to prune them back.
“Building out” options had been ruled out owing to safety concerns and it was
considered that hedgerow pruning would provide only a negligible improvement to
visibility and splays would still remain well below the required standards.
The last option considered was whether the applicant could purchase the necessary
visibility splays and make improvements to overcome highway safety concerns by
clearing the hedges which block visibility. This proposal was put to the applicant to
consider but was turned down because the applicants were not aware of any land for
sale nor were they said to be in a financial position to open negotiations in this
respect.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
8 January 2009
The application was re-considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on
04 December 2008 when it was resolved that the application be referred to a
Combined meeting of the Development Control Committees with a recommendation
of approval on the grounds that it is a sustainable development, there is a lack of
space for housing in Sheringham and the application represents an ideal opportunity
for appropriate development, there is alternative access available at The Rise and
the Committee has taken into account the powers of the Highway Authority to require
hedges to be trimmed back to improve visibility. (Copy of report attached at
Appendix 1).
Key Policy Issues
The key issue is compliance with adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy CT6
and whether the proposed development would allow for safe access and the
necessary visibility splays in accordance with national standards.
Appraisal
The normal visibility splay requirements at junctions onto roads with a 30mph speed
limit are 43m in each direction from a set-back of 2.4m. In this instance, at the
junction of Hadley Road with Common Lane the available visibility in each direction is
8m, which is 18% of the required visibility. At the junction of Hadley Road with The
Rise visibility is only 15m in the traffic direction and 23m in the other direction, which
is 35% and 53% respectively of the required visibility splay of 43m from a 2m setback. The Highway Authority has allowed for pruning of hedges in their assessment
of visibility splays, hence the reduction in the set-back from 2.4m to 2m. Whilst not
as unsafe as the situation at Common Lane the visibility here is still significantly
substandard.
Despite the efforts of the Highway Authority and Officers, the applicant is not
prepared to consider options to improve visibility. In light of the significant short-fall in
visibility splay provision, the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building
Control is that, if the applicant cannot secure the necessary land to provide the
necessary visibility improvements, permission be refused on highway safety grounds.
In respect of design considerations, whilst Officers contend that the design of the
dwellings put forward by the applicant is unacceptable, Development Control
Committee (West) did not raise substantive objections on design grounds.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) RECOMMENDATION:Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating
Development Control policies on 24 September 2008. The following policies are
considered relevant to the proposed development.
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
The unadopted Hadley Road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve
any additional development by reason of its substandard construction, lack of
pedestrian facilities and primarily the restricted visibility available at the adjacent road
junctions with The Rise and Common Lane (U10138 and U10137). The proposal, if
permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety, in
conflict with Core Strategy Policy CT 5.
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 - File Reference: 20080836)
Development Control Committee (West)
2
8 January 2009
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST)
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 - 20081400 - Erection of seven dwellings; land adjacent 1 Pyes
Close for Corepost Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :15 Dec 2008
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside Policy Area
Employment Area
Residential Area
Boundaries for Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside
Class 'A' Road within 60m
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19861070 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Residential use
Approved, 10 Oct 1986
19870246 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Four houses and amended extension to
engineering works.
Approved, 01 May 1987
19871461 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of four dwellings and
garages
Approved, 08 Oct 1987
19871850 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Residential use (four houses)
Approved, 17 Dec 1987
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of seven dwellings comprising three three-bed market dwellings,
two three-bed affordable dwellings and two two-bed affordable dwellings on the site
to the rear of Pyes Close and Blakeney garage. Access only is for consideration at
this stage.
Two private access roads serve the site, one serving five dwellings in Pyes Close
would, indicatively, serve an additional three dwellings and the other serving the
former engineering works and 'The Saltings' which consists of four residential
dwellings, would, indicatively, serve a further four dwellings, layout no longer being a
reserved matter.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. Loss of industrial site, but would reconsider if the proposed affordable housing
units were for local residents of Blakeney and surrounding parishes only.
