OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 14 AUGUST 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as
Condition No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BLAKENEY - 20071574 - Installation of underground LPG supply tanks;
Blakeney Hotel The Quay for Blakeney Hotel
Target Date :06 Dec 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Installation of three no. 2000 litre tanks for the storage of LPG to supply the hotel
kitchen. The three identical cylindrical tanks would have a diameter of 1m and a
length of 3.04m. They are to be set upon a concrete plinth measuring 6.8m x 4.6m in
plan and set 1.44m below existing ground level. Following installation the whole
structure would be backfilled to existing ground level leaving only the three circular
lockable access hatches visible at ground level.
In response to local concerns amended plans have been submitted showing the
installation moved approximately 21m northward, in a position closer to the hotel
complex and further from the neighbouring properties.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Delegated authority to approve the application was given at the meeting on 22 May
subject to re-advertisement of the amended proposals. The application is referred in
the light of further comments received.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments in respect of original proposal.
Object:1. Policy 122 - Hotels - We feel that this application is detrimental to the effect on the
surrounding area, in particular the residential amenities of nearby occupiers - Letters
of objection have been received from many residents in the vicinity.
2. We feel that this application is not appropriate to the respective settlement in terms
of the over-all design and location of the site.
3. Concerns with regard to the close proximity of this proposal to boundaries of
neighbouring properties.
4. Safety aspect concerns.
Comments awaited in respect of amended proposals.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
14 August 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Representations received in support of original proposals.
Letters of objection received from the owners of nine adjoining and nearby dwellings
and two local landlords with properties in the vicinity of the site (Blakeney
Neighbourhood Housing Society Ltd and Blakeney Timeshare Management Ltd.)
summarised:1. Major hazard within residential area. Risk of explosion within 3m of closest
neighbouring dwelling.
2. Possible odour pollution.
3. Inappropriate development of an industrial scale within the Conservation Area.
4. Possible damage to neighbouring properties arising from construction
work/excavations.
5. The proposed location is at the furthest point on the site away from the hotel
kitchen. Could an alternative location be found closer to the kitchen and further from
the neighbouring properties?
6. Source of constant anxiety to adjoining residents.
7. There have been instances of serious damage arising in circumstances where fuel
of this type has ignited.
8. Any commercial benefits to the applicant should not be seen to outweigh the
impact on the lives of surrounding residents.
9. Installation is proposed only 3m from an existing facing bedroom window with no
fence or garden between.
10. Proposed installation would appear to conflict with relevant Regulations and LP
Gas Association code of practice.
11. Possible use of chlorate based weedkillers in the hotel garden would present a
fire risk.
12. Given the use of the hotel garden it will be impossible to keep people away from
the installation (particularly children).
13. How will the applicant prevent people smoking or neighbours having
bonfires/barbecues in close proximity?
14. How is the tanker delivery bay (in the adjacent car park) to be kept clear on
delivery days?
15. Given the public nature of the car park and hotel garden how will the public be
excluded from the area when fuel is delivered?
16. Proposed arrangement would not allow the delivery vehicle driver to have a clear
view from the vehicle of the tanks.
17. Existing trees and deep rooted shrubs may cause damage to the tanks.
18. Concerns regarding health and safety risks associated with LPG in the event of
leakage (risk of explosion and asphyxiant property of LPG vapour).
19. Concerns regarding the accuracy of the submitted drawings.
20. Applicant states that the installation will be screened from public view. It will
however be directly visible from neighbouring properties adjoining the site.
21. The full extent of the soil bank at the site perimeter is unclear from the submitted
drawings.
22. Submitted drawings do not show the position of the existing tank nor the location
of the hotel kitchen.
23. Location of the gardener's shed is not indicated.
24. Location of the connecting pipe from the tanks to the hotel is not shown. The
length of the pipe that would be necessary gives rise to concerns about possible
leaks.
25. Proposed location appears to have been chosen to minimise the risks to hotel
staff/guests at the expense of the hotel’s neighbours.
26. No justification has been provided with the application of the need for the
installation nor the choice of location.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
14 August 2008
27. The private residential road is unsuitable to accommodate heavy delivery lorries.
28. Proposal to increase the size of the hotel car park will detract from appearance of
the area.
29. Proposed installation is 3m from domestic oil storage tank (2000 litres) in
neighbouring garden.
One e-mail received from nearby resident raising no objection providing the safety
issues in relation to neighbouring properties are properly considered by the Council's
Environmental Control Officer.
Representations received in respect of amended proposals:Letter from adjoining resident (summarised):1. Concerns for safety remain.
2. Proposals do not comply with relevant regulations and Codes of Practice.
3. Proposals fail to comply with the installer's own guidelines with regard to sightlines
for deliveries and proximity of trees.
4. Plans do not indicate position of connecting pipes between the proposed storage
tanks and the hotel.
5. Proposals would detract from appearance of the Conservation Area/Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - No comments.
Environment Agency (Waste Regulation) - The Environment Agency has assessed
this application as having a low environmental risk. Due to workload prioritisation we
are unable to make a full response to this application.
Environmental Health - Comments in respect of original proposal: Based on the
information provided by the applicant to support this application I am satisfied that the
proposal meets the requirements of the current legislation. Although the location is
not ideal given the proximity of the tanks to the residential properties I have no further
comments to make as I feel there would be no adverse environmental effects as the
current separation distance guidance has been met.
Comments in respect of amended proposal: No objections as long as the
requirements of the industry code of practice in relation to storage and delivery are
met.
The amended location which is further away from the location of neighbouring
residential properties is preferred to the previous location.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
14 August 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
2. Impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residents.
3. Health and safety issues.
APPRAISAL
Delegated authority was given at the meeting on 22 May to approve the application.
The application had previously been deferred to enable an amended position for the
installation to be negotiated further away from the neighbouring residential
properties. Delegated authority was dependent upon the amended proposals being
re-advertised and the receipt of no new objections.
The Blakeney Hotel and grounds lie within the selected small village boundary and
are designated as residential in the Local Plan. The site also falls within the
Conservation Area.
The proposals envisage significant works within part of the hotel garden. Despite the
substantial nature of the works the completed project would not significantly alter the
appearance of the site. The tanks would be underground and existing ground levels
would be maintained with the reintroduction of grass over the affected area. Above
ground a soil bund approximately 700mm high together with possible chain link
fencing would be installed around the perimeter of the installation. The submitted
drawing also indicates a new 1.8m close boarded fence between the hotel garden
and the car parking area on the road side (west) of the proposed LPG tanks.
