OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 10 DECEMBER 2009

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 10 DECEMBER 2009

Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION BY COMBINED COMMITTEE

1. HOLT - PF/05/0518 - Change of Use of Land to Car and Coach Park, Formation of Access and Erection of Toilets (Lighting and Drainage Details Plus Off-Site

Highways Works to Valley Lane); Land Adjacent to Holt Road, Thornage for Mr

G F Chapman

To consider a planning application for the change of use of land to car park and coach park and associated development.

Background

This application was first considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on 28 April 2005 when it was deferred in order to allow Officers to negotiate:- a reduction in the number of car parking spaces; increased landscaping; the formation of a right hand turning lane, together with speed reduction; and surfacing, lighting and a possible relocation of the access.

The application was again considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on 26 May 2005 when the following were reported: - the toilet block and coach parking had been deleted; the number of car parking spaces had been reduced from 458 to 382; the amount of landscaping had been increased; and re-design and relocation of the access to a standard required in a 30mph speed limit.

Officers recommended that the application be refused on the basis of detriment to the character and appearance of the landscape and Conservation Area, highway safety grounds, and lack of detail on surfacing, lighting, levels, drainage, insufficient landscaping and associated policy grounds. The Committee resolved to refer the application to the Joint Development Control Committee with a recommendation of delegated approval since it was generally accepted that there is a need for additional car parking in Holt, this need being identified through the preparation of the Whole

Settlement Strategy and a Commercial Leisure Study by DTZ Pieda Consultants. A

Working Party had also considered various options for sites in and around the town.

At the meeting on 9 June 2005 the Joint Development Control Committee resolved to inform the Highway Authority that the decision to approve the car park had been made and to seek its agreement to a 30mph speed limit.

The Committee also resolved to give the Head of Planning and Building Control delegated authority to approve the application with the access in its amended position, subject to further details being agreed including right-turning lane, Valley

Lane pedestrian improvements, the provision of up to 4 coach parking spaces and details of levels, landscaping, lighting, surfacing; and subject to the agreement of local Members.

Development Control Committee (West)

1

10 December 2009

The matter was referred back to the Joint Development Control Committee on 19

January 2006 when it was reported that Norfolk County Council had declined the

District Council's request to introduce a 30mph speed limit, and the applicant had decided to seek permission for the formation of the access based on a 50mph limit, which would be supported by the Highway Authority.

The Committee accepted the applicant's request to seek a 50mph speed restriction in place of the 30mph speed restriction previously sought and resolved that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve the application subject to: the receipt of amended plans providing for a right turn lane; no new grounds of objection being received following re-advertisement and reconsultation on the amended plans; off-site highway improvements to Valley Lane (pedestrian safety works) being agreed; provision of 4 coach parking spaces; details of levels, lighting and landscaping; the submission of surface water drainage details; and the imposition of appropriate conditions, to include drainage and pollution controls.

At the meeting of the Development Control Committee (West) on 3 January 2008 it was reported that amended plans had been received from the applicant's agent which included:- details of the right hand turn lane; the provision of 395 car parking spaces including 20 disabled spaces; the provision of 5 coach parking spaces; the introduction of a toilet block; an increase in the site area from 1.6 hectare to 2.0 hectare to allow increased landscaping to the south-eastern and western boundaries; outline details in respect of drainage, lighting and highway improvements to Valley

Lane.

On 2 January 2008 a revised set of plans was received showing the previous revisions referred to and detailed sections across the site and deleting a reference to an overflow car park. Full reconsultation and readvertisement was carried out on those plans.

The matter was referred back to Combined Development Control Committee on 31

January 2008, when it was reported orally that on 28 January 2008 revised plans has been received showing a slight reduction in site area together with the proposed works to Valley Lane. In respect of the drainage of the site a plan had been received on the day of the meeting which would be sent to the Environment Agency for comment. In addition, it was reported that details of the lighting were awaited from the applicant. As a result Members resolved to give the Head of Planning and

Building Control authority to approve the application with appropriate conditions and subject to the receipt of further information and procedural matters and no objections being received from outstanding consultees or new points being raised as a result of re-advertisement of the application. In addition Members resolved that they did not require the submission of a Transport Assessment.

On 12 May 2008 lighting details were received from the applicant and these together with the drainage details and proposed works to Valley Lane were re-advertised on site on 29 May 2008 and the relevant consultees re-consulted.


2

10 December 2009

However in the intervening period since the last meeting and also as a direct result of re-advertisement and reconsultation further representations were received from local residents and consultees who raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the submitted plans and other issues. In addition in view of the comments of the Highway

Authority together with legal advice the Head of Planning and Building Control considered that a Transport Assessment should be prepared before reporting the matter back to the Committee.

As a result on 21 October 2009 a complete set of revised plans were received which included: the provision of 385 car parking spaces including 20 disabled spaces; the provision of 5 coach parking spaces; an increase in the site area from 1.6 hectare to 2.0 hectare to allow increased landscaping to the south-eastern and western boundaries; details of a toilet block, right hand turn lane, site levels, construction, drainage, lighting and landscaping.

In addition the following documents were submitted:

A Project Description containing a needs assessment and envisaged car park operation, including hours of use and security measures.

A Car Parking Survey (parking beat survey).

A Transport Assessment prepared by Highway Consultants.

The amended plans together with the other supporting documents were re-advertised on site on 23 October 2009 and the relevant consultees re-consulted.

Copies of the reports referred to are attached as Appendix 1 .

The Application (as amended)

The scheme would provide for 385 car parking spaces, including 20 disabled spaces, and 5 coach parking spaces on a site having a total area of approximately 2.0 ha.

The access off Thornage Road, would involve the widening of the carriageway to form a right-hand turn lane into the site and subject to a Traffic Regulation Order the speed limit on B1110 would be reduced from 60 mph to 50mph at this point.

Amended drawings and excavations volume data show the ground level at the northwestern corner of the site being lowered by 1.0m and to the southern-western corner by approx 0.5m with the resulting surplus soil used to infill the lower area of the site at the north eastern end, effectively raising the ground level at this point by approximately 3.0m to a similar height as Valley Lane in order to provide a gentle slope across the site. To the northern boundary, adjacent to the former railway line, the earthworks would result in the ground level being lowered by approx 1.0m at the western end and increased in height at the eastern end by some 3.0m. It is proposed that any surplus soil resulting from the works be distributed along the western boundary to form a bund 20m in width with a maximum height of approx 1.5m above the finished car park level and some 0.7m when seen from the adjacent field to the west. To the southern-eastern boundary adjoining the Thornage Road a planting belt would be formed varying in width from approximately 11.0m to 20.0m which would be approximately 0.2m above the finished car park level. The surface of the car park within the entrance and coach parking area would be of macadam with coated rolled chippings with the remainder of the site being of a macadam finish having light coloured rolled chippings within the parking bays.


3

10 December 2009

In addition the layout plan shows planting to the bund on the western boundary and south eastern boundary with an area of planting some 28.0m in width in the southern corner of the site together with some planting within the site. To the northern boundary a narrow strip of planting consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs is proposed. The planting would consist of a mix of 40 percent evergreen and 60 percent deciduous indigenous trees with smaller trees towards the outside the planting belts.

The development would also involve the provision of a toilet block close to the entrance of the site which would measure 12.5m x 7.5m and have a ridge height of

5.5m. The building would be constructed of red facing bricks under a pantile and provide for four female WCs and hand basins, three male WCs, four urinals and three hand basins and a disabled toilet together with a car park office. The amended plans indicate that foul sewage from the toilet block would be discharged to the sewer in the Norwich Road via an underground Sewage Package Pumping station and a 150 mm pipe which would run the length of Valley Lane. The cold water feed to the toilet block would be from the water main in Thornage Road. In respect of surface water drainage this would drain into soakaways which would be served by a series of underground drainage channels having separator/silt traps at strategic points.

The amended plans also show lighting details for the car park. A total of 28, 6m lighting columns which would support 42 lighting units are proposed. Each lamp would be 45 watt and have an output of 4,300 lumens. Owing to the type of luminaries being proposed and the angle of inclination at only 5o the lighting layout plan shows that the scheme would not result in significant light pollution.

