OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 9 OCTOBER 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 – ITEMS FOR DECISION
1.
FAKENHAM – Tree Preservation Order (Fakenham) 2008 35, 37, 39 and 41 Sculthorpe
Road, Fakenham
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site with a
modification to remove tree T1 from the Order.
Background
The Order was served in response to a planning application on land at the rear of 39 and
41 Sculthorpe Road to demolish a property and erect several houses in a small close. It
was clear from the plans that several trees on the site would be under threat from the
development.
After a survey by the Landscape Officer it was deemed sensible to include trees in the
gardens of 35 and 37 as these could also be under threat from future expansion of any
development.
Tree T1 was removed prior to the Order being served.
The Order was served on 1 July 2008.
Representations
Support for the Order
Fourteen letters were received from local residents in support of the Order and a twenty
seven signature petition to protect Sculthorpe Road from further development.
The letters of support were concerned with the impact on landscape and wildlife such as
owls, woodpeckers and bats which they feel are using the trees.
Objections to the Order
One letter of objection has been received from architects on behalf of their clients, the
owners of 37, 39 and 41 Sculthorpe Road and is based on a consultant’s report, a copy of
which is attached as Appendix 1.
The objector has excluded trees T4, T5, T6 and T7 from the report and assessment.
The first objection is that tree T1 does not exist, having been removed by the owner prior to
the Order being made.
The remaining trees T2, T3, T8, T9 and G1 were inspected and a full assessment made of
the landscape impact of the trees in relation to the TPO Regulations.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
9 October 2008
The Objector has stated that the principle of serving a Tree Preservation Order on trees is
fundamentally underpinned by the requirement that the trees have an amenity value
(Section 198 (1) of 1990 Town and Country Planning Act). This is further defined by the
Secretary of State and expressed in document “Tree Preservation Orders – a Guide to the
Law and Good Practice 2000” whereby TPO’s should be ‘used to protect selected trees
and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment
and its enjoyment by the public’. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 (1) state that if trees cannot
be seen or just barely visible from a public viewpoint, a TPO might only be justified in
exceptional circumstances.
On this basis the serving of an Order requires any tree covered by the Order to be able to
demonstrate that it makes a significant contribution to the public amenity value of an area.
The results of the consultant’s landscape assessment were that T2, T8 and the two
northern wings of G1 were barely visible from any public vantage points around the site. In
his opinion these trees would need to demonstrate other important attributes such as
historical or ecological amenity in order to justify inclusion in the Order. The survey did not
discover any other attributes that these trees demonstrated; indeed they are very ordinary,
relatively small trees of a very common species such as one would find in rear gardens.
Whilst some trees in the Order are clearly of high amenity value, both for visual amenity
and for additional ecological and historic (size) factors, these trees (T2, T8 and two
northern wings of G1) should be excluded from the Order.
The issue of the condition of G1 was raised and the consultant considered that work would
be needed on these trees.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
The removal of tree T1 demonstrates that the trees are under threat. It is proposed that
the Order be modified so that it does not include T1.
The consultant has used an extract from the document Tree Preservation Orders – A
Guide to the Law and Good Practice 2000. This document was updated in 2006 when
responsibilities were transferred to the Department for Communities and Local
Government.
The new document states that the Act does not define “amenity” or the circumstances in
which it is in the interests of amenity to make a TPO. It does state that a TPO should be
used to protect trees if their removal would have a significant impact on the local
environment and its enjoyment by the public.
The Landscape Officer carried out a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders to
assess the amenity value of the trees. This nationally recognised system scored the trees
as “definitely merits a TPO”. This result is supported by fourteen letters from local people
and clearly demonstrates that the trees have a significant impact on the local environment
and its enjoyment by the public.
The consultant appears not to have taken into account the future development and visual
amenity of the trees. When the semi-detached property 39 and 41 Sculthorpe Road is
demolished then all the trees included in the Order will be clearly visible from Sculthorpe
Road.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
9 October 2008
With regard to the condition of G1, the Order does not prevent works that promote health
and amenity to trees and the Officer would welcome any appropriate management.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to warrant
a Preservation Order.
It is considered that the trees have a significant impact on the local environment and its
enjoyment by the public and this is supported by the fourteen letters of support for the
Order. The future development would mean that all the trees on the site would be clearly
visible by the public and therefore support their amenity. Under the circumstances
confirmation of the Order as modified is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed with a modification to remove tree T1 from the Order.
(Source: Simon Case, Extn 6267 - File Reference: TPO 2008 FAK)
2.
SHERINGHAM – 20080836 – Demolition of bungalow and erection of three one-anda-half-storey dwellings; 18 Hadley Road, Sheringham for Mr K Welch
Re-consideration of an undetermined planning application for the demolition of a
bungalow and the erection of three one-and-a-half-storey dwellings in the light of a
strong objection from the Highway Authority.
The Committee will recall that the above application was considered at the meeting on 11
September 2008 (copy of report attached at Appendix 2.) when it was resolved to give
delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve the
application, subject to the Highway Authority confirming that it did not have a strong
objection to the proposal.
Since the last meeting the Highway Authority has confirmed that it does object strongly to
the proposal. See copy of Highway response and original objection letter at Appendix 3.
The recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control is that permission be
refused on highway safety grounds and because of the inappropriate architectural style,
location scale and visual impact of the development.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
9 October 2008
If the Committee is minded to approve the development, notwithstanding this
recommendation, it will be necessary for the matter to be referred to a Combined
Committee meeting, preceded by a site inspection by Members and attended by a
representative of the Authority, since the proposal is considered to amount to conflict
significantly with Policy CT 2 of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:- 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 EN 4: Design
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.
Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development would, by virtue of its
inappropriate architectural style, location, scale and visual impact fail to harmonise with the
townscape and general character of the area and thus fail to meet the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy EN 4 in respect of the design and setting of development.
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 – File Reference 20080836)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition No.1,
unless otherwise stated.
3.
BEESTON REGIS - 20081157 - Erection of replacement one-and-a-half-storey
dwelling; Bramble Cottage Sheringwood for Mr A Bignold
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :29 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19971642 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of artist's studio and garden room
Approved, 08 Jan 1998
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a replacement two-storey dwelling to replace a single-storey property. The
proposal would involve the erection of a dwelling which is single-storey at one end rising up
to two-storey (room in the roof).
Development Control Committee (West)
4
9 October 2008
Amended plans have been received deleting the four inward opening doors on the eastern
elevation and indicating the provision of three car parking spaces.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Concerned with overdevelopment of the area. Given the urbanisation of Sheringwood
which is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the possibility of loss of light to a
neighbouring property request that Committee visit the site before reaching a decision.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection has been received. Summary of comments:
1. Whilst no objection to the principle of a replacement dwelling, the site is currently
surrounding by bungalows and should remain single-storey.
2. The first floor windows in the east elevation serving the living room would overlook my
property where currently no overlooking exists.
3. Retention of existing trees within Sheringwood is very important and any trees of merit
that are at threat should be protected.
4. Overlooking from balcony.
5. Precedent.
6. Concern over removal of the existing building which may contain asbestos.
7. Adequacy of septic tank.
8. Too close to boundary to be in keeping.
9. Should have integral garage.
10. Site Notice poorly sited.
11. Need adequate parking.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - These plans are acceptable
from a landscape point of view, provided that the trees to remain (as shown on submitted
plan) are protected during and after construction.