2. Possibility of future flooding of the site.
3. Height of the market housing is too great.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
8 January 2009
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:
1. Potential overlooking of rear garden.
2. Inadequate width of private road currently serving The Saltings.
3. Increase in traffic at this busy junction.
4. Inadequate access onto highway from Pyes Close.
5. Inappropriate height of dwellings.
6. Loss of employment land.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Object due to inadequate visibility splays at the junction
of the access from Pyes Close onto Morston Road which would cause danger and
inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway.
Further comments awaited in relation to removal of layout from the application.
Environmental Health - An investigation assessment to establish the presence of
contaminants prior to development. Further consideration is being given in respect of
relationship between commercial and residential uses.
Strategic Housing - Support. The application proposes three market dwellings and
four affordable and therefore complies with Core Strategy Policy HO 2. Aware that
the applicant is talking with at least one of our partner RSL's to take on the affordable
housing.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008)
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
4
8 January 2009
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 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 development on site/loss of employment land.
2. Mix of development/affordable housing.
3. Scale and layout of development.
4. Highway issues.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting to enable the Committee to visit the
site.
The site currently consists of garden area to 1 Pyes Close, including a garage and
other smaller outbuildings, and, to the rear of the Blakeney garage, a steel and
asbestos industrial building with associated storage and parking area.
The majority of the site is located within the residential area of Blakeney within which
the principle of erecting dwellings is acceptable subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies. Part of the site lies within land designated for
employment use. Whilst the proposal does not strictly comply with Policy SS 2, which
seeks to permit only employment-generating development proposals, it is considered
that the proposal would not significantly compromise the main employment use on
the site as there would be little potential for a separate employment use for this part
of the site given its limited size and location. As such, the loss of this small part of
employment land is considered to have no detrimental impact on employment on this
site or in Blakeney. However, in view of the close proximity of the proposed dwellings
to Blakeney Garage, advice has been sought from Environmental Health regarding
any potential for noise nuisance/disturbance and resultant implications for the
existing business. Committee will be updated orally.
The development would indicatively comply with Policy HO 1 of the Core Strategy
regarding dwelling mix and type where at least two of the proposed dwellings are
required to have no more than 70sq.m in floor area and have no more than two
bedrooms. Conditions would be necessary to ensure that a reserved matters
application reflected this requirement.
In respect of affordable housing the applicant is proposing to provide four affordable
units which would be in compliance with Policy HO 2.
In respect of scale, whilst the Parish Council has raised concerns about the height of
the proposed dwellings, neither scale nor layout is any longer for consideration at this
stage. However, it is considered that seven dwellings could be accommodated on the
site without detriment to the form and character of the area and without causing
detriment to residential amenity.
Proposed indicative parking arrangements would meet the Council's parking
standards of two spaces per dwelling and therefore comply with Policy CT 6 of the
Core Strategy. In terms of the transport impact of the new development, County
Development Control Committee (West)
5
8 January 2009
Council (Highways) have advised that the intensification of the Pyes Close access,
where visibility is substandard, would cause undue interference with the safe flow of
traffic. Visibility at The Saltings access onto Morston Road is considered acceptable,
but is not capable of serving any more than the proposed four dwellings and the four
existing dwellings. The proposed development is therefore considered to have a
detrimental impact on highway safety, contrary to Policy CT 5.
Subject to satisfactory scale, design and use of appropriate materials, it is considered
that the proposal would not be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
It is considered that the proposal raises no significant issues in respect of the
Blakeney Village Design Statement.
In summary, subject to any further comments from the Highway Authority, whilst the
proposal would be in compliance with many Core Strategy policies, in light of the
objection raised by Highway Authority regarding highway safety concerns and lack of
compliance with Policy CT 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, refusal is
recommended.
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 statement is considered relevant
to the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the Pyes Close access with the busy and
important Morston Road (A149 Special Access Route) and this would cause danger
and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway, in conflict with Policy CT
5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3.
FAKENHAM - 20081540 - Change of Use from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food takeaway); 33 Bridge Street for Mr Aygun
Target Date :19 Dec 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Areas
Town Centres
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Change of use of ground floor from A1 (Retail) to A5 (Hot Food Take Away).