The applicant has also submitted a comprehensive Transport Assessment which has been prepared by consultants. This involved traffic surveys of the A148/B1110/B1149 roundabout on Wednesday 9 September and Saturday 12 September 2009 and also at the request of Norfolk County Council an assessment of the pedestrian crossing on the Norwich Road which would be used by users of the car park to access the town centre. The report which considers the impact of the proposed car park on the transport network of Holt along with road access and pedestrian linkages to the town centre concludes that additional traffic that could be generated by the development can be accommodated on the local road network without having a detrimental impact on either highway capacity or safety. The assessment of the pedestrian crossing showed that the existing crossing would be sufficient to accommodate the additional pedestrian flow associated with the new car park.

In addition a car parking survey has been undertaken which has been compiled by consultants acting on behalf of the applicant. This parking beat survey was carried out between Tuesday 25 to Saturday 29 August 2009 between the hours of 9:00 to

15:00 and involved 28 parking areas in Holt, including the three main pay and display car parks, which total approximately 351 spaces. The Transport Assessment suggests that based on the data collected the three main car parks reached capacity by 11.00 each day and remained as such until the survey ended at 15:00. The consultants' document submitted by PGM Consulting indicates that based on the total number of parking spaces available the total occupancy during this period was

92 percent.

At the time the amended plans were received a further Screening Opinion was undertaken as required by The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 when it was established that an

Environment Impact Assessment was not required. A copy of the Screening Opinion is attached as Appendix 2 .


4

10 December 2009

Updates

Since the meeting on the 31 January 2008, and following re-advertisement and reconsultation the following responses have been received:-

TOWN COUNCIL

(Amended plans 28/01/08, 31/01/08 and 12/05/08)

No objection, unanimously and strongly support the application.

(Amended plans 21/10/09)

(summarised):- Unanimously and strongly support this much needed car park for

Holt, which is absolutely essential for our community. Over a number of years and for more than a decade various sites for a car park have been investigated and there is no site other than this one. Delays with this proposal have resulted in considerable and ongoing hardship for the owners of businesses and frustration and danger for visitors and residents.

THORNAGE PARISH COUNCIL


Objects to the application on the following grounds, (summarised):-

1) 54 lights at a height of 6m would have an enormous impact on the surrounding area, having a detrimental impact on the environment and resulting in a permanent orange glow at night.

2) The car park will urbanise this area of Holt and could result in traffic problems in the surrounding area.

3) The proposed car park is too large and the toilet block seems to be larger than necessary.

4) The pedestrian walkway does not resolve the problem relating to traffic flow on the A148 with pedestrians having to cross in order to access the town centre.


Objects to the application on the following grounds, (summarised):-

1) Proposed car park would result in urban sprawl and would have an adverse

Environmental impact.

2) Insufficient justification for a car park of the size proposed.

3) Issues of traffic congestion have not been properly addressed and would result in the backing up of traffic on the A148 during busy periods from the large increase in the number of pedestrians using the Pelican crossing, which in turn would result in gridlock on the roundabout with the A148/B1110.

4) The car parking survey was only for a five day period out of term time.

5) Car parking in Holt is only a problem for a period of some 6 weeks during the summer and at Christmas time. Why not arrange to use the Gresham School car park during these periods when the school is closed, which would also generate income for the school.

6) People parking in Holt all day should be encouraged to park further out of the town centre (e.g. the long term car park on the Cley Road).

A further letter has been received from Thornage Parish Council dated 18 November

2009 which makes the following comments in respect of the implications of the proposed new car park for the B1110 and Thornage in particular, which they consider have not been addressed in the Transport Assessment.

Thornage Parish Council has long been concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic, and particularly coaches and heavy goods vehicles, using the B1110 as a cut-through from Holt to Guist and Dereham. The B1110 is clearly not safe for this traffic and there are now signs in place for drivers of heavy lorries, directing them instead along the A148.


5

10 December 2009

It is obvious that when the new car park is in use the large numbers of pedestrians using the Pelican crossing to get to Holt from the car park will mean that traffic will back up to the roundabout and beyond (something which already often happens during the school summer holidays). For lorries en route to Guist and Dereham, approaching the roundabout both along the Holt bypass and from the Norwich direction, it will be much easier and quicker to take the B1110 than to queue on the

A148 past the Pelican crossing. Similarly any vehicle wanting to get to Fakenham will choose the quicker alternative of the B1110.

Thornage Parish Council is extremely concerned that the Transport Assessment does not appear to have taken this into account at all as it merely states, with no supporting evidence,

“7.3.4 The flow of pedestrians at present is relatively low and the crossing has been designed in accordance with the relevant guidance. The crossing is therefore considered sufficient to cater for the additional pedestrian traffic resulting from the proposed car park development”.

The Council does not feel that the application should be allowed to go any further without a proper assessment of the implications of the inevitable increase in traffic using the narrow B1110 and going through Thornage, where the road narrows in parts to a single carriageway.

CONSULTATIONS

County Council (Highways)


Transport Assessment: As previously advised since March 2007 it has been a requirement that a Transport Assessment is required for car parks having in excess of 100 spaces. Given the lapse of time since the application was submitted together with local concerns it is considered that there is merit in now requiring the production of a Transport Assessment.

Lighting: Following an initial consultation the Street Lighting Section suggested that the number of columns could be reduced by increasing their height to 6m. The amended lighting plans reflect this suggestion and as such the Highways Authority has no objection.

Works to Valley Lane: Suggests that at this stage the reference to the footway width be deleted from the drawing, as this is something which could be determined when the detailed engineering drawings are produced.

Drainage: No comment.

(Amended plans 21/10/09 and subsequent letter from Highway consultants dated 20

November 2009)

Confirms that the Transport Assessment satisfactorily demonstrates that the car park access, the A148/B1110/B1149 roundabout and the Puffin crossing on Norwich Road will continue to operate satisfactorily with an acceptable level of traffic capacity.

There are no concerns with the number of pedestrians generated by the car park using the Puffin crossing as this the best form of crossing to effectively respond to any fluctuation in pedestrian demand.

Environment Agency


A letter received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 February 2008 reaffirmed the

Environment Agency’s previous objection and suggested that the application be deferred or refused until such a time that an adequate Surface Water drainage

Assessment has been received.


6

10 December 2009

A subsequent letter removes the previous objection on flood risk grounds and pollution control subject to the imposition of conditions. In terms of foul sewage the

E.A. suggests that a Private treatment plant would be an acceptable method of foul sewage treatment.


A letter received on 10 November 2009 states that due to the changes in the surface water drainage scheme these no longer comply with the requirements of Planning

Policy Statement 25 and as such the E.A. objects to the granting of planning permission in the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment. In respect of pollution control it reaffirms previous comments that a condition is required to ensure separator/silt traps are included as part of the drainage scheme. In respect of foul water disposal this is considered to be an acceptable method of disposal subject to

Anglian Water Services confirming that the sewage disposal system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows generated.

However a subsequent letter states that following the receipt of supplementary information the E.A. considers the drainage details to be acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions.

Norfolk Wildlife Trust


Awaiting comments.

Strategic Director (Communities)


In his former role as the Head of Regeneration and Strategic Housing the Strategic

Director confirmed that during the autumn of 2004 he convened two meetings to discuss the supply of public car parking in Holt involving officer and member representatives of the Town, District and County Councils and Holt Chamber of

Trade.

These meetings attempted to explore the issues identified in the Whole Settlement

Strategy prepared for Holt by the Planning Policy Team in 2002 which identified that compared to other towns in the district there was a limited supply of public car parking spaces relative to the retail floorspace in Holt town centre – the consequence of which was that there were insufficient spaces to meet demand at many times of the year, resulting in high levels of on-street parking within the town – including residential streets, and on lay-bys/verges on main approach routes into the town – particularly the A148 from the Letheringsett direction.

The meetings explored potential opportunities to increase the supply of public car parking to serve the town and looked at some technical issues which might be involved in the delivery of some of these locations. The sites considered were: site off A148 to the north of Valley Lane, accessed through the short residential street close to the pedestrian crossing – about which County highways expressed concerns about access and traffic flows on the A148; the Town Council car park off Letheringsett Mill (which was subsequently surfaced and spaces organised in a more structured way) – this is available to permit holders only; extension of the Station Road car park – which would involve the removal of the tree landscaping to the north of the A148 impacting on the residential amenity of properties on Kerridge Way and arguably creating quite an urban feel for traffic on the A148;


7

10 December 2009

land to the south of the A148 off Hempstead Road/Swann Loke – perceived problems with access and pedestrian links into the town centre.