The development is set within an area dominated by maturing trees that have a high
amenity and wildlife value that characterise this area. The trees marked for retention form
an important part of this landscape and should remain. Those marked for removal do not
greatly add to the value of the area, and can be removed.
Notes that the solar panels on the southern aspect of the roof are likely to be in the shadow
of surrounding trees including the maturing Beech tree. These trees are of high importance
within the landscape and should remain (as marked on the plan) should solar paneltree
conflict occur in the future.
Recommends conditions, including a requirement for an arboricultural working method
statement.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
9 October 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control Policies (Adopted 24
September 2008)
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies
the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character (specifies
criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape Character
Assessment).
Policy EN 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of replacement dwelling.
2. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
3. Impact on trees.
4. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
5. Impact on character of the area.
6. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting to enable the Committee to visit the site.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where there would be no objection to
the principle of a replacement dwelling subject to satisfactory compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing single-storey dwelling, which has a
footprint of 155sq.m, with a two-storey dwelling consisting of 207sq.m at ground floor and
103sq.m at first floor in addition to a terrace. Whilst this would represent a doubling of floor
area, the overall height of the dwelling would only increase by approximately 1m and the
replacement is not considered disproportionately large in height or scale compared to the
original dwelling.
The site is surrounded by a significant number of mature trees, many of which have high
amenity and wildlife value that characterise this area. A small number of trees is proposed
to be removed, in respect of which there is no objection. Subject to the retention of trees
indicated as being retained on submitted plans and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not have any materially adverse impact
on existing trees. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has no objection on
that basis.
In respect of impact on amenity, there is some local concern that first floor windows in the
eastern elevation would facilitate overlooking of adjacent properties to the detriment of
residential amenity. Whilst the replacement dwelling would comply with the basic amenity
criteria with regard to window-to-window distances, the original proposal would have
nonetheless allowed for the possibility of overlooking of the garden of the adjacent
neighbour to the east where currently this does not occur. Given that the first floor of the
replacement dwelling would contain the living room, the applicant has agreed to remove
the eastern window so as to avoid overlooking potential, although a smaller triangular light
would be retained. It is considered that this has removed the overlooking concerns raised
by the neighbour, although the concerns of the Parish Council are noted in respect of light
pollution.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
9 October 2008
In respect of general impact on the character of the area, subject to the retention of trees
as stated on the plans and subject to use of appropriate external materials it is considered
that the proposed replacement dwelling would not be detrimental to the character of the
area nor is it considered that there would be any adverse impact on the wider Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In respect of parking provision, the applicant has indicated provision of three car parking
spaces on amended plans. The suitability of these spaces is currently being addressed and
Committee will be updated orally.
Subject to the proposed car parking spaces being deemed acceptable and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would not significantly conflict with Core
Strategy policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to satisfactory resolution of on-site parking
provision and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
BRISTON - 20081048 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; land at Burston Close
for Broadland Housing Association
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Landfill Gas Site Buffer Zone (250m)
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19921599 - (N.N.D.C General Regs - Reg.4 (1992); Outline) - Residential development
Approved, 24 Aug 1993
20031111 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of thirteen dwellings
Approved, 21 Oct 2004
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a terrace of three two-storey, three-bedroomed properties on open land off
Burston Close including provision of parking and turning areas.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received on the following grounds:
1. Building on open area frequently used by children.
2. Loss of valuable open space.
3. Number of children in the close who benefit from using the area.
4. No other areas for play nearby.
5. Will increase traffic.
6. Affect amenity of neighbours.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
9 October 2008
7. Town cramming.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - No comment.
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Environment Agency - No comments.
Strategic Housing - Supports this application which will help meet the identified housing
need in Briston.
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 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 HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies housing
densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should enhance
character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required for new
development).
Policy 104: Retention of Playing Space (safeguards against loss of existing facilities.
Redevelopment proposals only acceptable where alternative facilities are provided or no
harmful loss demonstrated).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use classes
within different Local Plan policy areas).
Development Control Committee (West)
8
9 October 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of residential development.
2. Loss of the open space.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
4. Impact on form and character of the area.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting to conduct negotiations concerning layout
and provision of a Local Area for Play (LAP) in accordance with the saved North Norfolk
Local Plan. The proposed development of three dwellings in conjunction with the earlier
thirteen dwellings permitted in 2004 would have triggered a requirement for a LAP. Open
space would also be lost to provide the further three dwellings. Committee will be updated
orally in respect of current progress.
The application site is located within the residential area of Briston within which there is no
objection to the principle of residential development subject to satisfactory compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies.
The dwellings are proposed to be sited on land which was intended as open space in
connection with a development of thirteen dwellings approved under application 20031111.
It is understood that the open space is well used by children to play ball games. Whilst the
space has no statutory protection it was provided in association with the previous
residential development. Some open space is to be retained as part of the application,
although this would be considerably smaller, narrower and closer to the adjacent estate
roads.
In respect of impact on the amenity of neighbours, each dwelling would have a rear garden
well in excess of the minimum 10m (ranging from 14m to 16.5m) and the dwellings would
meet the basic amenity criteria. As such it is not considered that the proposed dwellings
would have any adverse impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.
With regard to form and character, whilst the dwellings would be of limited architectural
merit they would be similar in height to adjacent properties approved under application
20031111 and would also be of similar design and external appearance. As such, subject
to the use of appropriate materials, the dwellings would accord with the general form and
character of the area.
No highway safety concerns have been raised by County Council (Highways) and the
proposal would provide six car parking spaces, which would accord with policy
requirements.
In summary, notwithstanding some concern about the loss of undesignated open play
space, subject to satisfactory negotiation on respect of layout and provision of a Local Area
for Play and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the development would, on
balance, accord with saved Development Plan policies and the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval, subject to satisfactory negotiation in respect of layout and
provision of Local Area for Play and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
9 October 2008
5.
BRISTON - 20081177 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached garage;
Westview House 36 Church Street for Miss R Grand
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :03 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061534 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of eight one-bedroomed flats
Withdrawn, 29 Nov 2007
20070307 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of eight dwellings
Refused, 23 May 2007
20070984 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two single-storey dwellings
Refused, 23 Jul 2007
20080237 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused, 01 Apr 2008
THE APPLICATION
Involves a detached single-storey dwelling and garage on and to the rear of No.36 Church
Street Briston. Access, landscaping, layout and scale are for consideration at this stage.
Access would be gained to the rear of the site between Nos.36 and 38 Church Street and
would require the demolition of the existing garage serving No.36. A new garage for No.36
would be provided to the rear.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wyatt having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Principle of the development.
2. Access.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects - inappropriate tandem development.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received. Summary of comments:
1. Do not wish to see hedges damaged or removed.
2. No vehicles access should be allowed via Gloucester Place.
3. I would not wish the neighbours either side to gain access to the site to develop their
plots.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - The proposal does not comply with B5 Access for the Fire
Service. Recommend consulting the Fire Service as they may accept the proposal as it
stands.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
Norfolk County Council Fire Service - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
9 October 2008
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 incorporating Development Control Policies (Adopted 24
September 2008)
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 acceptability of residential development.
2. Impact on neighbours' amenities.
3. Impact on form and character of the area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential area of Briston within which the principle of
erecting a dwelling is considered to be acceptable subject to satisfactory compliance with
Core Strategy policies.