However, this fencing, together with the resulting reshaping of the car park, do not
require planning permission and are not therefore under consideration.
Whilst there would clearly be some alteration to the appearance of the hotel garden it
is not considered that the proposals would detract from the appearance or character
of the Conservation Area. Accordingly the development accords with Local Plan
Policy 42.
The proposed development would be ancillary to the existing use of the site. There is
no material change of use and on this basis there can be no objection in principle to
the proposals. The amended proposals have positioned the tanks considerably
further away from the neighbouring dwellings. However, in the light of the latest
concerns raised by the neighbour and the comments of the Environmental Protection
Team Leader the applicant's agent has been asked to respond to the suggestion that
the amended proposals may conflict with the L.P. Gas Association code of practice.
Members will be updated orally on this point.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
14 August 2008
However, it is not considered that any conflict with the L.P. Gas Association code of
practice would be grounds to justify a refusal of planning permission. The proposals
would accord with current Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the further comments of the
Environmental Health Officer and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
2.
BLAKENEY - 20080823 - Raising of roof to provide first floor accommodation
and erection of one-and-a-half-storey extensions; Villeroche Langham Road for
Mr and Mrs J Scargill
Target Date :18 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Site of Special Scientific Interest
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080503 - (Full Planning Permission) - Raising of roof to provide first floor
accommodation and erection of one-and-a-half-storey extensions (including annexe)
Withdrawn, 30 Apr 2008
THE APPLICATION
Enlargement of existing detached bungalow by the addition of additions to the west,
north and east elevations and an increase in the ridge height. The various additions
would result in an increase in the footprint of the building from approximately
179sq.m to approximately 241sq.m and the ridge height would increase from
approximately 4.2m to a maximum of 6.45m. Externally the works would be
constructed in a mix of red brick, flint, dark stained boarding and clay pantiles.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact of the proposals in the landscape arising from the increased height of the
building.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects. We feel that any development should not exceed the height of the existing
bungalow and would, therefore, prefer to see a single-storey property in this location.
The proposed increase in height is of major concern and thus the visual impact this
would have in this area. This location is on the edge of the SSSI Esker site and
should, therefore, be considered accordingly. Policy no 13 Design and Setting of
Development refers.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - No objection. Impose standard condition regarding potentially
contaminated land.
Natural England - No objection.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
14 August 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 64: Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside (specifies design criteria.
Extensions should be subordinate to original dwelling).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Visual impact of the proposed development within the wider landscape/Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
APPRAISAL
This application follows the withdrawal of application reference 20080503 earlier this
year. The earlier proposals envisaged substantially greater additions to the property
and there were concerns that the proposals would be damaging to the appearance of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The current proposals arise from
discussions with the applicants' agent following the withdrawal of the earlier
application.
The present bungalow stands within a former quarry. Accordingly the building is set
at a significantly lower level than surrounding land to the south, east and west. The
proposed additions would preserve the existing eaves height. It is the increase in the
height of the roof that would be potentially visible from the surrounding countryside.
However, it is only really from open land to the north-east that the enlarged building
might be more visible and on this side the site is fairly well screened by an existing
field hedge that adjoins a public footpath. Furthermore the current proposals
envisage the planting of a new hedge parallel to the existing hedge but within the
application site. This, together with the existing hedge will serve to minimise the
impact of the development in the wider landscape.
The site lies within the countryside as defined in Local Plan and Local Development
Framework policies. Local Plan and Local Development Framework policies seek to
control the extent of extensions to houses in the countryside in order to protect the
unspoilt character of the rural landscape. The current proposals conflict with the
requirements of Local Plan and Local Development Framework policy in that the
extensions are not visually subordinate and will result in a significant increase in
height. However, for the reasons outlined above it is not considered that the
development would result in any significant harm and for this reason it is not
considered that a refusal of planning permission would be reasonable or justifiable.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
14 August 2008
The proposal would not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to conditions including one requiring the provision of the
proposed planting on the north-east boundary.
3.
CORPUSTY - 20080635 - Erection of first floor rear extension and single-storey
extension/conservatory; 5 Hills Close for Mr A Greenacre
Target Date :10 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr C Judson
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19811416 - Proposed bungalow
Approved, 11 Sep 1981
19831266 - Proposed dwelling and garage
Approved, 23 Sep 1983
19841123 - Bungalow and garage
Approved, 31 Aug 1984
THE APPLICATION
Erection of first floor rear extension and single-storey extension/conservatory.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred for a site visit at a previous Committee Meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application as it changes the character of the estate, sets a precedent
for future developments and the proposed high level windows will adversely affect
the privacy of neighbours.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns
(summarised):1. The proposed roof line will be visible from objector's dwelling and spoil the existing
site lines.
2. Changes character of area.
3. Proposal would set a precedent for future applications.
4. Overshadowing.
5. Overlooking.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
14 August 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact of development on character of and appearance of locality.
2. Impact of development on privacy and amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting for a Committee site visit.
The application site is located in a designated residential area as defined in the
adopted Local Plan. It is in the Countryside policy area in the Core Strategy. In terms
of the Core Strategy the proposal has to be considered against Policy H0 8. Any
such extension should not result in a significant increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling and should not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside.
The site contains a one-and-a-half-storey residential dwelling with front and rear
dormer windows situated in the steeply pitched roofslope. The dwelling is
characteristic of the estate in which it is located. Residential dwellings are located to
the north and south. To the west is a single-storey residential dwelling set at a lower
level to the application site.
The proposal comprises of two elements: - The erection of a ground floor rear
extension to replace an existing conservatory and wc and the erection of a first floor
rear extension to provide additional first floor accommodation.
The proposed ground floor extension is to replace an existing single-storey extension
and would increase the dwellings footprint by 1.5sq.m. This aspect of the
development raises no objections and is considered an acceptable form of
development with regard to Development Plan policies.
The second aspect of the proposal - a first floor extension achieved through the
raising of the rear roof eaves - would result in the existing one-and-a-half-storey
dwelling having the appearance of a two-storey dwelling when observed from the
west. The immediate locality is characterised by one-and-a-half-storey dwellings.
However, the proposal would not alter the character or appearance of the estate
significantly since the dwelling would visually remain as existing when observed from
wider public viewpoints. It will not impact on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
14 August 2008
The proposed first floor extension would not increase the height or footprint of the
dwelling but will increase the dwellings overall mass and scale. However, the
development would not overshadow neighbouring dwellings and the proposed
increase is considered acceptable with no impact on the character of the locality.