A further suggestion made by members of the public was whether any land owned by

Greshams School close to the town centre could be made available for a car park – particularly a site to the north of the church fronting Cromer Road, opposite the

Thurlow Nunn garage. An approach was made to the School, but no detailed discussions were progressed.

Brief consideration was also given to whether a park and ride / round town bus service arrangement could operate between the Kelling hospital and North Norfolk

Railway station at high Kelling and the town centre, although it was concluded it would not be economically viable to operate such a service on a commercial basis.

Natural England


No objection to the proposed development and are not aware that it would have an adverse effect on legally protected species.


No objection to the proposed development and are not aware that it would have an adverse effect on legally protected species.

Environmental Health –


No objection to the lighting details subject to the imposition of conditions, including that the gates to the car park shall be locked after 7pm.


No objection to the lighting details subject to the imposition of conditions, including that the car park shall not be opened before 6:00am and closed before 10:00pm.

English Heritage


Awaiting comments.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)

(Amended Plans 02/01/08)

Considers that the scale of the development together with its visual impact on both the immediate and surrounding areas remains substantial and the development would not preserve or enhance the Glaven Valley conservation area or the setting of the Holt conservation area.


The site needs to be considered both in the context of the setting of the town of Holt and its Conservation Area and the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. The site has now been included as a Site Specific Proposal for a Car Park in the Local

Development Framework (LDF) for North Norfolk (Ref. Proposal CP10). It is understood that the latter is likely to be the subject of a Public Inquiry in 2010.

Notwithstanding the above, the impact of the car park and its associated infrastructure still requires very careful assessment with all the implications of an approved development being considered, especially in terms of landscape impact and landscape character. In regard to the latter there can be no doubt that there will be a major impact on the landscape in a location which is highly sensitive. Where town meets country there is almost always a potential conflict of character.

Admittedly a substantial landscaping scheme is envisaged. This would certainly, if properly designed and implemented, mitigate some of the more harmful effects of the


8

10 December 2009

proposed development (on this point it would be preferable if the full details of the landscaping scheme were available for assessment now and not left to be submitted as a condition of any approval should this ultimately be the decision). Of very real concern is the amount, positioning and height of the lighting columns envisaged. This remains excessive despite the reduction in their number now suggested. The lavatory block will also have an impact, but less so.

To conclude the proposed car park and lighting will have an adverse affect upon the character of two Conservation Areas. It represents an artificial intrusion into the countryside around Holt. It is not supported by a fully approved and adopted LDF in respect of site allocations or in the context of Policy EN4 of that document. I cannot support the proposed development.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)


The information supplied from the Hydrologist at Atkins Ltd, in respect of the possible changes to the natural water patterns caused by the development particularly to

Spouts Hill and the Fen Meadows alleviates some concerns; however it does raise issues that run-off drainage from the car park is likely to end up flowing into the Spout

Hills springs. Therefore if permission were to be granted then the construction methodology, drainage and surfacing would need to be agreed prior to the commencement of the development. However reiterates previous objection to the proposal as it would have a detrimental visual impact on the landscape and that a decline in water quality could lead to a decline in biodiversity value of the County

Wildlife Site.


Lighting/Biodiversity

I am concerned about the increase in the light levels, as a result of the proposed 6m lighting columns, along the former railway line to the north of the site. The railway line is an important wildlife corridor and will be a foraging habitat for many species.

An increase in the amount of light affecting the area could have a significant impact on the ability of nocturnal foraging species, i.e. bats, to catch prey and may significantly alter their predatory habits. The effect of the lighting may be reduced by introducing a vegetative buffer between the lighting columns and the existing tree belt along the former railway. An alternative is to remove the row of parking spaces along the northern boundary and replace with a landscape screen, this will have the benefit of improving the visual amenity of the car park. The other affect of the lighting will be the increased luminescence in the countryside. I acknowledge that the proposed lighting columns will utilise a downward pointing beam, but this will not completely eliminate the diffused light spreading into the Countryside.

It is now apparent from the new amended plans that there will be the loss of a significant native hedgerow along the eastern boundary, this has the potential to contain nesting birds during the breeding season.

Landscape

As mentioned in earlier comments, I remain concerned that the significant amount of earthworks and change in levels to the existing field will have a detrimental impact on the character of the area, significantly altering the view into and out of the Glaven

Valley Conservation Area. The elevated position of the north-eastern section of the car park and the bund to the west will remain exposed for many years until the landscaping matures adequately to form a screen and integrate into the landscape.

Until then, the car park will introduce suburban features into a rural landscape to the detriment of the area. The height of the lighting columns is of particular concern.


9

10 December 2009

The traffic signage associated with the car park along the B1110, if excessive, will also erode the distinctive rural character of the road. If approved, measures should be taken to ensure that only the minimum level of signage is used as what is necessary for health and safety requirements and highways.

To conclude, there are a number of elements of the proposed car park that will have a detrimental impact on both the rural character of the area and the Glaven Valley

Conservation Area, and Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) does not support the application.

If the Council is minded to approve the application, then improved landscaping along the northern boundary should form part of a Landscaping condition and the clearance of vegetation should be carried out outside of the main bird nesting season or under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist.

REPRESENTATIONS

(In respect of amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority 28/01/08,

31/01/02 and 12/05/08)

A further letter has been received from the CPRE which refers to its previous letter of the 6 December 2007 which covered some of the history of their objection as well as new points. In addition it raises concerns regarding the wider drainage issues whilst in respect of the lighting suggest that there is insufficient information to judge the likely impact of light pollution on the surrounding area and objects to the application on these additional grounds. In addition a letter to Go–East has been appended to their representation requesting that the application be called-in. Copies of the letters attached as Appendix 3 .

Eleven further letters of objection have been received which raise similar concerns to those previously reported, with the addition that a potential alternative site is to the rear of Swann Grove off the Hempstead Road.

Five further letters of objection have been received from a resident of Thornage which in addition to the concerns previously reported raise the additional concerns

(summarised).

1) That the proposal would result in light, noise and atmospheric pollution and would have an adverse impact on Holt Community Primary School.

2) The development would not preserve or enhance the Area of High Landscape

Value.

3) Lack of information on the traffic which would be generated by the development.

4) Proposal does not include provision for cycle parking.

5) Concerns regarding the administration and public consultation in respect of the application.

6) That the Retail and Commercial Leisure Study by DTZ Pieda together with other reports does not provide substantive evidence to support a specific need for an additional car park.

7) That there are inaccuracies in the plans and calculations regarding the surplus excavated material.

Copies of the letters are attached as Appendix 4 .

A further two letters of objection have been received from a resident of Holt which in addition to concerns previously reported raise the additional concerns (summarised).

1) There is an over provision of car parking spaces in Holt.

2) Plans re lighting are deficient concerning detail.


10

10 December 2009

3) No response from the Environment Agency on the impact of the daily discharge of 10,000 litres of treated sewage into the River Glaven.

4) Plans refer to non existent main drainage in Valley Lane.

5) No details regarding fresh water supply and foul water discharge from toilet block.

6) The application could be the subject of referral to the Local Government

Ombudsman, call-in by the Secretary of State or application to the High Court for a judicial review.

In addition two letters have been received from a firm of Solicitors acting on behalf of two of the local objectors which raise the following concerns: (summarised)

1) Points to the significance of the East of England Plan in the development plan process and that the proposal is in direct conflict with the Regional Spatial

Strategy.

2) Points to the fact that no supporting information has been provided as part of the application to demonstrate the need for a car park.

3) Points to the fact that the only evaluation of traffic and pedestrian movements has been undertaken by one of the objectors and concludes that it is irrefutable proof that a Transport Assessment is required.

4) Questions the need for the toilet block and the fact that the neither the Officers report nor the Members discussion mentioned this facility.

5) Suggests that there is a requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

A copy of the letters is attached as Appendix 5 .

A further letter of support has been received from the Holt and District Chamber, which raises no objection to the drainage or lighting.

Sixteen further letter of support have been received which in addition to the comments previously reported make the additional comments (summarised).