The Committee will recall that the site has extensive planning history, the most recent
decision (20080237) being pertinent to the determination of this application. This permitted
a two-storey detached dwelling in the rear garden of No.36 with identical access
arrangements to the scheme for determination. The proposal was refused on grounds that
the proposed development would detract from the reasonable amenities of the occupiers of
the adjoining residential property to the south by reason of increased noise and general
disturbance arising from the use of the proposed private driveway in close proximity to the
party boundary. There was also concern that any first floor windows in the two-storey
dwelling would give rise to material overlooking of adjacent gardens resulting in a loss of
privacy.
By reducing the dwelling from two-storey to single-storey, it is considered that the applicant
has overcome the first reason for refusal relating to overlooking of adjoining gardens and
loss of privacy.
With regard to the proposed access, notwithstanding the proposal to hard-surface it and
the lack of objection from the neighbour to the south, it is considered that the proposal
would still give rise to increased noise and general disturbance arising from the use of the
proposed private driveway in close proximity to the party boundary, to the detriment of the
reasonable amenities of the adjoining neighbour.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
9 October 2008
In summary, whilst the applicant has reduced the height of the building to overcome
overlooking concerns, it is considered that the applicant has failed to overcome the
previous ground of refusal relating to increased noise and general disturbance arising from
the use of the proposed access. As such the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy
Policy EN4.
RECOMMENDATION:- 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 EN 4: Design
The proposed development would have a significantly detrimental effect on the amenities
of the adjoining residential property to the south by reason of increased noise and general
disturbance arising from the use of the proposed private driveway in close proximity to the
party boundary.
6.
FAKENHAM - 20080810 - Construction of short stay facilities for gypsies and
travellers; land south of A148 Holt Road for North Norfolk District Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :19 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr A Mitchell
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Parish Boundary Consultation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19811389 - A148 (A1067) northern bypass Fakenham
Approved, 13 Nov 1981
THE APPLICATION
This proposal provides for the construction of a ten pitch short-stay stopping site for
Gypsies and Travellers on agricultural land extending to approximately 0.6ha.
The site lies on the southern side of the A148, approximately 600m east of the Clipbush
Lane roundabout. Access is proposed through what is currently a lay-by with a proposed
ghost island right turning facility on the A148. The proposed pitches would measure 10m x
10m and would be arranged around a central access road which would have a one way
system. The hardstandings would be constructed in concrete and divided by concrete
bollards. One hardstanding is specifically designed for a disabled user. Further
hardstandings would be provided for a portaloo and skipbins. There would be no
requirement for foul drainage and surface water drainage would be to the centre of the site.
No permanent buildings are proposed, nor is any external lighting. There would be a
standpipe for water and electricity would be made available.
A 2.5m high fence on concrete posts is proposed around the perimeter of the site with a
1.4m high by 1.9m wide bund behind that fence with a further planting strip beyond the
bund with an average depth of 10m.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
9 October 2008
The landscaping proposed would comprise a combination of hedge, shrubs and tree
planting.
The proposed access crosses the Old Holt Road which is used as a footpath and new
barriers are required to restrict motorised vehicles from using the footpath but to allow for
free access for pedestrians, cyclists and users with impaired mobility. Details of those
barriers are to be submitted at a later date.
An amended plan has been received which has turned the site layout through 90º.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the site's location in the
countryside and the extent of previously expressed local interest in the proposal.
TOWN COUNCIL
Can find no reason under planning regulations to object to the proposed site either as
originally submitted or amended.
Further comments received:
1. The existing footpath which traverses the site entrance – to preclude the misuse by
vehicles and permit continued use of the footpath/cycleway running past the entrance to
the short stay site, provision of bollards, or staggered barriers would be less inconvenient
than gates, which would be difficult for cyclists and are likely to be left open, leaving the
footpath open to misuse.
2. Highway safety - The Town Council was unaware that North Norfolk District Council had
not already received full Norfolk County Highways approval for highway access drawings
submitted under this application. This is a very busy road with fast moving traffic, this site
would be used by slow moving vehicles often with additional trailers in tow. To permit
vehicles to exit right onto the main road would be extremely foolish. It would cause little or
no inconvenience for vehicles to use the nearby roundabout before making their way
towards Holt, etc.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received from local residents in respect of the current
application. Those concerns are summarised below:
1. Inadequate consultation to select this site.
2. The site is on a main road with major road safety implications.
3. Alternative sites with less impact on the “settled” community are available but have
rejected as too far to travel to amenities.
4. No reassurance on extra policing.
5. Impact on education and social services.
6. Potential problems with rubbish being collected.
7. If Travellers are only allowed to stay for a maximum of three months then this surely
open to no control of the tenants on the site.
8. Detrimental potentially to the visual amenities of the area.
9. How will occupation of the site be enforced?
10. If the Travellers are not allowed to stay for a fixed time then they are going to have no
regard for the area and have no wish to ensure that they are on good terms with the
immediate communities.
11. Could affect people's desire to move to or visit the area.
12. Would be screened in the summer but would be visible in the winter.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
9 October 2008
Letter received from County Councillor D Callaby (Fakenham) objecting to the proposed
development on highway grounds. Believes that putting another junction on a busy road
such as the A148 which has a record of accidents already on that stretch of road that is the
reason why there is a speed camera near the junction proposed for the site access.
Also believes that this type of junction is wrong because the road already has this type of
junction nearby which has had quite serious accidents already.
One letter from a local resident in support of the application. The occupiers of the site
would buy from local supermarkets and petrol stations and would be paying a rent to stay
on the site. This makes it fair for all.
In support of the application a Consultation Statement, Design and Access Statement and
Background/Management Statement have been submitted with the application; these are
attached as Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
Aylmerton Parish Council - Supports both of the applications for Fakenham and Cromer:
1. The Parish Council played an active role in the Gypsy and Traveller Site Consultation
forum held during late 2006.
2. This was an extremely detailed consultation process which involved representatives of
both town and parish councils throughout the District, business organisations and
landowners.
3. The Forum examined a large number of potential sites and by a reasoned and
democratic process only two sites were deemed to be suitable for providing short-stopping
facilities for Gypsies and Travellers, these being those the subject of the above
applications.
4. The District Council has already demonstrated the need for two short-stay stopping
places in the District. Taking this into account and the detailed consultation process
undertaken by the Forum this Parish Council wishes to support both planning applications,
subject only to the proviso that the proposed Cromer facility should not be brought into use
until occupation of the new Norfolk Constabulary police station (due to be constructed in
the vicinity of that proposed short-stopping place) takes place.
Kettlestone Parish Council - Object to the application.
Disappointed with the consultation process leading up to the application and see no point
in expressing their objections to the location of the site since they consider that a decision
has already been made. A number of objections have previously been made during the
consultation process.
Feels that with North Norfolk District Council as both the applicant and the decision-making
body how can there be an unbiased and independent scrutiny of the application?
Specific objections as follows:
1. The need for two short-stay stopping places, particularly of the sizes proposed, has not
been demonstrated especially when it remains to be seen how effectively these sites will
work.
2. The proposed site is on a busy 'A' road. Although on a straight stretch of road, this
means that traffic will be travelling faster so increasing the probability of a serious accident.
This stretch of road has not been without traffic incidents, and a site based here can only
add to the road hazards. Contrary to Policy CT 5 the proposed location will involve direct
access onto a 'Principal Route' (as defined by Norfolk County Council and North Norfolk
Local Plan policy).