Situated to the west are residential dwellings set at a lower level to the application
site. At present there is a dormer window in the roof slope of the west elevation
serving an existing bathroom. The proposal involves the insertion of two first floor
windows in the west facing elevation to serve a bathroom and en-suite. The
proposed windows would not significantly alter the existing situation and would not
result in material overlooking or loss of privacy beyond the present situation. The use
of obscured glazing as recommended would ensure the amenity of neighbouring
dwellings is preserved.
The proposal accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) The two windows on the west elevation of the first floor extension hereby permitted
shall be installed with obscured glazing with a degree of obscurity equivalent to
Pilkington level 5. The glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with this
detail unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no window shall be inserted in the west, north or south elevation
of the first floor extension hereby permitted unless planning permission has first been
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy 13, criterion (a)(x) of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan as amplified by
paragraphs 3.31-3.36 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
3) To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan, as amplified by paragraphs
3.31-3.36 of the explanatory text.
4.
HOLT - 20080943 - Erection of detached three storey dwelling; land rear of 58
Grove Lane for Mr and Mrs D Foreman
Target Date :14 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Landfill Gas Site Buffer Zone (250m)
Residential
Contaminated Land
Contaminated Land Buffer
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061386 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of four single-storey dwellings
Withdrawn, 26 Oct 2006
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a detached three-storey dwelling located within a disused pit
previously used for the extraction of sand and clay.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
14 August 2008
The basement level of the dwelling would be located in the lowest part of the pit with
the two upper floors above constructed in line with the surrounding ground level.
The overall height of the three-storey dwelling would be approximately 10.8m.
However, as the basement will be located in the lowest part of the pit only
approximately 7.8m will project above the surrounding ground level giving the
appearance of a two-storey dwelling.
The materials proposed are white rendered walls with a brick base, dark brown
joinery and concrete imitation slate roof tiles.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor High having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Impact upon highway safety.
2. Impact upon neighbouring properties.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of poor access to the site.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:1. Proposed roof tiles not in keeping with the roofing material used generally in the
area.
2. A fence should also be erected on eastern boundary of the site.
3. Out of scale with surrounding properties.
4. Detrimental impact to adjacent properties.
5. Handful of remaining trees should be retained.
6. All but eleven trees removed from the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - Subject to the provision of a 2m visibility splay across
the complete site frontage, on land under control of applicant, with Grove Lane and
the access being strictly constructed as detailed on the submitted site plan (minimum
4.5m width for the first 6m into the site from the nearside edge of the highway
carriageway) I am able to inform you that there is no principle highway objection to
the proposal.
Environment Agency (Inspectorate of Pollution) - There is a possibility that some
level of landfill gas may be associated with this former landfill site and it should be
considered by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant. In the absence of any
investigations all buildings and associated services should be designed and
constructed with due regard for the possible presence of landfill gas.
Environmental Health - No objection. Site investigation for contamination condition
required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
14 August 2008
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 16: Pollution Control (aims to protect public amenity and natural habitats
against potentially polluting developments) (prevents sensitive development near to
existing polluting environments).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of principle of development.
2. Visual impact.
3. Design.
4. Trees.
5. Impact upon neighbouring properties.
6. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Holt where appropriate
residential development is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to
complying with other relevant policies in the Local Plan. In accordance with the Core
Strategy Holt is designated as a Principal Settlement where the principle of
residential development remains acceptable.
There is a wide variety in the type of designs, scale and materials of dwellings in the
immediate area. Therefore, it is not considered that this 'modern' design and the
materials proposed would be out of keeping with or have a significant detrimental
impact upon the appearance of the area. Due to the mix of development in the
immediate area it is not considered that there is an overriding local distinctiveness.
Given this the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Policy EN4 of the Core
Strategy.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
14 August 2008
In accordance with Policies EN4 and HO7 of the Core Strategy the density of
development should make the most efficient use of land. However, Policy HO7 states
that the precise density will be determined by having regard to the immediate context
and on site constraints. Clearly, in this case there is a site constraint, due to the
unusual nature of the site containing a large pit and significant changes in ground
levels. This restricts how the site can be developed and the density which is why only
one dwelling is proposed. In addition there is a mix of density in the immediate area
and it is therefore not considered that the erection of one dwelling would fail to
protect or enhance the character of the area.
The proposed dwelling is designed and orientated so that the primary glazed
elevation faces south which would maximise solar gain, which would accord with
Policy EN6 of the Core Strategy.
The existing trees on the site are to be retained following informal discussions with
the applicant prior to the submission of this application. Whilst the site was a wooded
area it formed part of the rear garden to 58 Grove Lane where none of the trees were
protected or considered to be of significant visual amenity value to protect and could
therefore be removed at any time without the consent of the District Council. At the
time of writing this report comments were still awaited from the Landscape Officer.
However, subject to no objections being received the proposal is considered to be
acceptable and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the existing
trees on the site.
Due to the location of the site behind 58 Grove Lane, the site is surrounded on all
sides by neighbouring properties. There are two-storey dwellings to the north and
north-west, and bungalows to the south west, south and east. However, given the
large area of the site and distance to the neighbouring dwellings the relationship with
the neighbouring dwellings is considered to be acceptable and the proposed dwelling
complies with the basic amenity criteria.
Whilst there are windows in the eastern elevation the main glazed areas are
positioned at angles to the neighbouring property to the east so that they do not
directly face the neighbouring property. However, there is a bedroom window in the
eastern elevation of the basement, but that is located in the pit which would prevent
any overlooking. There is also a door to a study in the eastern elevation at the
ground floor. However, whilst there is a Holly hedge on the eastern boundary it has
recently been cut back and leaves the eastern boundary with the neighbouring
dwelling quite open. Therefore, discussions are currently taking place with the agent
regarding the erection of a fence and hedge planting along the eastern boundary to
improve privacy between the proposed and neighbouring dwelling. Subject to the
receipt of details regarding a satisfactory boundary treatment it is not considered that
the proposed dwelling would have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy
and amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings.
A new access is proposed off Grove Lane running alongside the existing dwelling of
No.58. The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has no objection to the
application.
Therefore, subject to no objections from the Landscape Officer and the receipt of
acceptable details regarding the proposed boundary treatment for the eastern
boundary the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policy.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
14 August 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager, the receipt of satisfactory details regarding
the proposed boundary treatment for the eastern boundary and imposition of
appropriate conditions.