1) Planning permission should be progressed with due haste.

2) The proposed car park and its facilities are essential if Holt is to thrive.

(In respect of amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 21/10/09)

A further letter has been received from the CPRE which reiterates one of its key concerns regarding potential severe traffic disruption. It suggests that the transport assessment which has now been submitted is worthless as it does not assess the effect of the use of the pedestrian crossing by users of the car park on the A148, and the interaction with all traffic using the roundabout and existing and entering High

Street. The CPRE further suggest that a decision on the application should not be made without this vital information.

The letter goes on to suggest that no business case has been presented to support the application and that the car park it unlikely be the first choice of residents as it is not well located for the town centre and would be used mainly by visitors in the summer months, unable to find a car parking closer to the town centre. As a result, there would be insufficient use of the car park for at least half of the year and in the longer term the car park would not meet the business expectations of the applicant in terms of usage and would not a financially viable. The possible scenario is that the town would once again be looking for alternative sites whilst the developer would be likely pursue a housing development on the car park site. The CPRE therefore suggests that in the event of the Council being minded to approve the application a condition be imposed requiring the developer, in the event of major traffic disruption, to construct an underpass in place of the pedestrian crossing, whilst in the event of the car park ceasing to operate to reinstated the site as agricultural land.


11

10 December 2009

Five further letters of objection have been received which raise similar concerns to those previously reported with the addition that:

1) The car park would be built in what is now an attractive area of open countryside and would be a blight on the landscape.

2) There is currently major traffic disruption in the vicinity of the Holt Primary School and Owl Nursery, during school term times which would only be exacerbate by the development, particularly in Valley Lane where this are a lack of adequate pavements and restricted parking spaces.

3) The development would bring further noise, light pollution and a constant stream of non resident pedestrians using Valley Lane.

4) The laying of a sewer the length of Valley Lane would disrupt the daily life of residents, school staff and parents.

5) The car park would replace traffic congestion in Holt with major pedestrian congestion.

6) The car park would not be conveniently placed for the town centre.

7) Car parking is only a problem during the months of July and August when it might be possible to arrange parking with Gresham’s School.

8) Additional parking could be provided by extending and rebuilding the present

Station Road car park, including a lower level.

9) More use could be made of the Cley Road car park.

10) The inclusion of the site in the Site Specific Proposal for a Car Park in the Local

Development Framework for North Norfolk makes a mockery of the conservation order and as such everywhere will be at risk.

A further letter of objection have been received from a resident of Thornage which reiterates that his previous letters of the 27 November 2007, 9 January 2008, 22

January 2008 and 5 February 2008 still apply to the current consultation and in addition raises the following concerns: (summarised).

1) On procedural matters: a) Questions the way in which the Local Planning Authority has allowed repeated revisions to the current application rather than requiring the submission of a fresh application, b) Considers that the 21 day consultation period is totally inadequate for a major application, and c) The Council has issued no guidance as to how it intends to deal with public consultations in respect of the many revisions to the application.

2) The proposed development is contrary to policies contained in the North Norfolk

Core Strategy and Norfolk Structure plan.

3) The applicant has not justified the need for the car park on a greenfield site within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, and the car park survey does not in anyway demonstrate a compelling need for a car park of the size proposed or, specifically in the location proposed.

4) No attempt has been made to investigate making best use of the existing car parks the problems with which the applicant's data identifies as being one of management.

5) The proposed development would not preserve and enhance the appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.

6) The application has serious implication for highway capacity and safety which are not considered in the Transport Assessment. In particular the increased use of the pelican crossing on the A148 would seriously delay traffic with traffic inevitably diverting onto the B1110 through Thornage, which already has a poor safety record, to avoid the bottleneck.

Copies of the letters are attached as Appendix 6.


12

10 December 2009

A further letter of objection has been received from a resident of Holt which in addition to concerns previously reported raises the additional concerns

(summarised).

1) The Parking Survey was undertaken probably during the busiest week of the year and does not demonstrate a need throughout the year.

2) The reference to 31 “Permit” parking spaces on the Letheringsett Hill car park is incorrect as an inspection reveals there are 40.

3) The Project Description and Parking Survey refer to “permit holders” in relation to

Station Road car park. Inspection reveals there are no dedicated permit spaces.

4) The transport assessment does not include a study of the effect of increased use of the pedestrian crossing on local traffic flows.

5) The reference in the Project Description to the landscaping providing a new wildlife habitat is incongruous given the fact that by virtue of its size, location and being subject to exhaust, noise and light pollution the car parks value as a wildlife habitat would be limited particularly in view of the hours of operation which have increased to 16 hours a day.

Human Rights Implication

It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to

Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.

Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.

Policies

Since the application was last considered by the Committee, changes in

Development Plan policy have occurred and new policies are now in force following the adoption of the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008 which supersedes the policies of the former North Norfolk Local Plan for development control purposes, against which the application had previously been assessed and which are referred to in previous reports attached as Appendix 1 .

The following policies as contained in the North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating

Development Control Policies are relevant to the consideration of this application:-

Policy SS1: 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 SS4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).

Policy SS6: Access and infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure issues).

Policy SS9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).

Policy EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character

(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape

Character Assessment).

Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).

Policy EN8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other valuable buildings).

Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature conservation sites).


13

10 December 2009

Policy EN10: Development and Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).

Policy CT5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).

In addition the site has also been identified under the Site Specific Proposals Draft plan as a location for a car park to serve the needs of Holt.

The Committee should also have regard to the East of England Plan which supersedes an initial Regional Spatial Strategy which comprises the former Regional

Planning Guidance for East Anglia (RPG6, 2000). The objectives of the Plan seek to facilitate the development needed to support the region's business sectors and clusters, improving skills and widening opportunities in line with the Regional

Economic Strategy whilst at the same time affecting a major shift in travel away from car use towards public transport, walking and cycling. In addition it seeks to ensure protection and enhancement of the region's environmental assets, including the built and historic environment, landscape and water, and where appropriate, enhancing biodiversity through the protection of habitats and species and creating new habitats through development.

The relevant Regional Planning Policies and those within the Core Strategy cover similar issues to the saved Local Plan policies in respect of the effect on landscape, the natural environment, the Conservation Area and transport.

MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Policy background.

2. Landscape Impact.

3. Flood Risk and Sewage Disposal.

4. Lighting.

5. Highway impact.

6. Impact on Neighbouring properties.

7. Conclusion.

Appraisal

1) Policy background

The site is in a prominent location within the Countryside policy area and is within the designated Glaven Valley Conservation Area. It is currently laid to grass and used for grazing. Adopted policy generally presumes against large scale development in such areas. However Policy SS2 (Countryside) allows for some forms of development, for example, community services and facilities that meet a proven need and transport proposals.

The Core Strategy, which has been adopted following independent examination, states that the success of Holt as a niche market shopping destination results in acute parking problems associated with both the lack of car parking spaces and the location of existing provision. Consequently, the strategic policy for the town (SS9) states that the provision of additional car parking, with high quality pedestrian links to the town centre will be sought. The adopted policy is however silent on both the location and size of such a car park.

To give effect to this strategic policy objective the Council has identified the application site as the proposed location for a new car park in the town in its emerging Site Specific Proposals Development Plan. This Plan has been the subject of consultation but is yet to be subject to independent examination. The Council has


14

10 December 2009

considered the representations made during the consultation (both supporters and objectors) and has resolved to submit the proposals for examination in the Spring of next year. A summary of the representations is attached as Appendix 7.

The consultation document indicates that the potential allocation of the site for car park use will be reviewed following receipt of a Traffic Impact Assessment, as addressing potential highway issues is regarded as a pre-requisite to demonstrating that such proposals are deliverable. As yet the Traffic Impact Assessment has not been referred to the Local Development Framework Working Party. In the event that the Traffic Impact Assessment does not meet the requirements of the Highway

Authority the proposed allocation will therefore need to be reviewed.

As with the Core Strategy, a particular number of car parking spaces is not specified in the Site Specific Proposals. A large site is identified recognising the prominence of the location, its designation as a Conservation Area and the need for comprehensive landscaping.