3. There is little information about how the site will be managed. The supporting
background/management statement states quite clearly that detailed operating procedures
have not been developed. We should be given the chance to comment on these as part of
this application.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
9 October 2008
4. The site encroaches on an area designated as countryside in the North Norfolk Local
Plan. We consider this to be a worrying precedent.
5. Realistically people will be deterred from using the old Fakenham Road as a cycle or
footpath. Parishioners have expressed a need for such a facility and we would urge the
Council to consult with local parish councils about the need and appropriate locations for
alternative facilities if this application is approved.
6. The timing of this application at the peak holiday period can only result in a lower
response and can only add to the general sense of cynicism surrounding the whole matter.
7. The proposed location of the site is as far away from the centre of Fakenham as it can
be, and is pushed up against the boundaries of adjacent parishes such as Kettlestone. We
query the wisdom of locating this site so far away from all local amenities, and wonder
whether this is a deliberate move to distance it from the greater population of Fakenham in
order to reduce the likely number of objections. Certainly it can hardly be said to comply
with Policy CT 5 which should be reducing the need to travel.
Further comments in respect of the amended proposal:
1. Kettlestone Parish Council requests that you add an additional clause to any permission
granted for the site stating that the permission is for a provisional term of a limited period of
five years and that only if the site is shown to be needed would another provisional term be
granted when the original term expires.
2. It is also requested that due consideration is given to the encroachment on the
countryside proposed by this site.
Little Snoring Parish Council - Object to the application. In terms of road safety, the
entrance to the site will become an accident black spot. The various proposals to improve
upon safety are not definite.
With regard to pedestrians/cyclists how will they be allowed safe access to the route?
Detrimental impact on local industry, tourism and environment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments on the amended
plans as follows:
Concerned about the visual impact of the proposal. However, with suitable landscaping the
development should be capable of being screened. The amended plan illustrating the
rotation of the site by 90 degrees is acceptable; however, this does reduce the planting
strip to the east of the site to less than 5m, which is the most visible part of the
development from the Holt Road. The existing hedge along the eastern boundary of the
field terminates approximately 50m from the old road, I would therefore recommend
reinstating the hedge for the missing section which will produce a denser screen for the
site. This requirement should be as part of landscaping condition. Recommends conditions.
County Council (Highways) - There are no highway objections to the application now that
the off-site works feature within the scope of the application.
Recommends conditions, including the completion of the off-site highway works, following
the submission of a detailed scheme.
From the in depth pre-application discussions, there are no proposals to replace the lay-by,
which would be closed to facilitate the construction of the access. There are other lay-bys
along the A148, and also, Fakenham is close by for anyone wishing to take a rest.
Environmental Health - The provision of short-stay stopping facilities for Gypsies and
Travellers is essential if the Council is able to deal with the management of unauthorised
encampments. Without such provision the ability of the Council and its partner agencies to
move Gypsies and Travellers from unsuitable locations would be significantly
compromised. It should also be noted that the facility would only be used under the terms
of the draft management protocol.
Nothing further to add in respect of the amended plan.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
9 October 2008
Norfolk County Council Fire Officer - No observations to make in respect of the application.
Norfolk County Council Traveller Liaison Officer - The 2007 Norfolk GTAA recognises the
need for short-stay sites in Norfolk in addition to the need for permanent provision identified
by EERA's Single Issue Review. In addition, Caravan Count data suggests there are in
excess of 100 unauthorised caravans in Norfolk at any time.
The ten pitches this development would provide would certainly contribute to the target
figures, and would assist in reducing the pressure on unregulated sites. The scale of this
proposal is considered appropriate and unlikely to raise any on-site problems (e.g. between
respective families).
Therefore providing there are no over-riding highway/access issues arising and providing
the District Council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with national advice, I can
confirm that the County Council's Traveller Liaison Team would not wish to raise any
objection to this application.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer and District Council Community Safety Manager Combined response received:
(1) Overview of the proposed development
It is apparent that the intention is to screen the site from view of both the A148 and
surrounding sides.
Whilst it is recognised that there is a need for additional screening by fencing and planting
between the site location and adjacent land, due to a history of unauthorised encampment
on adjacent land, this is not good practice from a crime prevention point of view as it leaves
the users of the site and service providers to the site and their property vulnerable to
criminality from outside or possibly within.
In fact, such a design gives the impression of keeping the Travelling community separate
from the settled community with the formation of physical/psychological barriers and this
does not serve to integrate communities.
(2) Specific recommendations for consideration
All screening (both fencing and planting) to the front of the development (A148) should be
kept to a maximum height of 1.8m to ensure visibility into and out of the site. This would
ensure that anyone occupying the site can clearly see any vehicle or person entering
and/or leaving and therefore, affords a level of protection to those in occupation and
likewise for those responsible for providing services to the site to enter and move about
more safely.
Provision should be made to ensure that all planting is regularly maintained to prevent it
growing beyond this height and this can be achieved making use of the Community
Payback Scheme currently running at no additional expense to the Authority.
The application clearly states that no external lighting is to be incorporated into the
development and this is a significant oversight as there is an evidenced fact that provision
of lighting is a factor in preventing crime and reducing the fear of crime. Additionally,
without external lighting there is a real health and safety risk to those who use the site - i.e.
trips, falls etc which if they occur, could leave the Authority open to litigation. Therefore, it is
strongly recommended that some external lighting is provided on site. This could be solar
powered and operated on movement sensors, which also serves to alert those in
occupation to movement on the site during the hours of darkness and thus, affords them
protection from unauthorised access. Those persons providing services or otherwise
needing authorised access to the site need to be able to do so safely.
It is asked that the Architectural Liaison Officer be consulted with regard to the design and
specification of the barriers between the access road and footpath as there have been
extensive issues on other similar developments which need to be designed out at this
stage.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
9 October 2008
The provision of a 'rumble strip' or similar 'barrier' be placed at the entrance of the access
road, this serves to slow down vehicles entering and leaving the site. This also serves to
give a sense of 'privacy' and/or 'ownership' of the site from the adjacent surroundings.
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. However, see the
comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and the District Council Community
Safety Manager.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control Policies (Adopted 24
September 2008)
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy HO 4: Sites for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (specifies the
criteria to be met for the provision of sites).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character (specifies
criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape Character
Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Impact on the countryside/landscape.
3. Access and highway matters.
4. Lighting.
BACKGROUND
The District Council has adopted the "Norfolk Protocol for Managing Unauthorised
Encampments", which recommends that unauthorised encampments should be tolerated
where they occur whenever possible. Only in extreme cases would eviction to another site
be considered and this would only be possible with the co-operation of the Police. Recent
changes to legislation have altered how the Police and the Council can deal with Gypsy
and Traveller encampments. The Police can move on just one vehicle, but an alternative
site containing a "suitable pitch" must be offered. A suitable pitch is one that is provided
with minimal facilities of water, toilets and hardstanding although these do not need to be
permanent and can be provided on a temporary basis as required. The lack of alternative
sites severely restricts the ability to move unsuitable and unauthorised encampments.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
9 October 2008
North Norfolk has relatively low levels of Gypsy and Traveller activity compared to other
areas of Norfolk and it is not considered that there is a need to identify a permanent facility
in the District. However, Gypsies and Travellers visit the District and there is a need to
provide stopping places for use for short periods of time. Therefore, the Council is seeking
to provide two short-stay stopping places in the District, one in Fakenham and one in the
Cromer/Sheringham area. Access to the site would be controlled and it would be managed
by the Council and only used on an occasional temporary basis when required.
Furthermore, the Government requires such sites to be identified and provided for though
the Development Plan process and Policy HO 4 of the Core Strategy specifically deals with
sites for Gypsies and Travellers and for Travelling Show People.
As a precursor to the application, extensive consultation was undertaken in respect of site
identification, which is outlined in the consultation statement in support of the application
attached as Appendix 5.
The search area for sites was based on the historic patterns of Gypsy and Traveller
movements in North Norfolk and clearly any such site identified needs to be in an area
where these groups wish to go in order to be effective. The Fakenham area was identified
along with Cromer/Sheringham.
Nine sites in the Fakenham area were identified and considered by the Gypsy and
Traveller Site Consultation Forum. Following evaluation against 34 criteria this site was the
preferred option for the Fakenham area.
The site would be managed by the Council. A copy of the draft protocol for the
management of the proposed temporary stopping places (agreed by the Cabinet on 6 May
2008) is attached as Appendix 6 for Members' information.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area where under Core Strategy Policy SS 2,
development proposals will not be permitted unless they are for purposes listed in that
policy. Included in the proposals in that policy that could be acceptable in the Countryside
policy area are sites for Gypsies and Travelling Showpeople.
Policy HO 4 of the Core Strategy indicates that development to meet the need of Gypsies
and Travellers and of Travelling Showpeople will be permitted provided such development
is of an appropriate scale and nature and it meets the seven criteria listed below:1. the intended occupants meets the definition of Gypsies and Travellers or the description
of Travelling Showpeople; and
2. development minimises impact on the surrounding landscape; and
3. safe vehicular access to the public highway can be provided; and
4. the movement of vehicles to and from the site will not cause significant disturbance; and
5. there is adequate space for parking, turning and servicing on site; and
6. the site is on the outskirts of, or within a reasonable distance of, a settlement which
offers local services and community facilities; and
7. suitable landscaping and boundary enclosures are provided to give privacy, minimise
impact on the surrounding area and provide a safe and acceptable living environment.
In landscape terms, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is raising no
objection subject to conditions. The site is relatively flat and with the planting proposed
would be reasonably assimilated into the landscape.
With regard to the other principal planning considerations and the criteria contained within
Core Strategy Policy HO 4, the site would be used occasionally for the temporary location
Development Control Committee (West)
18
9 October 2008
of Gypsies and Travellers. The landscape impact issue has already been discussed and
suitable landscape and boundary treatments would be provided to give privacy and soften
the impact visually in respect of the surrounding area.
With regard to traffic generation and highway safety the Highway Authority raises no
objection subject to conditions, including the provision of the right turn facility.
In respect of residential amenity, the site is not close to any residential property and it is
considered that there are unlikely to be significant issues of noise or disturbance as a
result.
Whilst the site is outside the town, there is access to local services and community facilities
via the footpath link and the site is located in an area where there is a desire for the Gypsy
and Traveller community to visit for short periods of time.
The site layout has been designed to reflect the advice contained within the Department of
Communities and Local Government "Designing Gypsies and Travellers Site", a Good
Practice Guide for temporary stopping places. In terms of access for emergency vehicles,
Members will note that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer has been consulted and
commented along with the Fire Officer.
In terms of length of stay, the advice in the Good Practice Guide is that whilst lengths of
stay can vary they are usually set between twenty-eight days and three months for transit
sites and up to twenty-eight days for temporary stopping places. Whilst this is not
considered to be a transit site, there may occasionally be specific circumstances where a
period of occupancy of up to three months could be accepted within the draft protocol for
the management of the sites. This period also reflects the advice in "Managing
Unauthorised Camping: A Good Practice Guide" (2005), and Section 62A of the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by Section 62 of the Anti Social Behaviour
Act 2003.
With regard to other matters raised through other consultation responses, Members will
appreciate the comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and the District Council
Community Safety Manager. In respect of screening both in terms of fence and the planting
this is considered to be essential for landscape and visual amenity grounds in this rural
location on one of the principal routes through the District. It is not therefore accepted that
it should be restricted to a maximum height of 1.8m. With regard to external lighting again
there is a concern that the introduction of permanent external light and could be detrimental
to the visual amenities of the area, but there is considered to be merit in the suggestion
that movement-sensitive lighting be installed, taking into account the fact the site would
only be occupied for a few weeks of the year.
With regard to the suggested "rumble strip" it appears that this can be incorporated into the
scheme.
In summary, it is considered that the proposal would comply with Core Strategy Policies SS
2 and H 04 and would not significantly conflict with other adopted Development Plan
policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
9 October 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection being
received following the expiry of the re-consultation and re-advertisement period on
the amended plan, inclusion of the suggested rumble strip, further consideration of
movement-sensitive lighting and the imposition of appropriate conditions, to include
details of the proposed access barriers to the footpath/cycleway and a maximum
stay period of three months.
7.
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 Centres
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
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
Development Control Committee (West)
20
9 October 2008
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
At the request of Councillor Lisher having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Parking.
2. Potential impact on neighbouring property.
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
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy 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).
Development Control Committee (West)
21
9 October 2008
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 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 Environmental Health
confirming no objection, 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.
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. Further consideration is being given in respect of the
potential impact of the two dwellings on No.21 Norwich Road and No.16 Holt Road and
Committee will be updated orally in respect of this matter.
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 views of the Highway Authority are awaited in respect of whether the
proposal would engender any highway safety considerations. Committee will be updated
orally in respect of this matter.
In summary, whilst the principle of extending the restaurant to provide improved toilet
facilities is considered to be acceptable subject to no objection from Environmental Health,
further consideration is required in respect of the impact of the proposed two dwellings to
determine compliance with Core Strategy Policies and pending the vies of the Highway
Authority and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
9 October 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Committee will be updated orally.
8.
LANGHAM - 20080987 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land adjacent Rowan
Cottage Hollow Lane for Isis Builders Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :22 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19950544 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of one house Refused, 22 Sep 1995
Appeal Dismissed, 13 Nov 1996
20071851 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage
Withdrawn, 20 Dec 2007
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single-storey, rectangular shaped dwelling, with an open fronted
pitched roof porch facing The Street and small rear wing within an enclosed rear garden.
The dwelling would have a total floor area of 90sq.m, a gable width of 6.5m and a ridge
height of 5.4m, and would be constructed of flint, reclaimed red brick and clay pantiles,
timber windows, painted off white and cast iron rainwater goods painted black.
Access would be from The Street with car parking and turning area for two vehicles to the
frontage of the dwelling.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects due to concerns regarding safety at the entrance of the site, which is onto a narrow
section of road where there are already problems with speeding cars. In addition it is
considered that the style of the property is not in keeping with the area and could, due to
changes in ground level, affect the privacy of the Rowan Cottage to the west.
The application also states that there are no trees or hedges, however there is currently a
hedge to the frontage of the site which should be retained.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the following
concerns (summarised):
1. Impact on the setting of the listed building to the west and Langham Conservation Area.
2. Due to changes in ground level the proposed dwelling would have an adverse impact on
Rowan Cottage to the west in terms loss of light, amenity and privacy.
3. The position of the driveway and turning area would have an adverse impact on the
neighbouring property in terms of noise and fumes.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
9 October 2008
4. The access would be onto what is the narrowest part of The Street and could have an
adverse effect on highway safety, with traffic likely to increase due to the new dwellings
which are being built off Hollow Lane.
5. Changes to Local Plan policy would mean that the site is no longer within the
development boundary.
6. The existing conifers on the site have already been removed and it would appear that
this development would result in the loss of the hedgerow to the rear of the site, which is a
haven for birds.
7. The proposed design of the dwelling would be out of keeping with surrounding
properties.
8. The provision of the visibility splays would result in the loss of the bank and hedgerow.
Two letters of support have been received from local residents (summarised):
1. The proposal would result in a tidying up of what has become an overgrown site in the
village.
2. A single-storey dwelling overcomes previous concerns regarding the development of the
site.
3. The proposed frontage hedgerow should be retained.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) - Has no objection to the
application and considers that the siting of the dwelling away from the western boundary
gives an improved relationship with the adjacent listed cottage. The listed building has
more recent extensions including a conservatory on the east elevation and the proposal
would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the listed building. Due to the fact
that the dwelling would be set back on the plot it would fit unobtrusively into the street
scene and the development of what is currently neglected and overgrown plot would
undoubtedly benefit the character and appearance of the Langham Conservation Area.
The choice of materials would be in keeping with the vernacular of the area.
County Council (Highways) - Considering the previous advice from the Highway Authority
there can be no objection to the current proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate
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 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 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)
24
9 October 2008
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 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should enhance
character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required for new
development).
Policy 39: Development near Listed Buildings (attention needed to protect character and
setting).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or enhance
character).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Langham Village Design Statement.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Effect on neighbouring properties.
3. Design.
4. Effect on the setting of adjacent listed building.
5. Impact on the setting of the Langham Conservation Area.
6. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to carry out a
site visit.
With the adoption of the Core Strategy Langham no longer has a development boundary,
with the result that the site, which was within the residential policy area is now designated
as Countryside where there would be an objection to the principle of new dwellings.
However, the development of the site has been the subject of considerable discussion,
including a planning application in 2007 (subsequently withdrawn) and the current
application was received prior to the receipt of the Inspector's Final Binding Report
regarding the Core Strategy. It is therefore considered that it would be unreasonable to
determine the principle of this development solely against the Core Strategy policies.
Therefore the principle of development is considered to be acceptable subject to complying
with other Development Plan policies.
The site, which measures 19m in width by 32m in depth, is considered sufficiently large to
accommodate a single-storey dwelling which would comply with the basic amenity criteria
of the North Norfolk Design Guide in terms of the minimum rear garden depth and windowto-window distances with neighbouring properties. In terms of the relationship with Rowan
Development Control Committee (West)
25
9 October 2008
Cottage, a Grade II listed building to the west, it is not considered that a single-storey
dwelling would be overbearing or result in an undue loss of light to that property, even
though the adjoining site is approximately 1m lower. Furthermore it is proposed that the
boundaries of the site would consist of 2m high close boarded fencing, which would protect
the amenities of Field End to the east of the site and also No.1 Hollow Lane to the south.
As far as the design is concerned, although the majority of properties in the surrounding
area are two-storey there are examples of single-storey dwellings and other single-storey
building is in the area, not least Field End adjoining the site to the east and the farm
outbuildings at the junction of the Blakeney Road. As such the proposed dwelling, with its
cart shed like proportions and vernacular materials, would integrate successfully in the
street scene and would not detract from the setting of Rowan Cottage and would enhance
the appearance and character of this part of the Conservation Area.
In terms of the impact on the setting of the listed building, planning application 19950544
for a house was dismissed on appeal owing to the effect the dwelling would have on the
setting of the listed building. However at that time the proposal was for a one-and-a-halfstorey dwelling having a ridge height of 7m, and the dwelling was set further forward on the
plot. As far as the current proposal is concerned the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has indicated that the dwelling would not have a detrimental effect on the
character of the listed building, and that the development would benefit the character and
appearance of the Langham Conservation Area.
As far as the Langham Village Design Statement is concerned, this makes no specific
reference to the site, but does identify Rowan Cottages as an important listed building with
the village, whilst in the general design principles it suggests that the scale between
buildings is important, that new buildings should be individual in terms of their design and
utilise quality material.
The Highway Authority has no objection to the access as proposed, but this would require
the removal and replanting of the existing frontage hedgerow behind the visibility splay to
the east of the access.
It is therefore considered that in the light of the background to the proposal there are
reasonable grounds for over-riding current Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:- APPROVE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) This permission is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the
application (drawing numbers 2665A and 2665B) and the amended plans received by the
Local Planning Authority on 2 July 2008, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no
enlargement of or alteration to the dwelling hereby permitted shall be undertaken and no
building, structure or means of enclosure within the curtilage of the dwelling shall be
erected unless planning permission has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
5) Before the development is started samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external walls and roof shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved
details.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
9 October 2008
6) Prior to the commencement of development/works hereby approved a 1:10 scaled
drawing of the windows, including a section through the joinery, shall be submitted and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The windows shall then be constructed
in full accordance with the approved details.
7) Prior to the development hereby permitted being first brought into use, details of the
colour finish of external joinery shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the
approved details.
8) Unless otherwise agreed in writing the whole flints to be used for the exterior walls of the
building shall be no larger than 125mm in any one direction.
9) Unless otherwise agreed in writing the rainwater goods shall be of a metal finish, painted
black to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
10) Prior to the commencement of the development precise details of all screen walls and
fences to the eastern, western and southern boundaries of the site, including their height,
design and materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. All screen walls and fences as approved shall be erected concurrently with the
erection of the dwelling.
11) Prior to the commencement of the development precise details of the surface treatment
to the driveway and turning areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be constructed in full accordance
with the approved details.
12) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a landscaping
scheme from the frontage of the site with The Street shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall indicate the species, number and size of new trees and shrubs at the
time of their planting.
The scheme shall also include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land,
with details of any to be retained (which shall include details of species and canopy
spread), together with measures for their protection during the course of development.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available planting
season following the commencement of development or such further period as the Local
Planning Authority may allow in writing.
13) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular access
shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council residential access
construction specification for the first 5m into the site as measured back from the near
edge of the adjacent carriageway.
14) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted visibility splays shall
be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plan. The splays
shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.225m above the level
of the adjacent highway carriageway.
15) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed on-site
parking and turning area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled and surfaced in
accordance with the approved plan. It shall be retained thereafter for those specific uses.
16) The access shall be constructed with drainage measures to prevent surface water runoff onto the adjacent public highway, in accordance with a detailed scheme submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway
Authority.
17) Any access gate shall be hung to open inwards and shall be set back a minimum
distance of 5m from the near edge of the adjoining highway carriageway. Any side wall,
fence or hedge adjacent to the access shall be splayed at an angle of 45 degrees from
each of the (outside) gateposts to the front boundary of the site.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
9 October 2008
REASONS:2) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions of
the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control
policies.
3) To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development
Control policies.
4) To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraph 3.16 of
the Design Guide.
5) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
6) To ensure the windows are complementary to the appearance of the building, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.40-3.47 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
7) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
8) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
9) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
10) In order for the Local Planning Authority to retain control over this aspect of the
development in the interests of the relationship to nearby properties and the surroundings
of the development in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
11) To protect nearby residents from noise and disturbance in accordance with Policy EN
13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control policies.
12) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy EN
4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control policies.
13) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control policies.
14) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control policies.
15) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control policies.
16) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control policies.
17) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
28
9 October 2008
9.
SHERINGHAM - 20081257 - Alterations (including front bay window) and change of
use from D1 (osteopath) A3 (tea-room) to A3 (tea-rooms) with bed and breakfast
accommodation above; 44c and 44d Station Road for Mr and Mrs Moss
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :22 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19870868 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of retail unit to coffee bartea room
Temporarily Approved, 23 Jul 1987
19881418 - (Full Planning Permission) - Continuation of use of former retail unit as coffee
shop
Approved, 04 Aug 1988
19941219 - (Full Planning Permission) - Removal of condition number 2 of planning
permission reference 881418 which restricted permission to original applicant
Approved, 27 Oct 1994
19941220 - (Full Planning Permission) - Installation of new shallow bay window and
entrance door
Approved, 19 Oct 1994
19941418 - (Full Planning Permission) - Use of premises for Class A3 (food and drink)
purposes
Approved, 30 Jan 1995
19991150 - (Full Planning Permission) - Variation of condition 3 on planning permission
reference 19941418 to extend opening hours to 20.00 hours throughout the year
Approved, 27 Oct 1999
20021618 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from a1 (retail) to d1
(complementary health treatment rooms)
Approved, 03 Dec 2002
THE APPLICATION
Consists of two elements, firstly a proposal to change the use of the ground floor of No.44D
from D1 (Osteopath) to A3 (Tea Room) to become part of an enlarged team room
associated with No.44C (Mulberry Team Rooms). Externally this would involve the
replacement of the existing front window to No.44D with a bay window of similar design to
that already in place at No.44C and a level threshold entrance door.
Secondly, at first floor level above No.44C, a change of use is sought from C3 (flat) to C1
(Bed and Breakfast) containing three unserviced en-suite bedrooms.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
One of the applicants is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection to the proposed change of use to tearoom but object to three en-suite
bedrooms as there are no breakfast facilities. Query if the tea rooms are sold separately
what would be the status of the three bedrooms?
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
29
9 October 2008
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 incorporating Development Control Policies (Adopted 24
September 2008)
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential approach for
new tourist accommodation and attractions).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to be
attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
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 principle of proposed uses.
2. Impact on viability and vitality of town centre.
3. Impact on Conservation Area.
4. Impact on amenity.
5. Parking and highway safety.
6. Relationship between two proposed uses.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the designated Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of
Sheringham. Within this area it is considered that a proposed change of use from D1
(Osteopath) to A3 (Tea Rooms) would help maintain the vitality and viability of the town
centre. Because of the location of the front elevation of the proposed enlarged Tea Rooms,
which are at 90 degrees to Station Road, it is considered that the external alterations to the
front of the building would be barely perceptible from the primary shopping frontage.
Subject to appropriate detailing to match the existing bay, the external alterations are
considered to be acceptable and would preserve the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. Subject to no objections being received from Environmental Health, it
is considered that the proposed change of use of the ground floor would not have any
adverse impact on the amenity or form and character of the area and would comply with
Core Strategy policies.
In respect of the proposed change of use of the first floor above No.44C to provide three
en-suite bedrooms, Core Strategy policies would support uses in town centres that are
compatible with maintaining the focus for a broad range of shopping, commercial, cultural
and other uses. The proposal would not involve the loss of any shops or other uses and
would provide three letting bedrooms, presumably aimed at the tourist market. Concern
has been expressed by the Town Council regarding how the letting bedrooms would be
Development Control Committee (West)
30
9 October 2008
operated. The applicants have been asked for clarification and Committee will be updated
orally.
In respect of parking provision, the applicants have stated that three vehicle spaces are
available but have not indicated their location. The site is located within the town centre
and Conservation Area where parking standards may be relaxed. The views of the
Highway Authority are awaited. Committee will be updated orally in respect of this matter.
In summary, subject to no objections from consultees, both the proposed change of use to
café and proposed change of use to three bed and breakfast rooms would be considered
acceptable in principle and would comply with Core Strategy policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to confirmation from the applicant regarding
parking arrangements and use of the en-suite rooms, subject to no objection from
Environmental Health and County Highways and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
10.
STODY - 20071823 - Continued use of part of dwelling as one unit of holiday
accommodation; 1 Green Farm Barn The Green Hunworth for Mrs P A Hoskison
Target Date :17 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19870841 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barn to two luxury dwellings
Approved, 04 Jun 1987
19872037 - (Full Planning Permission) - Barn conversion into two dwellings with annexe
Refused, 10 Mar 1988
19931412 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of existing barn to private dwelling
Approved, 30 Dec 1993
20041168 - (Full Planning Permission) - Retention of flue pipes, gable end window and
raised ridge line to main roof and revised fenestration
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the continued use of part of a dwelling as one unit of holiday accommodation.
Amended details received in respect of two additional rented parking spaces.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Parking provision.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
9 October 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters have been received, two from the same address. Summary of comments:
1. The original barns had two car parking spaces each. The proposal would require
significantly more given that the holiday let is 2-bed.
2. There are no parking facilities on-site to cater for the extra cars.
3. Cars associated with the holiday unit are often parked inappropriately, blocking
accesses and causing friction between neighbours.
4. Parking is not permitted on the village green and there is dispute locally about parking
on areas which are proposed to be returned to grass.
5. The village green is protected by law and the development should not encourage
encroachment or damage.
6. The drainage system was designed to be shared between Nos.1 and 2 Green Farm
Barns and is not suitable for further intensification of use.
7. Concerned about overlooking from dormer windows.
8. The area is prone to flooding.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to satisfactory parking and manoeuvring
being provided to 1 Green Farm Barn and the holiday accommodation - a plan should be
provided.
Re-consulted in respect of amended parking plan - Committee will be updated orally.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating Development Control Policies (Adopted 24
September 2008)
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to be
attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with specific
exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required for new
development).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a settlement
boundary).
Policy 127: Holiday and Seasonal Occupancy Conditions (holiday occupancy conditions to
be imposed on unserviced holiday accommodation) (seasonal occupancy conditions to be
Development Control Committee (West)
32
9 October 2008
imposed where applicable in terms of flood risk, construction or nature conservation
interests) (removal of seasonal occupancy conditions subject to flood risk, construction and
nature conservation considerations) (removal of holiday occupancy conditions to be
considered against policy criteria for residential development).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use classes
within different Local Plan policy areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of conversion to holiday use.
2. Impact on amenity.
3. Impact on form and character of the area.
4. Parking provision.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside policy area where the principle of converting a
building for holiday use is acceptable subject to satisfactory compliance with other relevant
saved North Norfolk Local Plan and Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies.
Permission to convert Green Farm Barns into two residential dwellings was granted in
1987 with renewals and permission granted to regularise changes made to the external
appearance of 1 Green Farm Barn. The current application, in effect, seeks to subdivide 1
Green Farm Barn into two planning units, one to be retained as a permanent two-bed
residential dwelling (main barn) with the front wing to be retained as a two-bed holiday unit.
No external changes are proposed to the building and as such it is considered that use of
the front wing as a separate unit of holiday accommodation would not create any significant
adverse impacts on the amenity of adjacent residents provided that there is appropriate
parking provision to serve both units in accordance with parking standards
In respect of impact on form and character, the comments of residents are noted regarding
the potential impact of parking on the village green, which is legally protected. Committee
will note that, whilst the site is located within the Area of High Landscape Value under the
saved North Norfolk Local Plan, this designation has not been carried through to the Core
Strategy. Subject to an appropriate site being agreed for the parking of vehicles in
connection with the use of the holiday unit, it is considered that the proposal would not
have any significantly adverse impact on the form or character of the area.
In respect of parking provision, both the saved North Norfolk Local Plan and Core Strategy
would require four car parking spaces, two per unit. Currently only two spaces are available
on site and the applicant has been investigating the possibility of renting adjacent land to
provide a further two spaces for the holiday unit. Land has been identified and a licence
has been granted, but only on a twelve month basis; it would continue thereafter on a
month by month basis with the possibility of termination of the licence on two months
notice. Whilst this arrangement would provide a short-term solution to overcome the
deficiencies, it is considered that, in the absence of a long-term solution, the application
should be assessed on the basis of having no parking provided. The Highway Authority
has been re-consulted regarding this matter and Committee will be updated orally
In summary, whilst the principle of the use of part of 1 Green Farm Barn as a holiday unit is
considered acceptable, the lack of available long-term parking provision associated with
the holiday unit gives rise to concerns about the overall suitability of the site for the
development proposed. Further consideration will be given when the views of the Highway
Authority are known.
Development Control Committee (West)
33
9 October 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Committee will be updated orally.
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BARSHAM - 20081097 - Change of use from redundant farm building to one unit of
holiday accommodation; Barn at Water Lane East Barsham for M J Goodley and
Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20081108 - Erection of rear dormer window and conservatory; 23
Regis Avenue for Mr M Jolley
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081133 - Erection of pergola and balcony; Creek Lodge The Quay for
Messrs Cottee and Urquhart
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081146 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling; land rear of MeoVoto Saxlingham Road for Mr Bould and Miss Thompson
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081147 - Erection of first floor/two-storey rear extension and
conservatory; 19 Kingsway for Mrs J Lewis
(Full Planning Permission)
BRININGHAM - 20081051 - Installation of rooflight; The Stable 3 Belle Vue Farm
Barns Dereham Road for Mr S G Richards
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20081143 - Erection of two-storey side extension and front and rear
porches; 27 Irmingland Road for Mrs C Stannard
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - 20081120 - Erection of canopy; Meadow Views The Street Shereford for
Mr and Mrs Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - 20081044 - Erection of two-storey annexe and double garage; Green
Farm The Green for Mr D Sands
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081080 - Erection of two-storey side extension, rear dormer and
replacement car port/store; 14 Thorpland Road for Mr and Mrs C Coubrough
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20081107 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 112 North Park for
Mr G D George
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
34
9 October 2008
FAKENHAM - 20081085 - Erection of side extension; Kingsway Tyres Limited
Hempton Road for Kingsway Tyres Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20071614 - Erection of storage and vehicle maintenance building;
former Highways Depot The Street Thursford for Mr J Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - 20080694 - Erection of two dwellings; 38 Park Lane for Ms R
Freeman
(Outline Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - 20081150 - Erection of single-storey extensions; Westward Ho The
Street for Mr and Mrs P Sanders
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080496 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land east of Homely
Acre 61 The Street for Mr and Mrs D Self
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080681 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and double garage; 19 Peacock
Lane for Mr and Mrs Perrett
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080992 - Erection of two-storey front extension, single-storey rear
extension, bay windows, porch and detached garage; 15a Grove Lane for Mr and Mrs
Law
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20081136 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; plot 8 land at Orchard Piece
Kelling Road for Character Homes Ltd
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
KETTLESTONE - 20081163 - Change of use of agricultural land to tennis court and
erection of fence; Kettlestone House The Street for Mr J Kilpatrick
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - 20081043 - Erection of detached double garage; West Acre 2 The Street
for Mr P Tibbetts
(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 - 20081068 - Erection of replacement two-storey extension; Old House
Grouts Lane for Mr and Mrs Lockyer
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20080845 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Millers Rest
Chapel Lane for Mr B Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
35
9 October 2008
SHERINGHAM - 20081072 - Change of use of first floor from B1 (office) to residential;
7 Church Street for Mr K Woodcock
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20081037 - Erection of replacement outbuilding; Scaup Cottage
Greenway for Mr J Green
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - 20081154 - Erection of two-storey side extension and front porch; 4
Halifax Crescent Sculthorpe for Mr D Leete
(Full Planning Permission)
THORNAGE - 20081156 - Erection of porch and garden room; Glaven House
Letheringsett Road for Mr and Mrs Thrower
(Full Planning Permission)
THURNING - 20081024 - Erection of single-storey agricultural dwelling with
basement; Rosewood Farm Craymere Beck Road for Mr C Barrett
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20080282 - Erection of two-storey extension and single-storey
extension; 7 Egmere Road for R C Diocese of Northampton
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20080283 - Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of
two-storey extension and single-storey extension; 7 Egmere Road for R C Diocese of
Northampton
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Fairview
Northfield Lane for Mr D S Hudson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081101 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
of 20060016 to permit installation of enlarged windows to plot 17; Barkers Yard
Freeman Street for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081151 - Erection of garden room, glazed roof over
decked area, oriel window and pair of staff cottages; Blenheim House Theatre Road
for Mr and Mrs N Lewthwaite
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081152 - Erection of garden room and glazed roof over
deck area, installation of replacement windows and new oriel windows and reconstruction of dormer windows; Blenheim House Theatre Road for Mr and Mrs N
Lewthwaite
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WIGHTON - 20081213 - Prior notification of intention to excavate to form lagoon to
hold digestate liquor; Copys Green Farm Copys Green for J F Temple and Son
Limited
(Prior Notification)
Development Control Committee (West)
36
9 October 2008
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BODHAM - 20081061 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission 20060296 to
permit full-time residential occupancy; One and Two Glaven River Barns Kelling
Road Lower Bodham for Mr P Austin
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST AND WEST BECKHAM - 20081073 - Siting of residential caravan for security
purposes; land at Camp Farm Buildings Osier Lane West Beckham for Design Weld
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - 20081069 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and detached
garage; Camelot House Holt Road for Mr Claydon
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081091 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey dwelling; site
adjacent to 9 Knowle Crescent for Mr M Cook
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
WOOD NORTON - 20071379 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; The Old Fire Station
Foulsham Airfield Foulsham Road for Thomas and Money Haulage
INFORMAL HEARING
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - 01013DEV606001 - Change of use of agricultural land for the siting of
caravan s 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
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - 01013DEV605003 - 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
Development Control Committee (West)
37
9 October 2008
HIGH KELLING - 20070983 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Cherry Garth Cromer
Road for Mr P M Plummer
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071932 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site rear of 18
Church Street for Ms J Starns
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BRINTON - 20071113 - Erection of first floor extension and attached garage; Grove
House Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Taylor
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
BRINTON - 20071572 - Alterations to first floor extension (lowering of parapet);
Grove House Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Taylor
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
FAKENHAM - 20071369 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Field View
Residential Home 43 Hayes Lane for Imperial Care Homes
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
RAYNHAM - 20071725 - Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of twostorey rear extension; 5 The Drove for Mr D Elfleet
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
SHERINGHAM - 20030991 - Demolition of buildings, including dwellings, and
erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car parking, servicing and
landscaping; land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
SHERINGHAM - 20070217 - Demolition of buildings, including dwellings, and
erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car parking and servicing and
provision of footpath link to Station Road; land at Cromer Road Sheringham for
Tesco Stores Limited
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
38
9 October 2008