5.
HOLT - 20081006 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; land adjacent
21 Pearsons Close for Mr P Doy
Target Date :25 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080602 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of garage and sheds and
erection of single-storey dwelling and garage
Withdrawn, 19 May 2008
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a detached single-storey dwelling on a site area of
approximately 300sq.m. Outline application and all matters are reserved for
subsequent approval.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Size of the site.
2. Close proximity to neighbours.
TOWN COUNCIL
No Objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:1. Concerned about impact on existing drainage system because ten properties are
already served by a 4 inch pipe which is in a state of collapse and has been a lot of
trouble in the past.
2. Access is very poor and difficult, particularly as a result of traffic from Gresham's
School.
3. Parking and turning is already difficult.
See Design and Access Statement from applicant at Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Requested further information from the applicant
regarding access. Committee will be updated orally.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
14 August 2008
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle.
2. Impact on the form and character of the area.
3. Impact on amenity of adjacent residents.
4. Highway safety and parking.
APPRAISAL
The application site is situated within the residential area of Holt within which there
would be no objection to the principle of residential development subject to
satisfactory compliance with other relevant Core Strategy and Local Plan policies.
The primary consideration is therefore whether a single-storey dwelling could be
satisfactorily located on-site without detriment to the form and character of the area
and the amenity of adjacent residents as well as provide satisfactory levels of
parking.
The applicant has provided an indicative layout and design showing a property with a
footprint of approximately 98sq.m. Whilst officers consider the indicated design and
layout generally poor, it does nonetheless demonstrate that a modest dwelling can
be provided on the site, which would still allow sufficient space for parking and
amenity space.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
14 August 2008
In respect of impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, subject to appropriate
design, location of windows and suitable boundary treatment, a single-storey dwelling
in this location would be unlikely to have any significant detrimental impact on the
amenity of adjacent residents and would be acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy
13 and Core Strategy Policy EN 4.
In respect of drainage concerns raised by representations, should Committee resolve
to approve the application, the imposition of a condition requiring a drains survey to
confirm the suitability of the existing system would be recommended.
Further information has been requested from the applicant regarding access to the
site to satisfy the requirements of County Council Highways. Committee will be
updated orally in respect of this matter.
It is considered that a well detailed and designed dwelling would not be detrimental to
the form and character of the area nor would it be detrimental to the amenity of
adjacent residents.
The principle of the development is acceptable and would not significantly conflict
with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve
the application subject to no objections from County Council Highways
following receipt of satisfactory access details and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
6.
SHERINGHAM - 20080566 - Continued use of ground floor as two separate
residential units; 17 Waterbank Road for Mr C Simpson
Target Date :29 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071779 - (Full Planning Permission) - Continued use of ground floor flat as 2
separate residential units
Refused, 09 Jan 2008
THE APPLICATION
The subdivision of a ground floor flat to provide a bed-sit unit and a two-bed unit. The
work which has already been carried out has resulted in a total of four self contained
flats within this two-and-a-half storey building.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah having regard to the following planning issue:
Relationship with neighbouring properties.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
14 August 2008
TOWN COUNCIL
Strong objections on the grounds that the property is being operated as an
unregistered and unregulated satellite care facility business from a residential
dwelling and there has not been an application made for change of use to the
property.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection from adjoining resident and Sheringham Chamber of Trade
and Commerce (summarised):1. Anti-social behaviour by residents of the flats.
2. Building is being run as an extension to the applicant's care home/business.
3. Concerned that the growth of unregistered homes for mental health patients is
causing friction between residents and near neighbours and this could spill into the
town causing problems for shop keepers.
4. Approval of the application would be detrimental to the town and establish an
undesirable precedent.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 61: Conversion into Flats (specifies criteria in terms of location, size,
amenities, highway safety).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appropriate development within residential area?
2. Size of the proposed units relative to Local Plan requirements.
3. Does the applicant's use of the property constitute a change of use from
residential to residential care home?
APPRAISAL
This application follows the refusal of application reference 20071779. That
application was refused solely on the basis that one of the two proposed flats failed
to meet the minimum floorspace requirement stated in Local Plan Policy 61 which
requires flats to have a minimum 22sq.m habitable floorspace.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
14 August 2008
By redesigning the ground floor layout the current proposals have addressed the
previous reason for refusal. The smaller of the two units now has 22.5sq.m of
habitable floorspace.
In common with the previous application the proposals include no additional parking
provision. In this location the Local Plan and Local Development Framework parking
standards would require the provision of one additional parking place in connection
with the additional unit. However, in view of the nature of the proposed
accommodation together with the position of the site which adjoins the town centre
as designated in the Local Plan and Local Development Framework it was previously
considered that the need for further off street parking could not be substantiated
here. In this regard Members will note that County Council Highways have raised no
objection to the current application.
The proposed development would be appropriate within the residential area. The
accommodation is registered with Norfolk County Council under their scheme for
supported living for people with mental health problems. However, the service
specification precludes the provision of personal care to residents and on this basis
the Council's Legal Advisor has concluded that occupation of the flats would not be
materially different to the occupation of any other similar residential unit. On this
basis it has to be accepted that the only issue to be addressed under this application
is the creation of the additional flat. The possibility of planning permission being
required for a change of use to care home does not arise.
It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in this location and
would not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:- APPROVE
7.
SHERINGHAM - 20080836 - Demolition of bungalow and erection of three, oneand-a-half-storey dwellings; 18 Hadley Road for Mr K Welch
Target Date :22 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20020315 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey annexe
Approved, 12 Apr 2002
20041394 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling and
detached garage
Approved, 30 Sep 2004
20071232 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
erection of four detached two-storey dwellings
Withdrawn, 10 Oct 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to erect three detached one-and-a-half-storey dwellings on a site
area of approximately 0.14ha (0.35 acres). The three properties would be arranged
to, in effect, turn the corner of Hadley Road, although the dwellings would be set
back behind the existing building line. The properties have a typical eaves height of
2.5m and a maximum ridge height of 6.5m and have been designed to be of
"traditional" appearance.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
14 August 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Nelson having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Highway safety.
2. Form and character.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:1. Extreme overdevelopment and loss of privacy.
2. Plot 1 will reduce light reaching Number 16.
3. Plot 1 should be moved further in an easterly direction.
4. Extra traffic will have a considerable impact on residential amenity of adjacent
properties.