In terms of assessing the weight to be attached to emerging policy the following factors need to be considered. The policy is not without challenge, but also enjoys significant support. Those who object to the proposed allocation do so not just in relation to details but raise fundamental objections to the principle of allocating the site. As these objections have yet to be subject to independent examination a cautious approach must be adopted to attributing significant weight to the emerging

Plan. In any event the proposed allocation relates to the principle of developing the site for a car park but is careful not to specify a particular scheme in terms of details such as the number of spaces, landscaping, toilet facilities, and so on. Consequently, if these details are judged to be unacceptable the potential allocation of the site would not prevent refusal of the application in relation to these detailed issues.

Conversely, if these details are judged to be acceptable and comply with adopted

Core Strategy policies approval of the application ahead of examination of the Site

Specific Proposals Development Plan could be considered. In this regard the key policy tests are:

•

Is there a proven need for the proposal which would render the proposal compliant with Policy SS2 ?

•

Will the resulting appearance of the site and its impacts reflect the environmental objectives of the Core Strategy (Policies EN2,4,8 and 9) ?

•

Have highway issues been addressed (Policy CT5) ?

2) Landscape impact

The Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager reiterates previous concerns that the earthworks could affect the natural drainage of the area, whilst the car park infrastructure would result in it remaining visible for a number of years until the landscaping matures sufficiently to form an effective screen, the net effect being that the development would result in a suburban feature in what is an attractive rural landscape having a detrimental impact on the character of the area, significantly altering views into and out of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. It would also have an adverse impact on the biodiversity of the area, representing an artificial intrusion into the countryside around Holt, which could not be supported.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager however suggests that in the event of Members being minded to approve the application additional landscaping should be introduced to the northern boundary to act as a buffer to offset the effects of the lighting on the railway cutting, which ideally should be submitted at this stage rather than form a condition of any approval should this ultimately be the decision.


15

10 December 2009

3) Flood Risk and Sewage Disposal

Following the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment the Environment Agency had withdrawn its objection to the scheme and considered that the flood risk issues and pollution control, could be dealt with via conditions. In terms of discharge of foul sewage from the toilet block to a public foul sewer via a pumping station the E.A. considers this to be an acceptable method of foul sewage disposal and therefore has no objection on the grounds of foul drainage. However the E.A. would require that there is no overflow into a watercourse from the pumping station in the event failure.

4) Lighting

The Council's Environmental Protection team has indicated that they do not consider that the lighting would have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

The impact of lighting on the landscape also has to be assessed and it is considered that the introduction of this number of lighting columns, albeit that they could be painted a recessive colour, would further contribute, particularly in the short term before the planting is established to the car park being more visually intrusive within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and Area of High Landscape Value.

5) Highways Impact

As far as highway safety is concerned, the Highway Authority has previously indicated that the plans showing a right hand turn land would comply with the criteria for a 50mph situation and that, subject to the implementation of the necessary off-site highway improvements, raises no objection to this part of the proposal. Similarly in terms of the introduction of pedestrian safety improvements to Valley Lane, the

Highway Authority has no objection in principle to a 1.5 m wide pedestrian walkway to the western side of road but has indicated that the exact width is something which could be determined when the detailed engineering drawings are produced.

In response to the submission of the Transport Assessment the Highway Authority has indicated that this robustly demonstrates that the car park and increased use of the Puffin crossing on Norwich Road would not adversely affect the adjacent highway network.

6) Impact on Neighbouring properties

As far as the impact of the development on residential amenity is concerned there is a relatively small number of properties that are sufficiently close to the site to be directly affected. Occupiers of two properties on the south side of Thornage Road

(particularly Thornwood) and dwellings close to the site in Valley Lane would experience some loss of amenity, through noise, disturbance and possible light pollution. In addition as Valley Lane would provide the principal pedestrian route to and from the town centre it is inevitable that there would be additional footfall which could have some detrimental impact on the amenities of properties fronting the highway. Furthermore during the construction phases of the development there would be some disruption to the residents and user of Valley Lane as a result of the routing of the sewer to the Norwich Road.

On balance, however, it is not considered that this loss of amenity would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.


16

10 December 2009

7) Conclusion

Policy SS9 of the Core Strategy states that there are acute parking problems within the Town Centre and the site has been identified in the emerging Site Specific

Proposals as the location for a new car park. Moreover the submitted car parking survey, indicates a high level of occupancy of the towns car parks during a five day period in August 2009, although no evidence has been provided to justify that a car park of the specific size proposed is required to meet the need. Both the Core

Strategy and Site Specific Proposals remain silent on the size of the car park required. Without such justification it could be that a smaller car park covering less of the site, which had more landscaping, would adequately serve the needs of the town and would at the same time have significantly less impact on the appearance of the

Conservation Area and wider landscape.

Therefore, whilst the previous concerns of Officers in respect of highway and drainage matters have been addressed, it is still considered that the effect of the proposed development in terms of its visual impact and potential impact on the biodiversity value of the area would have a significantly detrimental effect on the character and appearance of this part of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and wider landscape.

If the Committee remain minded to approve the development it is suggested that further consideration should be given to reducing the scale of the hard surfaced car park, replacing part of it with an informal overflow facility and introducing additional landscaping, particularly on the northern side of the site.

As the application stands however refusal is recommended for the reasons given above.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:-

That permission be refused in the light of the visual impact of the development and its potential impact on the biodiversity value of the area, to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the Glaven Valley Conservation

Area and the wider landscape.

Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference: 20050518)

PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION BY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

COMMITTEE (WEST)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Note : Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition

No.1, unless otherwise stated.

2.

BEESTON REGIS - PF/09/1022 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling with Cellar

Beneath; Land adjacent Heath Barn, Britons Lane, Beeston Regis for Mr T

Field

Minor Development - Target Date: 11 December 2009

Case Officer: Miss J Medler

Full Planning Permission

CONSTRAINTS

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Archaeological Site

Undeveloped Coast


17

10 December 2009

Countryside Policy Area

Contaminated Land

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

19970752 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and garages and alterations to form managers dwelling and two holiday units

Refused, 25 July 1997

19971198 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and garages and alterations to form manager's dwelling and two holiday units to replace mobile home and two existing units

Refused, 15 Jan 1998

19980474 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extensions and alterations to pair of cottages

Approved, 29 May 1998

19991214 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for an existing residential caravan

Refused, 10 May 2000

20011424 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of land for standing holiday caravan

Approved, 12 Dec 2001

20020592 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension of period during which existing holiday caravan may be occupied

Approved, 08 July 2002

20031669 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of two-storey dwelling

Refused, 05 Dec 2003

20032117 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of one single-storey dwelling

Approved, 17 Feb 2004

20041208 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of single-storey dwelling

Refused, 27 Aug 2004

20050720 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling

Approved, 13 June 2005

THE APPLICATION

Is for the erection of a single storey dwelling with cellar beneath. Works have already commenced on the site and the cellar has been constructed.

The dwelling is being constructed in Styro blocks, the base of which would be rendered and painted in a dark brown or similar. The remainder of the walls would be clad in a multi red brick detail to the corners and reveals and horizontal natural ship lap timber. The joinery would have a green/grey finish and the roof would be covered in granular stone chips with cactus planting to a flat roof concealed behind a parapet wall.

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning issue:

Overdevelopment.

PARISH COUNCIL

Object on the following grounds:

Strongly objects to this application because of the impact on the landscape.

Has concerns that this application is (a) retrospective and (b) a repeat of the 2003 application.


18

10 December 2009

REPRESENTATIONS

A copy of the Design and Access Statement submitted by the applicant's agent is contained in Appendix 8 . It explains why the cellar has been constructed.

A letter has also been received from the applicant regarding comments on the current application and what works have already been carried out and comments on conditions on the planning permission 20050720. A copy of the letter is contained in

Appendix 8 .

CONSULTATIONS

Environmental Health – No objection. Standard note required regarding previous use of land.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Awaiting comments.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – Having acquainted myself with the extensive planning history of this site the following design comments can be offered on this scheme:

By virtue of its flat roof form, uninspiring design detailing, standard fenestration and lack of real elevational relief, there is no suggestion that the proposed dwelling would offer any substantive design quality, visual interest or local distinctiveness. In the absence of any confidence in these three areas, it is difficult to see how Conservation and Design could reasonably be expected to support this scheme. Hence our recommendation can only be one of refusal.

In offering these comments, it is worth saying that there could be no objection in principle to a piece of carefully designed contemporary architecture which offers genuine innovation and which responds well to its landscape setting.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATION


Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.

Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.


CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17

The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.

POLICIES

North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):

Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside

Policy EN1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads

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 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be permitted).

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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).


19

10 December 2009


2. Impact upon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and landscape character

APPRAISAL

Some Members of the Committee may be familiar with this site having granted outline planning permission for a single storey dwelling under application reference

20032117. That application was determined under the policies contained in the North

Norfolk Local Plan, which has now been superseded.

The planning history regarding this site is considered to be a material consideration in the determination of the current application.

Prior to the Committee's consideration of application reference 20032117, the

Committee considered application reference 20031669 for the ‘Demolition of outbuilding and erection of two storey dwelling. Only siting and access were being considered.

Under the North Norfolk Local Plan the site was located within an area designated as

Countryside, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast, and still is today under the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. The principal objectives of these policies have not significantly changed.

The proposal for a new residential dwelling in the Countryside policy area was contrary to policy. In addition the proposal did not fully comply with the policy regarding Undeveloped Coast as it had not been demonstrated that a coastal location was required for the proposed dwelling.

However, the site contained two cottages (semi-detached), a holiday caravan, a number of sheds and caravan used for domestic storage. There were also two vehicular accesses, one of which is in a particularly dangerous position on the brow of a hill. The applicant therefore offered to combine the two cottages into one to ensure that the total number of dwellings on the site would not increase, remove the caravans and unsightly sheds in order to improve the appearance of the site within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which could be considered as a significant gain. A further gain would be the closure of the dangerous access.

It was considered that the suggested exchange of residential uses together with the associated site and access improvements might offset the breach of policy involved in the application by constructing a dwelling in the countryside. However, it was not considered that a two storey dwelling would be appropriate because of the prominent nature of the site.

The Committee therefore refused application 20031669 for a two storey dwelling on the following grounds:

By virtue of the site's prominent location in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Undeveloped Coast and within the designated Countryside Policy Area, it is considered that the erection of a two storey dwelling as proposed would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted policies of the Local Planning Authority.


20

10 December 2009

The Committee did, however, invite without prejudice an alternative proposal for a single-storey dwelling. This was on the basis that the applicant was still offering to tidy up the site, improve the access and convert the two existing cottages into a single dwelling in order to improve the appearance of the site and consequently this part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Following this the applicant submitted outline application 20032117 for a single storey dwelling. The Committee approved that application as it was considered to offer genuine improvements of the visual appearance of the site and Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty and improvements to highway safety. Condition 10 stated that ‘The dwelling hereby permitted shall be of a single storey construction only, in the interests of the visual amenities of the Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty and Undeveloped Coast’.

A reserved matters application was submitted under reference 20041208 for a single storey dwelling. However, this was refused as the overall scale and bulk of the dwelling proposed was considered to be unduly prominent in the landscape and would require the loss of a number of trees which were considered to be of significant amenity value. It was considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities and rural character of the area and the wider landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

A further application was submitted under reference 20050720 for a single storey dwelling, which was considered to be acceptable and approved.

However, since that approval and works commencing on site it has become apparent that the applicant is not constructing the development in full accordance with the approved plans on application reference 20050720. That application will expire by 21

April 2010, so unless the applicant implements that permission in full accordance with the approved plans or obtains planning permission for an alternative scheme there will not be an extant permission in place after that date.

Consequently, the current application has been submitted by the applicant in order to attempt to regularise the work that has already been carried out.

Whilst there are some minor changes to the positioning of windows and internal layout of the proposed dwelling from that previously approved (20050720), the overall footprint of the main living accommodation of the proposed dwelling remains the same. However, a cellar below the whole of the proposed dwelling is now intended and has been constructed on site, which would double the floor area of the proposed dwelling.

The applicant is proposing to block up the openings made in the cellar and back fill around the proposed dwelling with soil to return the ground levels to what the applicant believes to be the original levels before work commenced.

However, there is some discrepancy regarding this matter due to photographs taken before any works commenced on the site. It is accepted that as this is a sloping site, with the land to east at a higher level than that to the west, that clearly some excavation of soil was required to the east of the site in order for a flat and suitable foundation to be built upon, but it is not considered that this would have been such a significant amount for a cellar to be added to the scheme. It is considered that the dwelling as approved under 20050720 should have been built where the current cellar has been constructed. The applicant does not agree with this. However, despite this the cellar itself requires planning permission.


21

10 December 2009

The principal issue for consideration is whether this new scheme would have a significant detrimental impact on the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty and its setting, whether it would have a significant detrimental impact to the open coastal character, and if the design is of high quality, having regard to local context and whether it preserves or enhances the character and quality of the area.

The previously approved dwelling was a fairly conventional bungalow with a hipped roof, constructed in brick with clay pantiles. The height of that dwelling from the ground levels shown on the approved plan to the ridge was approximately 6.3m on the western elevation and some 3.5m to the eaves at its highest point. Ridge height was approximately 5.3m on the eastern elevation and eaves height some 2.5m. The difference of 1m was due to the sloping ground levels across the site east to west.

However, this design was for a single storey dwelling.

In accordance with the plans submitted under the current application the height of the building, after there have been some backfilling of soil, is shown on the plans to be approximately 5.3m to the west and 3.5m to the east (Britons Lane). If the back filling is not taken into consideration on the west elevation it would appear from the plans that the overall height would be no more than approximately 6.3m. Whilst the overall height of the proposed dwelling may be no greater than that previously approved it is considered that the overall scale and bulk in this prominent elevated location would have a significant detrimental impact upon the rural character and visual amenities of the area. In addition, it is considered that, despite the applicant's proposal to back fill some of the soil around the proposed dwelling by approximately 1m in depth, the inclusion of the proposed 'cellar' would be tantamount to creating a two storey dwelling to which the Committee has previously objected and refused permission under 20031669.

The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape

Manager (Conservation and Design) who is objecting to the application on design grounds.

At the time of writing this report the comments of the comments of the Conservation,

Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) were still awaited. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that for the reasons explained above that the proposal would also have a significant detrimental impact upon the special qualities of the Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The proposal is not therefore considered to be acceptable or in accordance with

Development Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Delegated refusal on the following grounds and on any additional grounds that may be raised by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager

(Landscape):

The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:

Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads


22

10 December 2009

Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character

Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast

Policy EN 4: Design

It is considered that the overall scale, bulk and design of the proposal would result in the construction of a dwelling that would be unsympathetic, lacking quality, visual interest and local distinctiveness, and unduly prominent in the landscape, which would have a significantly detrimental impact on the special qualities of the Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty and open coastal character of the Undeveloped Coast.

Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of Policy EN4 and would not preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area.

The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to adopted Development Plan policies.

3.

BRISTON - PF/09/1071 - Formation of Revised Parking Area and Access Road;

Plots 73-77 Jewel Close, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2SH for Lomax

Homes Limited

Minor Development - Target Date: 24 December 2009

Case Officer: Mr G Linder


CONSTRAINTS

Conservation Area

Residential Area


19941558 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of 8 bungalows and

122 houses

Approved, 04 May 1995

20090530 - (Full Planning Permission) Construction of revised parking area and access road. Refused, 23 July 2009

THE APPLICATION

Seeks the re-siting of 10 car parking spaces to the rear of Nos. 73-77 Jewel Close with access off Bridge Close.

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

At the request of Councillor Wyatt having regard to the following planning issues:

Impact of the proposed development on the residential amenities of the residents of

Bridge Close and highway safety issues.

PARISH COUNCIL

Awaiting comments.

CONSULTATIONS

Melton Constable Parish Council - Awaiting comments.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.


23

10 December 2009

County Council (Highways) – No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Environment Agency (Waste Regulation) – Have no comments to make.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS


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.



POLICIES

North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):

Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and distribution of development in the District).


Policy 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).


1. Impact on the residential amenities of local residents.

2. Highway safety.

3. Loss of green area.

APPRAISAL

This application follows the refusal of planning permission 20090530 for a similar scheme on the grounds that the proposal would be detrimental to the reasonable amenities of the neighbours.

The site is located within the development boundary for Briston/Melton Constable which is defined as a Service Village in an area primarily in residential use, where in principle the development as proposed would be acceptable subject to compliance with relevant Development Plan policies.