Amended plan received showing car parking.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Lisher and Towers having regard to the following
planning issues:
1. Parking
2. Impact on local residents in relation to noise, odour, disturbance, anti-social
behaviour, litter, opening hours.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
8 January 2009
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects in the strongest possible terms as there are existing fast food outlets within
yards of these premises, and the local police are extremely concerned with young
people gathering in this vicinity, anti-social behaviour is occurring and there is the
additional problem of litter. It would be undesirable for cars to egress the rear of the
premises as this is a narrow and nearly blind entrance onto Bridge Street which is
used by boy racers in the evenings and weekends. Already adjacent in Bridge Street
are six existing outlets supplying food and drink, at most hours of the day and night
and as this site is not in breach of North Norfolk's Development Control Policies, then
the policies are sadly lacking.
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. Noise.
2. Disturbance.
3. Litter.
4. Parking.
5. Traffic.
6. Anti- social behaviour.
7. Too many food outlets, particularly fast food.
8. Vandalism.
9. Loss of business to other local businesses.
10. Odour.
11. Detrimental impact upon local residents.
12. More retail shops needed not food shops.
13. In excess of 12 takeaway food shops and 15 other eating establishments.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Safety Manager - The location, capacity and opening times of these
premises can have a significant effect on town centre safety. The problem facing
communities when licensed premises close is people will seek food before beginning
their journey home. It is a fact that takeaway outlets in North Norfolk have become
sites of alcohol related violence and anti social behaviour. North Norfolk District
Council has previously taken the step of using planning and licensing conditions to
restrict the operating hours of takeaway premises to midnight. This one course of
action has resulted in a significant drop in alcohol related violence and anti social
behaviour. It is recommended that a condition be added to restrict the operating
hours of this premises to midnight (which would be subject to the granting of a Late
Night Refreshment House Licence which is required to operate beyond 11pm).
Furthermore, access to the side and rear of the premises is openly available and this
is likely to attract problems of crime and disorder. Should this application be granted
it should be a condition that adequate and appropriate lighting is provided to the side
and rear of the premises to deter such activity, but it must be compatible with the
public CCTV cameras.
County Council (Highways) - Pursuant to the amended plan, considering the
existence of the parking area to the rear of the property and the proximity of the
public car park in Bridge Street I would find it difficult to sustain an objection to this
proposal. Therefore, with reference to the consultation received recently to the above
development proposal, in relation to highway issues only, notice is hereby given that
Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.
Environmental Health - I am concerned that the proposed extract system has the
potential of causing noise and odour nuisance to neighbouring domestic dwellings. A
condition regarding the submission and approval of full details of the installation of
Development Control Committee (West)
7
8 January 2009
any extractor or ventilation equipment including measures to control noise and odour
prior to the first use of the building has been requested. It has also been suggested
that it would be beneficial for the applicant if they instigate the services of an acoustic
engineer to support their application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
Refer to the Community Safety Manager's comments above.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of proposal in Primary Shopping Area.
2. Impact upon neighbouring properties/local residents.
3. Car parking.
4. Impact upon the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Primary Shopping Area in the town centre of Fakenham
as designated in the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this location a broad range
of shopping, commercial, cultural and other uses will be supported.
The site is not located within the Primary Retail Frontage area and the proposed A5
(hot food take-away) use is considered to be an acceptable use in this location.
The Committee will note the comments made by the Environmental Protection Officer
and Community Safety Officer, and the conditions requested. Subject to the
imposition of and compliance with these conditions, it is not considered that there
would be a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of local residents.
Whilst the site is located directly opposite a public car park in accordance with the car
parking standards in the Core Strategy a total of four spaces are required. The agent
has stated on the application form that there are four existing car parking spaces,
and has submitted an amended plan demonstrating this. The Highway Authority has
no objection to the amended car parking plan.
The site is located within the Conservation Area. However, the submitted plans do
not indicate any external alterations. The extraction duct is shown on the submitted
plan to exit the building at the rear through what part of the existing window. It is not
considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the
character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
8 January 2009
It is considered that the proposal accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including opening
hours, ventilation and extraction and external lighting details.
4.
HOLT - 20081526 - Erection of building to provide serviced holiday
accommodation; land at, Jenis Barn Thornage Road for Mr S Chapman
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :26 Dec 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061070 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused, 22 Aug 2006
20070490 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused, 30 May 2007
20080201 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of dwelling and detached cart
lodge
Refused, 29 Apr 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a five-bedroom building to provide serviced holiday
accommodation including associated two-bedroom residential dwelling to service the
holiday accommodation. All matters are reserved.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker and Councillor High having regard to the following
planning issue:
Personal and tourism considerations despite being outside the development
boundary and contrary to adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy policies.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received raising the following points:
1. Contrary to policy as development in countryside.
2. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed service tourist
accommodation requires a rural location.
3. It is clearly evident from the successful recent development of new bed and
breakfast businesses in Holt that there is no need to site a new bed and breakfast in
the countryside adjacent to Holt rather than in the town itself.
4. Would have a significant detrimental impact upon the open and rural character of
the area.
5. Would in no way enhance or preserve the character of the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
8 January 2009
6. Car parking not addressed.
7. Highway safety.
8. Gross overdevelopment of site.
9. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is adequate visibility.
Three letters of support have been received from local residents.
A copy of the applicant's supporting statement is contained in Appendix 2, covering
information on the application site, planning history, proposed development, access,
interpretation of planning guidelines incorporating Tourism Sector Study, foul
sewerage and utilities assessment, economic statement, assessment and
conclusion.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - In the
absence of any elevations it is difficult to make a full assessment of the true impact of
the proposed building. This said, the fact that it has a footprint which is much bigger
than Jenis Barn must begin to ring alarm bells. Notwithstanding possible size issues,
however, it may still in practice be difficult to sustain an objection based purely upon
its effect on the expansive Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Rather more likely is
that any visual impact arguments will have to be based around more general
landscape considerations (for which others are best placed to comment). In offering
these general comments it is appreciated that there may well still be an overarching
policy objection to the proposal.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - As with earlier applications on this site (20080201,
20070490, 20061070) the application does not provide details of visibility splays to
be provided from the site access (Candlestick Lane) onto the Thornage Road
(B1110). As the Thornage Road is subject to a 60 mph speed limit at this point the
visibility requirement from the access is 215m x 2.4m x 215m (Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges, DoT). Therefore, should this application be acceptable in
planning terms, the applicant should be requested to submit a site frontage survey
indicating the above visibility splays to allow favourable Highway comment.
Planning Policy Manager - Object - The proposal is clearly contrary to Core Strategy
policies EC 7, SS1 and SS2. A Copy of the full comments from the Planning Policy
Manager are contained 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)
10
8 January 2009
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy 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 EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential
approach for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
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. Highway safety.
3. Impact on the character of the landscape and the Glaven Valley Conservation
Area.
APPRAISAL
The Committee may recall visiting this site under planning application reference
20080201 which was for the erection of a dwelling and detached cart lodge. The
Committee resolved to refuse that application on the same grounds as the previous
two applications (references 20070490 and 20061070) for the erection of a dwelling
which were that:
"The applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for the erection of a
dwelling in the proposed location and due to the location of the site within the Area of
High Landscape Value it is considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the open and rural character of the area. The proposed
development would therefore constitute the erection of a dwelling on land designated
as countryside in the North Norfolk Local Plan where there is a general presumption
against residential development."
The three previous applications were determined under the North Norfolk Local Plan
and were for the erection of a single dwelling only.
The current application is for the erection of serviced holiday accommodation with
associated living accommodation for the applicant. Under the North Norfolk Core
Strategy the site is still located within the Countryside policy area, and the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area.
In accordance with Policy EC 7 proposals for new tourist accommodation and
attractions should be located in accordance with the sequential approach which is
covered by three points. Firstly, new build tourist accommodation and attractions
should be located within the Principal and Secondary settlements. The application
site is in neither. Secondly, within the Countryside policy area serviced holiday
accommodation may be permitted when it is in accordance with other policies such
Development Control Committee (West)
11
8 January 2009
as those relating to Employment Areas, the Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside,
and Extensions to existing Businesses in the Countryside. Again this proposal does
not fall under any of these categories. The third point may permit serviced holiday
accommodation in the 'resorts and hinterland' and 'rural' Tourism Asset Zones in the
countryside where they are in close proximity and have good links to the Principal
and Secondary Settlements and it can be demonstrated that there are no
sequentially preferable sites, no suitable buildings for re-use and that a rural location
is necessary. Whilst the site is located within the 'rural' Tourism Asset Zone the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites
available and that a rural location is necessary in order to comply with Policy EC 7.
The applicant has provided a supporting statement contained in Appendix 2, and
has attempted to address the issue of sequentially preferable sites on page 4.
However, it is not considered that this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. The
Committee will note the comments received from the Planning Policy Manager
contained in Appendix 2, which state that the proposal is clearly contrary to Policy
EC 7.
Furthermore, the proposal includes the living accommodation of the applicant which
is considered to constitute a dwelling in the Countryside policy area, which in itself if
contrary to Policies SS 1, SS 2 and SS 3 of the Core Strategy as there is a general
presumption against residential development in this location.
Whilst all matters are reserved the applicant has provided an indication of the amount
of accommodation required and size of the building as described on page 7 of the
supporting statement in Appendix 2. The applicant states that it is considered the
maximum size of the dwelling will be approximately 20m x 15m and 3.3m to the
eaves. No indication of overall ridge height has been given, but from the
measurements provided it is considered that a traditional 40 degree pitched roof
would result in a very tall building. However, at this stage the main issue to consider
is the principle of the development in this location.
The Committee will note the comments from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager on conservation grounds and that views on landscape were
awaited. The Committee will be updated at the meeting.
It is considered that the proposal clearly conflicts with Development Plan policy and
is unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to refuse the application on the following grounds and any
other grounds that may be raised by the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable
sites and a rural location is necessary for the proposal to comply with Policy EC 7.
Without adequate justification for the serviced holiday accommodation in this location
it is considered that the associated residential accommodation would constitute a
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 development, including serviced accommodation
and residential users to specific and sustainable locations.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
8 January 2009
Furthermore the applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate visibility can be
achieved at the site entrance for the benefit of drivers of vehicles leaving the site, in
accordance with Manual for Streets.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to conflict with Policies SS 2, EN 4 and EC 7
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5.
WOOD NORTON - 20081646 - Erection of agricultural building; Hall Farm Barn
Lyng Hall Lane for Mr J Clark
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :19 Jan 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
CONSTRAINTS
Ancient Wood Consultation Area
Countryside Policy Area
THE APPLICATION
The proposed building would measure approximately 16m x 25m and 7m in height to
the ridge.
The building would be constructed using a portal frame construction with concrete
blocks from ground level up to 2.4m. The remainder of the walls and the roof would
be clad in plastic coated profile sheeting, finished in green.
This is a reserved matters application where only siting and external appearance are
for consideration.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Combe having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact of the siting upon the neighbouring properties.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. The site is unnecessarily close to private properties.
2. Access is limited.
3. Future development could prove to be disruptive.
4. Adverse effect on property values.
5. There are more suitable alternative sites.
6. Serious drainage issues.
7. Traffic.
8. Concerns of contamination of nearby bore hole which provides drinking water.
9. Proposal is a threat to scheduled monument of the Manorial Earthworks.
10. Visual impact.
11. Impact upon Right of Way.
12. Impact upon wildlife.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
8 January 2009
Environmental Health - The information submitted by the applicant has been noted
and a condition is required regarding details to be submitted to and agreed in writing
prior to the installation of any mechanical ventilation, refrigeration, extraction or air
conditioning. The details submitted shall specify measures to control noise, dust and
odour from the equipment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Siting.
2. External appearance.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as designated in the Core
Strategy where agricultural uses are considered to be acceptable. As this is a
reserved matters application for an agricultural building following the consideration of
prior notification application (reference 20081112), only siting and external
appearance can be considered.
However, the siting of the proposed building has changed from that previously
considered under the prior notification application. The proposed building would now
be located off Lyng Hall Lane which is some 230m from the B1110 Guist Road.
Whilst the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
(Landscape) were still awaited at the time of writing this report it is considered that
the proposed building would not be located in a prominent position in the landscape.
The materials are also considered to be appropriate in this location.
The Manorial Earthworks and woodland are located approximately 110m to north
east of the site. There are open fields to the south and east. There are other
agricultural buildings, outbuildings and dwellings in the immediate area. The nearest
dwelling is located approximately 25m to the west of the site. There are also
residential dwellings to the north and south, but the distances in all cases comply
with the Council's basic amenity criteria.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
8 January 2009
The Committee will note that the Environmental Protection Officer has not raised an
objection to the application, but has required a condition to control the use of any
mechanical ventilation, extraction, refrigeration or air conditioning equipment.
It is not therefore considered that the siting of the proposed agricultural storage
building would have a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of
the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and accord with Development
Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) and imposition of appropriate
conditions, including details to be submitted and agreed to control the use of
any mechanical ventilation, extraction, refrigeration or air conditioning
equipment.
6.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BINHAM - 20081573 - Erection of garden room extension; The Old Cartshed
Field Dalling Road for Mr Eagle
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081549 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling and
replacement garage; Greensholme Wilsons Way for Mr Green
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20081578 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Peewit Farm Workhouse Lane for Mr Kittle
(Prior Notification)
FAKENHAM - 20081446 - Installation of lobby screens and new covered trolley
bay; Tesco Stores Limited, 17 Oak Street for Tesco Stores Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20081548 - Erection of detached garage (revised design to
include retention of rear first floor access door); Quince House Barney Road
for Mr Chumbley
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - 20080758 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
Corner House 3 The Street for Mr and Mrs P Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - 20081507 - Retention of amenity building; Fakenham Agri Park
Helhoughton Road for Crisp Malting Group Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20081428 - Removal of internal partition wall and installation
of french doors and canopy; Nethergate House Nethergate Guestwick for Mr W
Harrold
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (West)
15
8 January 2009
HINDRINGHAM - 20081448 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 66 Wells
Road for Mr Whyman
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - 20081503 - Conversion of farm office to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Holkham Estate Holkham Park Wells-next-the-Sea for
Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081443 - Erection of garden room/study; 76 Grove Lane for Mr C
Wells
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081502 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Professionally
Trendy, 4b Albert Street for Mrs E Pegg
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
HOLT - 20081530 - Display of illuminated advertisement; Thurlow Nunn Cromer
Road for Thurlow Nunn
(Illuminated Advertisement)
HOLT - 20081566 - Installation of rooflight; 22a High Street for Ms Bottril
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081567 - Internal alterations and installation of rooflight; 22a High
Street for Ms Bottril
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20081577 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; plot 3, land at Orchard
Piece Kelling Road for Character Homes Ltd
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
LANGHAM - 20081067 - Extension and conversion of redundant agricultural
buildings to provide two residential dwellings; junction of Blakeney Road and
Holt Road for Mr P Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - 20081517 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension
and garden room; Greystones, 16 North Street for Mr Guest
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20080226 - Conversion of redundant agricultural buildings
into four dwellings; Manor Farm Thursford Road for Mr I Ross
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20081441 - Erection of cart shed; Old House Grouts Lane for Mr
Lockyer
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20081599 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension;
Ducklands Grouts Lane for Mr and Mrs Nortcliffe
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
16
8 January 2009
SHERINGHAM - 20081414 - Installation of first floor window; 7 Beach Road for
Mr and Mrs Bussey
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081439 - Erection of single-storey side/front extension; 5c
Weybourne Road for Mr James
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081505 - Conversion of outbuilding to annexe; 12 Cremer
Street for Mr Jefferson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081561 - Continued use of land as car park from April to
October; land at The Esplanade for Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081575 - Erection of porch; 18 Weybourne Road for Mr and
Mrs Fenn
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20081427 - Installation of revised dormer windows (revised height);
Stiffkey Old Hall Church Street for Dr and Mr Bell
(Alteration to Listed Building)
TATTERSETT - 20081584 - Erection of rear conservatory; 5 Stirling Road
Sculthorpe for Ms O'Brien
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - 20081415 - Erection of one unit of holiday accommodation; plot
12, Park Lane Meadows North Lane for Mr Cushing
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - 20081590 - Erection of one unit of holiday accommodation; plot
11 North Lane for Mrs Cushing
(Full Planning Permission)
WARHAM - 20081402 - Reinstatement of chimney stack; Little Turners The
Street for Mr and Mrs M Foulds
(Full Planning Permission)
WARHAM - 20081403 - Removal of redundant chimney and re-instatement of
further chimney stack; Little Turners The Street for Mr and Mrs M Foulds
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081421 - Erection of two bus shelters; South Wall
of, Congregational Church The Buttlands for Wells Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081431 - Change of use from holiday flat to (B1)
office; Big Blue Sky Warham Road for Miss Edgington
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081437 - Alterations to roof and installation of
windows; Shipwrights East End for Mr Laucht
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
17
8 January 2009
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081445 - Installation of french doors; 20 Mainsail
Yard Freeman Street for Mr and Mrs Dixon
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081513 - Internal alterations comprising installation
of replacement staircase and new wall openings; 37-41 Staithe Street for Mr
King
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081557 - Installation of internal fire doors and first
floor w.c; Little Prezzies, 50 Staithe Street for Pentney House Millinery and
Gifts Ltd
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WEYBOURNE - 20081512 - Variation of condition two of 19951327 to permit
year round occupancy for holiday purposes only; Chalet 2, Weybourne Hall
Holiday Park Sheringham Road for Mr Manson
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20081546 - Demolition of garage and entrance lobby and
erection of one and a half storey extension and additional dormer in existing
roof; 4 All Saints Close for Mr and Mrs Lloyd-Bennett
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20080861 - Retention of storage building and dog kennel; The
Wiveton Bell Blakeney Road for Wiveton Bell Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20081559 - Erection of replacement side extension, porch and
dormer window; Heem Schuur Hall Lane for Mr Murphy
(Full Planning Permission)
7.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HOLT - 20081544 - Retention of non-illuminated advertisement; 12-14 High
Street for Starlings Sheringham Ltd
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
WOOD NORTON - 20081399 - Continued siting of residential caravan for 24
hours security; Security Caravan Foulsham Road for G W Harrold and Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
8.
NEW APPEALS
HEMPSTEAD - 20080555 - Change of use from public house to residential
dwelling; Hare and Hounds Baconsthorpe Road for Mr and Mrs Purkiss
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20061288 - Erection of first floor rear extension and
conversion of roofspace to two residential units; Premises rear of The Old Mill
Maryland for Mr and Mrs Ward
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Control Committee (West)
18
8 January 2009
9.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
WOOD NORTON - 20071379 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; The Old Fire
Station Foulsham Airfield Foulsham Road for Thomas and Money Haulage
INFORMAL HEARING
10.
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
SITE VISIT :- 09 Dec 2008
FAKENHAM - 20080273 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached double
garage; land adjacent 10 Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Builders Limited
SALTHOUSE - 20080401 - Erection of single-storey earth-sheltered dwelling;
land at Purdy Street for Mr B Williams
SHERINGHAM - 20071180 - Erection of twenty-two flats; Central Garage 49
High Street for Mr N J Wright
11.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BRISTON - 20071468 - Retention of storage shed; Emery Wood Craymere Road
for Ms P Rowan
APPEAL DECISION :- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee (West)
19
8 January 2009