5. Current access is inadequate and too narrow.
6. Additional traffic would be hazardous to existing users of Hadley Road including
pedestrians.
7. Additional development would increase the damage to Hadley Road.
8. Access onto Common Lane is very dangerous.
9. Existing drainage system is already inadequate to cope and there already has
been some flooding of gardens.
10. The position of the bin store close to adjacent properties could give rise to smells
and would be a health hazard.
11. There are contradictions on the plans regarding trees.
12. Dwellings are unattractive, unsuitable and out of keeping.
13. Lack of parking spaces.
14. The site has no frontage.
15. Should be restricted to bungalows.
See Design and Access Statement from applicant and additional Highway Statement
at Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Means of access for fire appliances is OK. However, I
notice that some first floor bedrooms are served by velux windows. These need to be
bigger for both means of escape and ventilation. Also they need to be closer to the
eaves.
County Council (Highways) - Objection on grounds of restricted visibility at junction
with The Rise and Common Lane, substandard construction and lack of pedestrian
facilities on Hadley Road.
Environmental Health - Recommend condition regarding details of waste disposal
and how the existing dwelling will be demolished without causing noise and dust to
neighbouring properties.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
14 August 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle.
2. Impact on form and character of the area.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application site is situated within the residential area of Sheringham within which
there would be no objection to the principle of residential redevelopment of the site
subject to satisfactory compliance with other relevant Core Strategy and Local Plan
policies.
The application site is a corner plot with limited street frontage where the potential
visual impact of the proposal within the street scene would be lessened to a degree
by virtue of its location. Nonetheless, development at first floor level would still be
publicly visible and the proposal should still be compatible with the form and
character of the area.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
14 August 2008
In this instance, the submitted proposals are unusual in their form in respect of the
first floor elements and have been designed so as to reduce overlooking potential, to
the detriment of architectural quality. As such, it is considered that the proposed
development would, by virtue of its inappropriate architectural style, location, scale,
visual impact and resultant impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property to the
north, fail to harmonise with the townscape and general character of the area and
thus fail to meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN4 and Local Plan Policy
13 in respect of the design and setting of development.
In respect of overlooking and impact on amenity, the dwellings would have limited
adverse impact on neighbouring properties with the exception of Plot 1, which may
reduce daylight and sunlight to number 16 Hadley Road over and above the existing
annexe already present at No.18.
In respect of parking provision, each dwelling would have at least one car parking
space. This provision would meet the minimum requirements for dwellings with more
than two bedrooms situated elsewhere within towns.
In respect of highway safety considerations, the Highway Authority has objected on
grounds of insufficient visibility at the junctions with The Rise and Common Lane and
on secondary grounds regarding substandard construction of Hadley Road and lack
of pedestrian facilities. This is a fundamental objection that the applicant has failed to
overcome since submitting the earlier withdrawn scheme. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Core Strategy Policy CT5 and Local Plan Policy 147.
The proposal is contrary to adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Local Plan on 2 April 1998 for all
planning purposes. The following saved policies as listed in the Direction issued by
Government Office for the East of England on 14 September 2007 are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development
Policy 147: New Accesses
Furthermore, the District Council received on 15 July 2008 the Inspector's binding
report declaring the North Norfolk Core Strategy to be sound. The following policies
are considered relevant to the proposed development.
Policy EN 4: Design
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
The unadopted Hadley Road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve
any additional development by reason of its substandard construction, lack of
pedestrian facilities and primarily the restricted visibility available at the adjacent road
junctions with The Rise and Common Lane (U10138 and U10137). The proposal, if
permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
Contrary to saved North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 147 and Core Strategy Policy CT
5.
Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development would, by virtue of its
inappropriate architectural style, location, scale, visual impact and resultant impact
on the amenity of the neighbouring property to the north, fail to harmonise with the
townscape and general character of the area and thus fail to meet the requirements
of Policy 13 and Core Strategy Policy EN 4 in respect of the design and setting of
development.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
14 August 2008
8.
SHERINGHAM - 20080937 - Demolition of public house and erection of three
two-storey terraced dwellings; Sherry N Ham 18 Beech Avenue for Homan
Property Investments
Target Date :13 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19831582 - Extension and change of use to licensed bar
Approved, 06 Feb 1984
19860374 - Illuminated sign
Approved, 29 Apr 1986
20060929 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from A4 (public house) to a
mixed use of A4 (public house) and A5 (take-away)
Temporarily Approved, 21 Aug 2006
20070562 - (Full Planning Permission) - Continued use as A4 (public house) and A5
(take-away)
Approved, 25 May 2007
20080526 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of public house and erection of
four three-storey terraced dwellings
Refused, 05 Jun 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to erect a terrace of three two-storey properties to replace the
existing Sherry "n" Ham public house. The development would have a footprint of
approximately 174sq.m, a height to eaves of 4.6m and a height to ridge of
approximately 7.4m. Parking for at least one vehicle per dwelling is proposed.
Garden depths of 8m are proposed for each unit.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of an earlier
application, representations received and Local Development Framework policy
issues.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:1. Concerned about overlooking from three dwellings over properties along Cypress
Road.
2. Loss of privacy as a result of overlooking.
3. Need to prevent further development if permission is granted.
4. Concerned about loss of public house (PH).
5. Public House was run successfully for a number of years.
6. PH has been closed for a number of days each week, which may contribute to that
demise.
7. A new management strategy and advertising drive may help increase trade.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
14 August 2008
8. Sherry "n" Ham is the only pub in the vicinity within walking distance.
9. Over-development of the site.
10. Unacceptable in terms of size.
11. Red brick would jar with the subdued tones of the surrounding properties.
12. Design would be out of keeping with adjacent properties.
See Design and Access Statement from applicant at Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
Development Control Committee (West)
22
14 August 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle.
2. Loss of the public house/restaurant.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
4. Impact on form and character of the area.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application site is situated within the residential area of Sheringham within which
there would be no objection to the principle of residential development subject to
satisfactory compliance with other relevant Core Strategy and Local Plan policies.
The Sherry "n" Ham sits adjacent to two other commercial premises. Whilst Policy
CT3 of the new Core Strategy seeks to retain local facilities and services including
public houses, there is no specific saved Local Plan policy to seek retention of public
houses in towns. Given that the earlier application relating to this site was submitted
and determined under the saved Local Plan policies and this application was
submitted prior to the receipt of the Inspector's report regarding the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy, it would seem unreasonable to now ask the
applicant to demonstrate that the business is commercially unviable and go through a
twelve month marketing exercise, which are the requirements of Policy CT3. As
such, whilst the comments of local residents regarding the loss of a local facility are
noted and its loss could be considered regrettable, there could be no substantive
reason to refuse permission to redevelop the site based purely on a loss of the public
house/restaurant itself under the saved North Norfolk Local Plan. Furthermore, there
are clearly other public houses in the town which will remain.
The existing public house is two-storey in height and there is already a degree of
overlooking potential from the first floor rear windows toward the rear gardens of
properties on Cypress Crescent and Lime Grove. The comments of the occupiers of
No.5 Cypress Crescent are noted in respect of the proposed new dwellings. Whilst
there would be six windows looking south at first floor level compared with the two
currently in situ, the larger windows serving bedroom one would be further away from
neighbouring properties than in the existing public house and the two-storey rear
extension would limit views to a degree. The smaller bedroom windows would be a
similar distance from neighbouring properties as existing. In any event whilst the
properties would have garden depths ranging from 8m to 14m, the required 18m
window to window distance under the basic amenity criteria would be observed.
In respect of parking provision, each dwelling would have a single car parking space.
This provision would meet the minimum requirements for dwellings with more than
two bedrooms situated elsewhere within towns.
The proposed development would not significantly conflict with saved adopted Local
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
14 August 2008
9.
SHERINGHAM - 20081020 - Erection of replacement salvation army hall;
Salvation Army Hall Cremer Street for The Salvation Army
Target Date :28 Aug 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of the existing Salvation Army hall at the junction of Cooperative Street and Cremer Street and its replacement with a purpose built hall.
The proposed hall would have a total ground floor area of 437sq.m consisting of the
main worship hall and band, a secondary hall, kitchen and male and female toilets. In
addition there would be a foyer to the northern western corner of the building with a
staircase leading to the first floor, which would consist of a balcony to the worship
hall, counselling and general office and a musician’s room, which would together
have a total floor area of 167sq.m.
The exterior of the building would be finished in a mix of red and buff brickwork with a
hipped gable end to Cremer Street finished in flintwork with a central full height
window lighting the worship hall. Whilst at the junction of Cremer and Co-operative
Street there would be a further full height glazed opening.
An amended plan has been received from the applicant's agent which shows a mix of
red pantiles and reconstituted slate to the hipped roofs, which have been utilised in
order to reduce the scale and massing of the building.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request Councillor Bevan-Jones having regarding to the following planning
issues:
1. Impact on neighbouring properties.
2. Impact on the appearance of the area.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter has been received from a resident whose property backs onto the site to
which is attached a petition signed by fifty eight other local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. Part of the building is within the Sheringham Conservation Area and could very
easily be renovated.
2. The rebuilding does not afford any car parking and the increased number of
people using the hall would exacerbate existing problems of car parking in this part of
Sheringham.
3. The back wall of our house adjoins the party wall and we are very concerned
about the implication the demolition will have on our lives whilst the works are being
carried out.
4. The raising of the roof would result in a loss of light and privacy.
5. The works would have a detrimental effect on traffic in the surrounding area
particularly pedestrians and vehicles using Co-operative Street, which is one way.
Development Control Committee (West)
24
14 August 2008
In addition nine letters of objection have been received which raise the following
concerns (summarised):1. The lack of car parking will only contribute to the existing parking problems in the
area, particularly on Sunday morning when vehicles are parked on the pavements.
2. The building, due to its scale and massing will be very overpowering for the
properties immediately to the east and could result in a loss of light and privacy.
3. So many old Sheringham buildings have sadly been lost and the existing building
should be renovated.
4. A new site should be found for the hall in a less restricted area which would have
safe parking for the congregation.
5. The demolition of the existing hall could result in structural problems for adjoining
properties.
6. The demolition would result in significant noise and disturbance.
7. Holiday cottages to the east of the site could result in a loss of earnings whilst the
works are undertaken.
8. During construction the development could result in significant traffic disruption
particularly in Co-operative Street, which is one way, and Beeston Road.
9. The proposed new building is in a residential area and will become a more
commercial building instead of a place of worship, causing greater noise and
disturbance to local residents.
10. The Citadel has been part of Sheringham history since 1897 and it would be a
great shame to see it demolished.
11. No structural survey has been submitted in regard of the condition of the existing
building.
One letter of support has been received from a local resident which makes the
following comments (summarised):1. Whilst no doubt suffering some upheaval and inconvenience during demolition and
rebuilding the prospects of a new building for the future is very exciting.
2. The new hall would greatly enhance this area of Sheringham.
Letter received from the Sheringham and District Preservation Society
(summarised):Due to the increased bulk of the building it is considered that it would be more
intrusive and would cut out light to properties to the rear. It is suggested that part of
the building is made more "neighbour-friendly" by siting the rear extension in Cooperative Street through a lowering of the roof. In addition the increased car parking
is unfortunate in this location.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection in principle however requires an amended
plan showing the proposed hall outside of the highway land.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the submission of information in
respect of the method of demolition of the existing building and the control of noise
and dust.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
14 August 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 93: New Community Facilities (permissive toward new facilities in defined
settlements, subject to amenity/character, access and parking considerations.
Specifies criteria for new facilities in the Countryside).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Design and impact on the appearance or character of Conservation Area.
4. Car parking and highways safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the development boundary for Sheringham, and also the
northern part of the site is within the Sheringham Conservation Area where in
principle, subject to complying with other Core Strategy and Local Plan policies, there
would be no objection to the demolition of the existing hall and its replacement with a
new multi purpose building. The provision of a replacement community facility as
proposed is acceptable in principle under Local Plan Policy 93 and Core Strategy
Policy CT 3.
The existing Salvation Army hall comprises a mix of buildings including a worship hall
and a two-storey ancillary building which together occupy a large proportion of a site,
which slopes gently from west to east towards Beeston Road with the rear of the site
being approximately 1.2m lower than the frontage with Cremer Street. The building
has a total floor area of 420sq.m, and the worship hall has a maximum ridge height
towards the rear of the site of 7.5m, whilst the ancillary building has a maximum ridge
Development Control Committee (West)
26
14 August 2008
height of 8m at the east most end of Co-operative Street. At the present time there is
a single-storey lean-to element to the eastern elevation which abuts properties in
Beeston Road, which have small enclosed back yards, facing the site, with
outbuilding and accommodation physically joining the boundary wall. Whilst to the
south there is a single-storey blank gable and a further single-storey lean-to adjoining
No.2 Cremer Street.
The Design and Assess Statement submitted with the application indicates that due
to the fairly poor structural condition of the building together with severe space
limitations the existing premises are considered to be inadequate for the growing
corps with a desire to expand yet further. The statement also indicates that the
existing worship hall seats 180 people and that on average most Sundays the
congregation is in the region of 150 which during the summer increases with visitors
bringing the facility to full capacity. In the past 5 years there has been a net increase
in adult and children members by 57 and it is projected that by 2013 the membership
will increase from 257 to 280. The larger premises are required not only to increase
the size of the worship hall but also provide a community hall to cater for both the
elderly and youth and also counselling for those in need of care and support in
Sheringham and north Norfolk.
The building as proposed would occupy a similar footprint to the existing premises
however due to the introduction of additional first floor accommodation the overall
floor area would be increased by some 184sq.m. As far as its overall scale and
massing are concerned efforts have been made to break the building down into
smaller elements and throughout the development hipped roofs have been employed
in order to reduce the impact of the building. However compared to the existing
worship hall the ridge of the main hall would be approximately 2m higher and the
eaves to the front elevation some 1.8m higher. Whilst the ancillary wing abutting Cooperative Street would be approximately 1m higher than the existing structure.
However in order to try and reduce the impact on neighbouring properties the main
worship hall would be sited 1m further from the eastern boundary than the present
hall. In addition single-storey lean-to elements would be reintroduced to the eastern
and southern boundaries, however the lean to on the eastern boundary would have a
eaves height 500m higher than the existing structure.
As such whilst it is clear the building as proposed would be significantly more bulky
than the premises it would replace, due to the introduction of hipped roofs and the
single-storey lean-to elements it is not considered that the building would result in
any undue loss of light or be unduly overbearing on neighbouring properties to either
the south or east. Whilst in terms of potential overlooking of the three-storey flats to
the opposite side of Cremer Street although the separation distance would be only
8m the windows facing this direction would serve a counselling office and the balcony
of the worship hall. The only other possibility of overlooking would be the small rear
gardens of Nos. 6 and 8 Wyndham Street, however any overlooking from the first
floor windows of the musicians room would be fairly oblique and as such it is
considered the development would not result in the undue loss of privacy to
neighbouring dwellings.
As far as any noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties whilst the
development takes place, the Council’s Environmental Health section has indicated
that they would require the submission of information in respect of the method of
demolition of the existing building and the control of noise and dust. Whilst the
physical effect of any of the works on adjoining properties would be dealt with by the
Council’s Building Control section as part of The Party Wall Act 1996.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
14 August 2008
In terms of the overall design of the building, at the present time the worship hall with
its rendered arts and crafts façade provides for an interesting feature in the street
scene whilst the ancillary building, although much altered nevertheless makes for an
attractive corner building when approaching from the west along Co-operative Street.
However given the projected need it is clear than the present facilities cannot sustain
the growth and as the Design and Access statement concludes that whilst alternative
solutions have been considered the demolition and rebuilding is the only viable
option. In designing a new building there are clearly severe limitations, due to size of
the site and the need for additional accommodation, however the proposed building
has attempted to reflect the character of the area both in terms of its scale and
appearance. When viewed from Cremer Street the main hall would have a fairly
domestic scale with a ridge height being only 1m higher than the adjoining two-storey
dwellings to the south, whilst to the opposite side of the road are three-storey flats.
When viewed along Co-operative Street the elevational treatment and scale would be
similar to the building it would replace. Similarly the choice of materials is intended to
reflect those in the immediate area of the site, with a flint cobble wall to the front
façade of the main hall and red brick ashlars. Whilst the rest of the building would be
a mix of red and buff brick and render to the first floor element of the Co-operative
Street elevation. In addition, in order to try and reduce the massing of the building it
is proposed to introduce a mix of roofing materials with the use of a suitable red clay
pantile on the main hall and single-storey elements and re-constituted slate on the
ancillary building turning the corner fronting Cremer and Co-operative Street.
Whilst considerable discussions regarding the design of the building have taken
place and amendments were made, officers continue to have reservations in
particular with regard to its overall appearance in the streetscene on this prominent
corner, when viewed from Co-Operative Street. Further design improvements are
being sought.
As far as car parking is concerned at the present time there are no car parking
facilities on the site with users of the premises, many of whom live in the town,
walking to the hall or alternatively using unrestricted on-street parking in the vicinity
of the site and also public car parks within easy walking distance. Whilst the local
plan car parking standards seeks a minimum of 1 space for every 10sq.m it is
accepted that the new facility would potential increase parking in the area of the site
at certain times. However given the use of the existing premises and the availability
of car parking in the surrounding area it is considered that the lack of car parking in
this particular case is acceptable, subject to no objection from County Council
Highways.
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee will be updated orally with regard to design negotiations.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRINTON - 20080905 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Eastfield The
Street Sharrington for Mr Grunwold
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20080957 - Erection of replacement garage, rear conservatory and
porch roof; Vista 20 Mill Road for Mr P Brotherhood
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
28
14 August 2008
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080811 - Erection of single-storey extension; The
Birches Holt Road for Mr M Hickling
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080812 - Erection of walls to screen oil storage
tanks; The Old Byre Barn Drift Coast Road for Mr P Manning
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080816 - Alterations to cart shed to provide
additional habitable accommodation; The Old Stable Old Hall Farm Barns
Coast Road for Mr and Mrs P O'Hare
(Alteration to Listed Building)
DUNTON - 20080778 - Erection of summerhouse; Riverside Doughton-cumDunton Doughton for Mr C Tassell
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080794 - Erection of replacement porch and 1.8m high
boundary wall and fence; Valvata 167 North Park for Mr N Franks
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080805 - Retention of replacement repositioned fence; 110
North Park for Ms K Cleaver
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080895 - Erection of 1.2m front boundary fence and 1.8m side
fence; 22 Whitelands for Mr S Bradford
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080916 - Erection of garden shed and 1.8m boundary fence; 19
North Park for Mrs D Todd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080950 - Erection of detached garage; 1a The Drift for Mr S
Craig
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - 20080753 - Erection of two-storey extension; May Cottage
100 Holt Road for Mr S Collins
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20080711 - Erection of detached garage; Quince House
Barney Road for Mr and Mrs Chumbley
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - 20080115 - Change of use of barns to two residential dwellings;
Castle Farm The Loke for Mr J Mermagen
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - 20080872 - Installation of replacement first floor window; 54
Cromer Road Lower Gresham for Ms A D Howard
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HEMPSTEAD - 20080577 - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of
outbuildings as residential accommodation; Hole Farm Hole Farm Road for Mr
J Carver
(Certificate of Lawfulness)
Development Control Committee (West)
29
14 August 2008
HEMPTON - 20080493 - Erection of two semi-detached two-storey dwellings; 7
and 8 Eastview Raynham Road for Mr and Mrs Barrett and Mrs and Mrs Bell
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080873 - Erection of front conservatory; Brambletye 6
Fulmodeston Road for Mr and Mrs Jefferies
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080941 - Widening of vehicular access; The Old Chapel
Foulsham Road for Mr J Nicholl
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080623 - Erection of two-storey front and side extension; 76 Grove
Lane for Mr C R Wells
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080761 - Retention of air condenser unit and installation of three
additional units; 16 High Street for Barclays Bank PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080824 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached double
garage; Orchard Piece 8 Kelling Road for Character Homes Limited
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
HOLT - 20080833 - Installation of ventilation louvres; BT Telephone Exchange
Kerridge Way for British Telecommunications PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080860 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 11 Town Close for
Mr and Mrs M Starling
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080888 - Erection of rear conservatory; 15 Norman Cockaday Court
Bull Street for Sheringham Development Co Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - 20080942 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 19 Hollow
Lane for Mr J Sizer
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20080654 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; rear of October Lodge
Fakenham Road Great Ryburgh for Mr and Mrs Lanham
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20080800 - Change of use from residential to residential and
butchers/farm shop; Bridge Stables Bridge Road Great Ryburgh for Mrs J Scott
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20080828 - Erection of first floor extension; Horseshoe House
Chapel Lane for Mr M Margereson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080720 - Erection of single-storey front/side extension;
Myrtle House 27/29 Nelson Road for Mrs D Evans
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
30
14 August 2008
SHERINGHAM - 20080765 - Construction of roof extension to provide
additional first floor accommodation; 1 Handford Drive for Mr and Mrs Scotter
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080767 - Re-siting of window on plot 8 and variation of
condition 2 of planning permission 20042141 to permit revised wall finishes;
plots 6, 7 and 8, 20 Cromer Road for F W Smith Builders Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080806 - Re-instatement of level crossing; site at Station
Road for North Norfolk Railway Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080832 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and timber
canopy; Ladybird Playgroup Cromer Road for Ladybird Pre-School Nursery
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20081009 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extension; 24
Brook Road for Mr R Blackwell
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080762 - Erection of garage; 58 Holway Road for Mr and Mrs
P Myers
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080898 - Erection of rear conservatory; 5 The Turning for Mr
and Mrs Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20080671 - Installation of window and opening between north west
tower and main roof and reinstatement of cellar; Stiffkey Old Hall Church Street
for Dr and Mr Bell
(Alteration to Listed Building)
TATTERSETT - 20080807 - Erection of extension to agricultural/stable building,
erection of timber garden building and conversion of barn J to one unit of
holiday accommodation; Manor Farm Fakenham Road for Mr A Wagg
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - 20080788 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 14 Station
Road for Mr M Argent
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20080734 - Erection of first floor side and rear
extensions; 42 Weybourne Road for Mr and Mrs Woodhouse
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080730 - Erection of two-storey side extension;
Jutes Invaders Court Standard Road for Mrs G Boffin
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080886 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
front porch; 84 Northfield Crescent for Mr B Steere and Ms C Nile
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
31
14 August 2008
WIVETON - 20080867 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and front porch; 3
Marsh Lane for Mr D MacCarthy
(Full Planning Permission)
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - 20080871 - Erection of a pair of semi-detached single-storey
dwellings; 13 Britons Lane Close for Mr L Battrick
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080804 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 154 Norwich Road
for Mr I Jonas
(Outline Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - 20080766 - Erection of dwelling; land between 38 and 39
Park Lane for Mr M Freeman
(Outline Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20080825 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace; 60 Pineheath Road for Mr S R Telfer-Smith
(Outline Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - 20080744 - Extension and conversion of redundant agricultural
buildings to provide two residential dwellings; junction of Blakeney Road and
Holt Road for Mr P Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - 20080936 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Whey Curd Farm Copys Green for T B Green & Partners
(Prior Notification)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
BODHAM - 01/013/DEV6/05/003 - Stationing of caravans a boat and depositing
other materials on agricultural land; Windrush Farm Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
and Ms J A Allen
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
BODHAM - 20071223 - Change of use of agricultural land to site for one static
caravan and one touring caravan and the provision of one transit pitch; land
off Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING
Development Control Committee (West)
32
14 August 2008
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - 01/013/DEV6/06/001 - Change of use of agricultural land for the
siting of caravan s for residential purposes.; land off Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING
BRISTON - 20071468 - Retention of storage shed; Emery Wood Craymere Road
for Ms P Rowan
INFORMAL HEARING
HOLKHAM - 20071596 - Conversion of farm office to residential
accommodation for estate worker; Farm Office Longlands Holkham Park for
Holkham Estate
INFORMAL HEARING 19 Aug 2008
SHERINGHAM (NORTH WARD) - 20030991 - Demolition of buildings, including
dwellings, and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car
parking, servicing and landscaping; land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores
Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
SHERINGHAM (NORTH WARD) - 20070217 - Demolition of buildings, including
dwellings, and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car
parking and servicing and provision of footpath link to station road; land at
Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BRINTON - 20071113 - Erection of first floor extension and attached garage;
Grove House Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Taylor
BRINTON - 20071572 - Alterations to first floor extension (lowering of parapet);
Grove House Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Taylor
FAKENHAM - 20071369 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Field View
Residential Home 43 Hayes Lane for Imperial Care Homes
HIGH KELLING - 20070983 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Cherry Garth
Cromer Road for Mr P M Plummer
RAYNHAM - 20071725 - Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of
two-storey rear extension; 5 The Drove for Mr D Elfleet
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071932 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site rear
of 18 Church Street for Ms J Starns
Development Control Committee (West)
33
14 August 2008
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 01/019/DEV6/07/004 - Breach of condition 2 of planning
permission 20061041 for extension to summerhouse; Umgeni Coast Road for
Lady Rathcavan
APPEAL DECISION :- WITHDRAWN
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070922 - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
annexe; Umgeni Coast Road for Lady Rathcavan
APPEAL DECISION :- WITHDRAWN
Development Control Committee (West)
34
14 August 2008