In 1994, as part of a much larger scheme for 8 bungalows and 122 houses, planning permission was granted for the erection of 9 two-storey dwellings in two staggered terraces, plots 69 -77, adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. The car parking for these dwellings was to be accessed off the northern end of a cul-de-sac to Jewel

Close through an archway forming part of Plot 72.

However, because of possible revisions to the layout of the remainder of the site, the developer does not intend to construct the cul-de-sac off Jewel Close, or the dwellings to Plots 69-72. As a result the intention is to provide car parking for Plots 73

-77 to the north of the rear gardens of those dwellings with an access drive off Bridge

Close, to the east. Unlike the previously refused scheme the point of access has been


24

10 December 2009

widened from 5 to 6m to reduce possible congestion and also the access road itself has been widened by a further 1 metre. In addition the layout of the parking spaces has been modified so that the four spaces serving Plots 75 and 76 would be tandem spaces thereby reducing the amount of the site allocated for car parking. The

Highway Authority has confirmed that in line with the previous application, to which they raised no objection, the increased width of the access width to facilitate access/egress manoeuvres is acceptable. Whilst the space available for turning and manoeuvring is limited and may result in cars reversing out onto Bridge Close, this road is lightly trafficked and the Highway Authority does not wish to raise an objection.

As far as the impact on the residents of Bridge Close is concerned, the closest properties to the access would be Nos. 82-84, immediately to the north, which are orientated north-south and which would have their front gardens, which are some 6m in depth, abutting the access where it joins the adopted highway. However given that the frontage of these dwellings would be no closer to the access drive than their current relationship to Bridge Close and also the fact that the driveway would only serve five dwellings and ten parking spaces, it is considered that this relationship is acceptable and would not create undue noise or disturbance to the residents of those properties. The scheme as proposed would comply with the basic amenity criteria as defined by the North Norfolk Design Guide.

Bridge Close currently serves 22 dwellings and associated car parking areas and the road curves at the point where it meets the proposed new access. In terms of the increased traffic movement in Bridge Close and the concerns of local residents regarding highway safety, it is accepted that the carriageway is fairly narrow, at 4.5m wide, and that the access would be onto the outside of the bend. However, given that

Bridge Close only serves a total of 22 dwellings, and therefore has low volumes of traffic and vehicle speeds, coupled with the fact that the Highway Authority has not objected to the proposal, it is not considered that there would be sufficient grounds to justly refusal of the application on highway safety grounds.

A further area of concern is the loss of a part of the green area. When planning permission was granted in 1994 the area to the east and south of number 73-77

Jewel Close was designated as one of five Local Area of Play (LAP) spread across the development, which together with a Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) provided for some 0.25 ha of play space, in accordance with the approved layout drawing. The scheme as proposed would result in the access drive cutting across the northern most section of LAP 2, which has an area of 1000sq.m and would result in a loss of

90sq.m of green space. Given that this loss equates to only some 9% of the total play space within the development it is not considered that this would result in a significant loss of usable play space.

In summary the scheme as proposed would not have a significantly adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or highway safety and would accord with

Development Plan policy.

RECOMMENDATION:-

Delegated approval, subject to no objection from outstanding consultees or representations received prior to the expiry of the site notice and the imposition of appropriate conditions.


25

10 December 2009

4. SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0861 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling; 18, Hadley

Road, Sheringham for Mr Welch

Minor Development - Target Date: 19 October 2009

Case Officer: Miss J Medler


CONSTRAINTS

Residential Area


20020315 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey annexe

Approved, 12 Apr 2002

20071232 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of four detached two-storey dwellings

Withdrawn, 10 Oct 2007

20080836 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of bungalow and erection of three, one-and-a-half-storey dwellings

Refused, 13 Jan 2009

Appeal Dismissed, 12 Oct 2009

THE APPLICATION

Is for the erection of a single-storey dwelling, to the rear of the existing dwelling and annexe.

The proposed dwelling would share the existing vehicular access with 18 Hadley

Road.

The proposed dwelling is of a contemporary design with a flat roof and curved external walls to the north, west and south. No windows are proposed in the north or south elevations. The western elevation would be fully glazed, and the eastern elevation partially glazed.

The building would be approximately 3m in height, 11m at its widest point and 18m in length.

The external walls would be coloured render faced with plants and a sedum roof would be included.

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.

TOWN COUNCIL

Object on the grounds that the ultra modern design is out of keeping with the surrounding properties.

REPRESENTATIONS

Four letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following points:

1. Inappropriate design for surrounding area.

2. Traffic impact unacceptable.

3. Will have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

4. Highway safety.

5. Site overshadowed by trees for much of the day.


26

10 December 2009

6. Disturbance from driveway running along whole of boundary with neighbouring dwelling.

7. Contrary to Core Strategy Policies HO 7 and EN 4.

8. No parking apart from turntable.

9. Less parking for existing bungalow.

10. Drainage not adequate.

CONSULTATIONS

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Object to the application due to the close proximity of the building to significant amenity trees on the southern boundary of the plot, and the lack of sufficient information in the application to determine the effect of the development on the trees.

The semi-mature trees will cast considerable shade on the plot, and although there are no windows to the southern elevation, the perception of the dwelling would be in perpetual shade, this would therefore create the desire to remove or reduce the trees over time.

The trees are in the neighbouring property and have a public amenity value within the local area, therefore their retention is desirable. It appears that the dwelling would be within 3 to 4m of the base of the trees therefore likely to be within the root protection areas. The required foundations for the buildings are likely to cause substantial damage to the root system of the trees, possibly causing instability and affecting the long term health of the trees.

County Council (Highways) - Object on the grounds that the unadopted Hadley Road is inadequate to serve any additional development by reason of its substandard construction, lack of pedestrian facilities and primarily restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions with The Rise and Common Lane. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety contrary to

Development Plan Policy CT 5. A full copy of the Highway Authority's comments is contained in Appendix 9.

Sustainability Co-ordinator - The application partially complies with Policy EN 6. In order to comply in full with Policy EN 6 planning permission should only be granted with the Code for Sustainable homes condition attached (Level 2).

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS


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.




POLICIES

Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999 - saved policies):

Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and distribution of development in the District).

Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).

Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the area).


27

10 December 2009


Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).

Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).

Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking standards other than in exceptional circumstances).


1. Principle of development.

2. Design.

3. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.

4. Highway safety.

5. Trees.

APPRAISAL

The application was deferred at the last meeting in order to enable the applicant and local Members to attend.

The site is located within the residential policy area of Sheringham where new residential development is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with relevant Development Plan Policies.

The Committee will be familiar with this site, which was subject of a site visit during consideration of application 20080836, which was for the demolition of the existing bungalow and annexe and erection of three one-and-a-half-storey dwellings.

The Committee resolved to refuse that application on the grounds that the unadopted Hadley Road serving the site was “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. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with Core Strategy Policy

CT 5. In addition, it was considered that the erection of three dwellings, as proposed, would constitute overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies HO 7 and EN 4 of the adopted North

Norfolk Core Strategy”.

The applicant appealed against the refusal of application 20080836 and a decision from the Planning Inspectorate has recently been received, dismissing the appeal. A copy of the appeal decision is contained in Appendix 9 . It is considered that the

Inspector’s decision to dismiss that appeal is a material consideration in determining the current application (20090861) particularly given that the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are based on highway safety grounds.

With regard to the current application the applicant has reduced the number of new dwellings on the site by proposing to retain the existing dwelling and attached annexe and to erect one single-storey dwelling to the rear.

The proposed dwelling is of a contemporary design, which is considered to be innovative and of high quality, as encouraged in Policy EN 4 of the Core Strategy.

There is a variety of types and styles of dwellings in the immediate area, albeit of more conventional designs, which use a mixture of different materials. As such, it is not considered that there is an overriding local distinctiveness.


28

10 December 2009

It is considered that in order for a single dwelling to be positioned to the rear of the site it requires a specific and individual design to ensure that the scale and massing relates sympathetically to the surrounding area. For example, a more traditionally designed dwelling is likely to have a pitched or hipped roof and it is considered that this could appear intrusive and, depending on height, could have an overbearing impact on the applicant’s own dwelling and that of the neighbouring dwelling to the east.

The proposed dwelling is not excessive in floor area and its contemporary design and materials means that it would appear recessive and minimise potential for any overlooking as the only glazing is to the east and west elevation, and a circular roof light.

The proposed dwelling would comply with the basic amenity criteria to the south, west and east, but not to the north, in relation to the applicant’s own dwelling.

However, the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling is blank and would be 4m away at its closest point. It is considered that this would help to retain some privacy for both properties and would not have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers. Whilst there would be glazing in the eastern elevation this is to the second bedroom and the kitchen. The glazing to the kitchen would be located at an angle looking over the car turntable. It is not therefore considered that this would have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the neighbouring dwelling to the east.

The Committee will note the objection of the Highway Authority which is contained in full in Appendix 9 .

The Committee will also note the objection from the Conservation, Design and

Landscape Manager in relation to the trees on the southern boundary of the site.

Therefore, whilst the contemporary design of the proposed dwelling and its relationship with surrounding neighbouring dwellings are considered acceptable, there are considered to be compelling material planning considerations, namely the impact of the development on adjacent trees together with the highway safety concerns resulting from the substandard accesses at the junction of Hadley Road and Common Lane and Hadley Road and The Rise which indicate that the proposal is contrary to Development Plan Policies and should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:-

The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:

Policy EN 4: Design

Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the unadopted Hadley Road serving the site is of inadequate to serve any additional development by reason of its substandard construction, lack of pedestrian facilities and primarily the restricted visibility at 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, contrary to Development Plan Policy CT 5.


29

10 December 2009

5.

In addition, it is considered that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would not have a significant detrimental impact on the root system and long term health of the trees on the southern boundary of the site.

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION

The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.

As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is discussed.

Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.

SUSTEAD – PF/09/0974 – Erection of Agricultural Storage Building; Farm

Buildings Adjacent Manor House, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark

SUSTEAD – PF/09/1008 – Extension and Alterations to Agricultural Building;

Farm Buildings Adjacent Manor House, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

At the request of Councillor Mrs Sweeney on the grounds of the design of the storage building and the impact of the development on the Conservation Area and the Manor

House.

Site visits recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order to expedite proceedings, taking account of the siting and potential impact of the proposals.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits and also to invite Members of the Development Control Committee (East), as the application will be reported to the Combined Committee (under the new trial arrangement) early in the new year.

BRUMSTEAD - 20091060 - Erection of Two 130m Wind Turbines with associated hard standings, access tracks and substation compound; Grove Farm, Ingham for Meridian Wind Power Limited

The Committee is asked to note that Members of the Development Control

Committee (East) at their meeting on 26 November agreed that this planning application should be the subject of a site visit. The application will be reported to a meeting of the Combined Committee (under the new trial arrangement) in the new year. Accordingly Members of this Committee will be invited to the site visit which is likely to take place on 7 January 2010.

The reason for the site visit is in order to expedite proceedings, taking account of the scale and potential impact of the proposal


30

10 December 2009

6. APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

BACONSTHORPE - PF/09/1020 - Repairs to Roof; Baconsthorpe Hall Barn, Hall

Lane, Baconsthorpe for Mr T Cortauld

(Full Planning Permission)

BARSHAM - NP/09/1025 - Prior Notification of Intention to Erect General

Purpose Agricultural Building; Land at Waterhouse Farm, Fakenham Road, East

Barsham for M J Goodley and Partners

(Prior Notification (Agricultural))

BARSHAM - PF/09/1054 - Renovation and Conversion of Barn to Ancillary

Residential Accommodation; Pear Tree Cottage, Water Lane, East Barsham for

M J Goodley and Partners

(Householder application)

BLAKENEY - PF/09/0856 - Conversion of B1 (Office) to A1 (Retail) with Flat

Above; 4 The Granary, High Street, Blakeney for Mrs Rolfe


BLAKENEY - LA/09/0860 - Alterations to Office to Facilitate Conversion to Shop and Flat; 4 The Granary, High Street, Blakeney for Mrs Rolfe

(Listed Building Alterations)

BLAKENEY - PF/09/0976 - Erection of Three Bay Garage Beneath Extended

Verandah; The Coast House, Back Lane, Blakeney for Moorland


BODHAM - PF/09/0939 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Franklins

Farm, Hart Lane, Bodham for Mr and Mrs W Beeson


BODHAM - PF/09/0955 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension; Highlands,

Cromer Road, Bodham for Mr and Mrs P Clarke


BRININGHAM - PF/09/0954 - Erection of Two-Storey Rear Extension, Porch and

Alterations to First Floor Window in South-East Elevation; Meadowsweet, The

Street, Briningham for Mrs J Broughton


CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LA/09/1049 - Installation of Window and Re-Rendering of

South West Gable Wall; White House, High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr and

Mrs Dennis


FAKENHAM - PF/09/0952 - Change of Use of First Floor from Storage to B1

(Offices) and Formation of Additional Parking; 7-19, Norwich Road, Fakenham for A and B Management Services Limited



31

10 December 2009

FAKENHAM - LA/09/0990 Conversion of Outbuilding to Habitable

Accommodation; 21 , Norwich Road, Fakenham for Mr Thoday


FAKENHAM - PO/09/1037 - Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling and Single-Storey

Dwelling; Lavengro, Heath Lane, Fakenham for EXECUTORS J HALL DEC'D

(Outline Planning Permission)

HELHOUGHTON - PF/09/0965 - Removal of Outbuilding and Erection of Single-

Storey Extension; 36, Park Lane, Helhoughton for Mr R Lodge


HINDRINGHAM - PF/09/0951 - Retention of Single-Storey Side Extension; 66,

Wells Road, Hindringham for Mr M Whyman


HINDRINGHAM - PF/09/1051 - Alterations to Garage, Including New Roof;

Crossfield Farm House, The Street, Hindringham for Mr Nixon


HINDRINGHAM - LA/09/1052 - Alteration to Garage and Insertion of French

Doors; Crossfield Farm House, The Street, Hindringham for Mr Nixon


LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/09/0994 - Change of Use of Land from Agricultural to

Garden and Erection of Extension to Garage; Meadow Cottage, The Street, Little

Barningham for Mr and Mrs Thurtell


RAYNHAM - PF/09/0946 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Wren

Cottage, Helhoughton Road, West Raynham for Mr and Mrs Mason


STODY - AN/09/0953 - Display of Non-Illuminated Advertisement; Stody Hall

Barns, Brinton Road, Stody for Stody Estate Limited

(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)

TATTERSETT - PF/09/1012 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Osier

Carr Barn, The Street, Tatterford for Mr N Chamberlain


WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/09/0957 - Erection of Single-Storey Front

Extension; Shipyard Studio, East End, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr B Scott


WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/09/0960 - Alterations to Facilitate Erection of

Single-Storey Extension; Shipyard Studio, East End, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr

B Scott


WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/09/1019 - Erection of Summerhouse/Shed; 49,

Staithe Street, Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr R Garms



32

10 December 2009

7.

APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

No Items.

APPEALS SECTION

8.

NEW APPEALS

UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to Two

Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling;

Former Red Lion Public House, The Street, Upper Sheringham for John

Ashton's Children's Settlement Trust

INFORMAL HEARING

9.

PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS

HOLT - PF/09/0053 - Use of Land for Siting of Victorian Gallopers; North Norfolk

Railway, Holt Station, Cromer Road, High Kelling for Miss Jones

INFORMAL HEARING

10.

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS

FAKENHAM - PF/09/0214 - Erection of One and a Half Storey Side Extension; 73,

Norwich Road, Fakenham for Mrs Rose

FAKENHAM - PO/08/1510 - Residential Development; Land North of Parker

Drive, Fakenham for New Hall Properties

LANGHAM - PF/09/0197 - Part Retention and Erection of 2 Metres High

Boundary Fence; Langham Lodge, Cockthorpe Road, Langham for Mr Blackwell

RYBURGH (GREAT WARD) - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning

Permission: 20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling

Unit; 29, Station Road, Great Ryburgh for Mrs Buxton

WARHAM - PF/08/1310 - Erection of Two Dwellings; Adjacent The Reading

Room, The Street, Warham for Holkham Estate

SITE VISIT:- 26 November 2009

11.

APPEAL DECISIONS


33

10 December 2009

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 10 DECEMBER 2009

Products

Support

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 10 DECEMBER 2009

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib