OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 14 JULY 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
SHERINGHAM – Tree Preservation Order (Sheringham) 2008 Number 2,
Inglewood, 10 Cremers Drift, Sheringham
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
The site had been subject to outline planning permission which provided some
protection for this mature Beech tree. This permission (and its associated conditions
protecting the Beech tree) lapsed on 17 September 2007. The above Order was
served in response to a proposal to remove the Beech tree by the owner of
Inglewood, 10 Cremers Drift.
It was considered that the tree is of sufficient amenity value to warrant protection.
This is a prominent tree visible from several roads including Cremers Drift, The Rise,
Blyth Crescent, Morley Rd and Heath Rd.
The Order was served on 5 March 2008.
Representations
Objections to the Order:One letter of objection has been received from the owner of Inglewood, 10 Cremers
Drift objecting to the Order on three grounds:
Size of tree in relation to space: The owner considers that the tree is now too large
and is too close to buildings. This is a large town property but unfortunately has
limited garden space. The tree has grown substantially in the 10 years that we have
lived here.
Maintenance: The owner considers that in autumn the tree creates havoc with the
huge amounts of leaves in both Inglewood’s garden and on the road outside. The
owner receives complaints from the neighbours higher up Cremers Drift when leaves
and branches block the path, especially when they are wet and dangerous underfoot.
The health of the owner is such that he is unable to remove these leaves or those in
the drain gully. The lower branches of the tree have to keep being trimmed in order to
gain access to the garage.
Health and Safety: The owner considers that the tree was late coming into bud last
year leading to the owner thinking that the tree was dead. The owner states that
increasing numbers of large dead branches break off from higher up the tree and
with the increase in high winds it is only a matter of time before something serious
happens. The owner feels that there is a strong possibility that large branches may
fall and cause serious damage to cars and property which will result in the owner
suing the Council. The occupiers of Cremers Drift feel very nervous as the tree
creaks and moves a lot in the current high winds.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
14 July 2008
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:Size of tree in relation to space – The main trunk of the tree is approximately 16m
from Inglewood house, 10m from the neighbouring bungalow and 3m from the
garage. The canopy of the tree is approximately 8m from Inglewood, 2m from the
neighbouring bungalow (the canopy is roughly in line with the boundary fence) and
extends over the wooden garage (part of the Inglewood property). In the view of the
Landscape Officer, there is ample space to accommodate this tree and its future
growth.
Maintenance - the annual shedding of leaves is not a consideration inhibiting the
serving or confirming of a Tree Preservation Order.
Health and Safety – A brief visual inspection of the tree by the Landscape Officer has
not highlighted any structural problems and no evidence of previous major branch
loss was observed. There is some minor deadwood found within the canopy, but this
deadwood is considered normal for species at this age and could be removed under
the exemptions to work on a tree subject to a Preservation Order. There is no
evidence that the root plate of the tree has moved. The bending, flexing and creaking
of trees is normal and helps reduce the wind loading on the tree during periods of
high wind. No report from a qualified arborist on the poor condition of the tree has
been received. The Tree Preservation Order will not prevent justifiable work being
carried out on the tree. The tree owner has a duty of care to inspect and maintain the
tree in a safe condition. The serving of this Tree Preservation Order on the tree does
not transfer that responsibility and liability onto the Council.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s Human rRghts, and the
general interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would
be proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the location is suitable for a mature Beech tree.
Officers consider that the Beech tree covered by the Order makes a significant
contribution to the setting and character of the site and the surrounding area, that the
removal of the tree would be detrimental to the amenity of the area and that there is
ample space in which the tree can continue to grow.
3. Health and safety considerations.
Should the condition of the tree deteriorate or defects come to light, remedial work
can be carried out to the tree under the procedures outlined in the Town and Country
Planning Act. The serving of this Tree Preservation Order would therefore not affect
the risk to health and safety, but would prevent the owner from dispensing of his duty
of care by removing this tree without sound arboricultural reason.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
14 July 2008
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed.
Source: (Tom Russell Grant, Extn 6287 - File Reference: TPO 2008 No.2)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as
Condition No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BLAKENEY - 20080779 - Display of illuminated advertisement; 139-141 High
Street for Blakeney British Legion
Target Date :14 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Illuminated Advertisement)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20060745 - (Non-illuminated Advertisement)
advertisement
Approved, 26 Jun 2006
-
Display
of
non-illuminated
THE APPLICATION
Is for the display of a free standing illuminated advertisement, located at the vehicular
entrance to the Harbour Rooms.
The overall height of the sign would be approximately 3m, with doubled sided sign
boards measuring approximately 1m x 0.8m. There would be down lighter trough
lights at the top of both sides of the sign lit by fluorescent tubes of 300 cd/m2.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on visual amenity.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:We object to any illuminated signage in this area, and object to a freestanding sign
and would prefer to see signage fixed to the wall of the building in keeping with the
other establishments in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection and imposition of condition requiring that
the illumination of the sign shall not exceed 1,000 cd/m2, and no part of the source of
the illumination shall be directly visible to users of the adjacent public highway.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
14 July 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 Design Guide paragraphs 8.1 - 8.11
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the visual amenity of the area.
APPRAISAL
In the absence of any highway safety objections, the consideration of this application
relates solely to the effect the proposed illuminated sign would have upon the visual
amenities of the area which is in a Conservation Area.
It is considered that the signage is in the style of a traditional 'public house' sign
which is considered to be of an appropriate design and scale in this location. There is
discreet trough lighting proposed at the top of the sign on both sides, which has been
designed to blend in with the signage as a whole.
It is therefore considered that the visual impact of the illuminated advertisement as a
whole would be minimal and would not detract from the visual amenity of the area or
overall appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with the requirements of
the North Norfolk Design Guide.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) The level of illumination of the illuminated sign shall not exceed 1,000 cd/m2.
No part of the source of the illumination shall be directly visible to users of the
adjacent public highway.
REASONS:2) In the interests of highway safety and to avoid light pollution.
3.
BLAKENEY - 20080790 - Alterations, extension and re-modelling of roof and
erection of conservatory, attached car port and front porch; Cones Back Lane
for Mr J Gwynne
Target Date :14 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Conservation Area
Tree Preservation Order
Development Control Committee (West)
4
14 July 2008
THE APPLICATION
Alterations, extension and remodelling of roof and erection of conservatory, attached
garage and front porch.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Impact on neighbouring properties.
2. Impact on appearance of area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:We object to this application as we feel that it is overdevelopment of the site, is not in
keeping with other properties within the Conservation Area and we also have
concerns over the misinterpretations over the eco-friendly regulations.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter has been received from a local resident raising the following point:Potential overlooking from proposed bay window in the redesigned roof.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Conservation and Design consider that this proposal will preserve and enhance the
conservation area and have no objections.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The three Pine trees
requested to be removed are protected by a Tree Preservation Order and are in a
sound condition. It is not necessary that they need to be felled for the development to
go ahead and therefore no permission for felling should be granted. Conditions
regarding the protection of trees during construction and their retention after
construction should be imposed on any approval.
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 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).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Development Control Committee (West)
5
14 July 2008
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 EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact of proposal on the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
3. Impact of proposal on neighbouring dwellings.
4. Impact on trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Blakeney where extensions to
dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle providing they accord with
Policy 13 of the North Norfolk Local Plan.
The design and materials of the proposed extension and alterations are considered
to be acceptable in this location where there is a variety of types and styles of
properties in the immediate area. It is not therefore considered that the proposal
would be out of keeping with the appearance of the area.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Conservation and Design) who has raised no objection to the application. It
is considered that the proposal would enhance the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area.
The site is located within the developed area of Blakeney where it is not considered
that there would be a significant detrimental impact on the character of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The proposal complies with the basic amenity criteria and is considered to have an
acceptable relationship with the neighbouring dwellings. The site is well screened by
mature trees to the east and west boundaries. There is a 1.8m high hedge to the
northern boundary and no boundary treatment to the south. However, directly to the
south of the dwelling is the front drive and car parking area to the neighbouring
dwelling known as 'The Pines'. This neighbouring property is set well back into the
site and it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring property.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape) regarding the agent's request in the Design and Access
Statement to fell three trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders. The Landscape
Officer has confirmed the acceptability of felling T14 which, according to the agent's
tree survey, is dead.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
14 July 2008
It is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in this location
and would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080709 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; The
Store Old Post Office Lane High Street for Mr and Mrs S W Tart
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :27 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20030118 - (Demolition in a Conservation Area) - Demolition of store
Approved, 21 Mar 2003
20030803 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of paper conservator's studio
Refused, 05 Aug 2003
Appeal Allowed, 03 Feb 2004
20040496 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey cottage with bedroom
in roofspace
Refused, 08 Jul 2004
Appeal Dismissed, 15 Jun 2005
20041721 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Refused, 16 Nov 2004
Appeal Dismissed, 16 Nov 2004
20051354 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
with room in roofspace
Refused, 13 Oct 2005
Appeal Dismissed, 04 Oct 2006
20060254 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
with room in roof space
Refused, 05 Apr 2006
20061674 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused, 18 Dec 2006
Appeal Dismissed, 19 Feb 2008
20070134 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused, 16 May 2007
Appeal Dismissed, 19 Feb 2008
20070910 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use to single-storey dwelling
Refused, 07 Nov 2007
Appeal Dismissed, 15 Apr 2008
THE APPLICATION
Erection of single-storey, one-bedroom dwelling. The proposed building would be
constructed in brick with a pantiled roof. An existing flat-roofed garage on the
frontage to The Fairstead is to be demolished to create a garden for use in
connection with the proposed dwelling. Existing flint walls on the south and east
boundaries of the site are to be retained.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
14 July 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Complex planning history of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application. The original application for a workshop was accepted
reluctantly on the basis that it would never be used for domestic purposes. The
recent application for change of use to a dwelling was refused and the appeal
rejected on the lack of amenity and general unsuitability for the proposed use. This
modified application does not sufficiently address this lack.
REPRESENTATIONS
Objections received from and on behalf of five adjoining and nearby residents
(summarised):1. Development of the site and the demolition of garages would exacerbate on-street
parking problems.
2. Additional traffic would detract from the environment.
3. Overdevelopment of small site.
4. Previous permission was granted at appeal.
5. Proposals do not make best use of the larger site in terms of design potential. This
is an important site which merits special consideration.
6. Proposals conflict with emerging Local Development Framework policies.
7. Inadequate drawings.
8. Previous concerns regarding the various proposed developments on these two
sites still largely apply.
9. Disturbance during the construction phase due to the severely limited access.
10. Detract from appearance of Conservation Area.
11. Approved commercial use would be subject to limited hours of use. Not so a
residential use so greater impact on neighbouring properties.
12. Residential accommodation dependant on roof-lights for natural light is unusual
and unattractive.
13. Demand exists for the existing garages to be used by local residents for off-street
parking.
14. Site should be comprehensively developed in conjunction with the two adjoining
garages.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - For the
reasons previously advanced with regard to application reference 20030803
Conservation and Design do not consider that the proposed building would preserve
or enhance the appearance and character of this part of the Cley Conservation Area.
However, given that the appeal inspector took a contrary view in 2004 it is not
possible to sustain a design or Conservation Area reason for refusal.
In the event of the application being approved, conditions covering the approval of
facing materials and the precise boundary treatment
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
14 July 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appropriateness of proposed use for the site.
2. Parking.
3. Impact on surrounding properties.
4. Impact on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the selected small village boundary and is designated residential
in the Local Plan. It also occupies a prominent position in the designated
Conservation Area.
The current application site comprises two adjoining land parcels in different
ownership. Both owners have sought to develop their plots independently and in
each case appeals against planning refusals for single dwellings have been
dismissed on the grounds that the plots were too small.
Planning permission was allowed on appeal in February 2004 for the demolition of
the existing store on the western half of the current site and the erection of a singlestorey building to be used as a paper conservator's studio. This permission remains
live and capable of implementation. An application to build a virtually identical
building for use as a single-bedroom dwelling was refused in November last year on
grounds relating to the poor standard of accommodation with virtually no garden and
the absence of any off-street parking (reference 20070910). The subsequent appeal
was dismissed but the Inspector made it clear in his decision that it was principally
the lack of amenity space which rendered the scheme unacceptable. The absence of
any dedicated off-street parking was not considered by the Inspector to be a
significant issue. A similar view was taken by the Inspector who dismissed the most
recent appeals in respect of the proposals which included the eastern half of the site
(references 20061674 and 20070134).
The current application envisages a dwelling virtually identical to the dwelling
proposed under application 20070910 (based upon the paper conservator's studio
approved in 2004). In order to address the amenity space issue it is now proposed
that the garage to the east be demolished and that this additional land be made
Development Control Committee (West)
9
14 July 2008
available as garden in association with the proposed dwelling. The submitted plan
indicates a garden roughly rectangular in shape measuring approximately 6.4m x
5.4m. Whilst the proposed depth falls short of the Local Plan basic amenity criterion
of 10m it is not considered unreasonable particularly given the minimal size of the
proposed dwelling.
The impact of the proposed building on the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area was considered acceptable by the appeal Inspector in 2004.
Nothing in the current proposals would significantly change the appearance or wider
impact of the building. Similarly the impact on neighbouring properties is considered
acceptable. The use of rooflights to light most of the proposed accommodation has
ensured that there is no overlooking of adjoining properties.
For the reasons set out above, the proposal is considered acceptable and does not
significantly conflict with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to appropriate conditions.
5.
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
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Impact of development on neighbouring dwellings.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
14 July 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns
(summarised):1. The proposed roof line would 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.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
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).
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).
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
The application site is located in a designated residential area as defined in the
adopted Local Plan. 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 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 dwelling's 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
14 July 2008
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.
The proposed first floor extension would not increase the height or footprint of the
dwelling but would increase the dwelling's 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 than 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 that 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.
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 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
14 July 2008
6.
EDGEFIELD - 20080579 - Erection of one two-storey dwelling and one singlestorey dwelling; Jordan’s Yard Norwich Road for Cockertons
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 May 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking the erection of one two-storey dwelling and one single-storey dwelling.
Access and layout are for determination at this stage.
Amended plans have been received altering the siting of both the proposed dwellings
and retaining the use of the existing access to serve the two-storey dwelling fronting
the Norwich Road. A tree survey has also been submitted.
A further amended plan has been received in respect of the position of the proposed
dwelling fronting Pecks Lane, together with further information regarding the visibility
splay to Pecks Lane.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:1. It was felt that the proposed erections together with the existing cottage was an
over development of the site.
2. The house fronting Norwich Road was too close to the road.
3. Two mature trees would have to be felled to accommodate dwellings.
4. The proposed dwellings are too close to the boundary.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising the following
points:1. Loss of privacy.
2. Loss of light.
3. Removal of trees.
4. Impact upon hedgerow.
5. Concerns over water run off and drainage as proposed dwelling would be on
higher ground than neighbouring property to the east.
6. Concerns over impact upon eastern boundary wall.
7. No mains drainage.
8. Increase in traffic.
9. Loss of hedgerow.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
14 July 2008
An email has been received from the agent in response to the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) advising that they would
like to retain most of the existing hedge on Pecks Lane, but the Highways
requirement makes this impossible, and has suggested that the hedge may be
moved back into a trench behind the visibility splay to retain a mature hedge along
this frontage. Also suggests re-establishing Holly hedge at Norwich Road in place of
the Leylandii hedges, and that the scale of the cottage fronting Pecks Lane has been
scaled down significantly. There are mature hedges along the eastern and western
sides of the site and herewith the site would retain its rural not to say rustic character.
The agent has also confirmed that the amended plans indicate the location of
independent septic tank type installations for the disposal of foul sewage.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Has severe concerns
about the impact of this development on the character of Edgefield Conservation
Area, specifically the loss of the hedgerow to the south of the site. Edgefield is a rural
settlement with a green, 'soft' southern edge into the Area of High Landscape Value
and Countryside, along Pecks Lane. The majority of housing along Pecks Lane have
hedged boundaries along the road, this development would result in the loss of the
entire hedgerow of this site to facilitate the required Highways visibility splay.
Although a new hedge could be planted behind the visibility splay this would take a
long time to mature and would disrupt the linear feature of the road and boundary.
The loss of the mature holly hedge to the north of the site has similar connotations,
except that the hedgerow runs at right angles to the main Norwich Road. The
hedgerow forms one half of the loke, the existing access for Jordans Yard. Although
this would have some visual impact the main concern is the biodiversity value of the
hedge and the loss of habitat (holly providing a dense impenetrable nesting
opportunity for vulnerable birds). Holly hedges take a long time to mature and
establish, and are becoming increasingly rarer in settlements as development
intensifies.
Due to the requirements of the Highways Department in terms of visibility splays the
development becomes obtrusive and would not enhance the character of the
Conservation Area. The scale of the proposed northern property also results in the
loss of a valuable biodiversity asset and another important characteristic feature of
the village. A number of trees are present on the site, a mature twin-stemmed Ash, a
significant Yew and some mature fruit and garden trees. The Ash and Yew are
marked to be retained but all other trees would be removed, a further loss of
biodiversity value.
Suggests that the Committee members visit the site to establish the scale of the
impact of the proposed development on Edgefield and the surrounding countryside.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
County Council (Highways) - Comments on original proposal: No objections subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions including access specification, removal of
permitted development rights for the erection of gates, visibility splays and car
parking.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
English Heritage - No objection.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
14 July 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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
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).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of the proposal in residential policy area.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Impact on Conservation Area and Area of High Landscape Value.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to visit
the site.
The site is located within the residential policy area of the Selected Small Village of
Edgefield where individual and small groups of dwellings (up to four) are considered
to be acceptable in principle providing they enhance the character of the village.
The site is also located in the village Conservation Area and Area of High Landscape
Value.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
14 July 2008
The site consists of the garden area to the dwelling known as Jordan's Yard. Part of
the garden fronts the Norwich Road to the north east of Jordan's Yard where the
existing vehicular access is located. The remainder of the site is located to the south
of Jordan's Yard fronting Peck's Lane.
There is a mixture of single-storey and two-storey properties of different styles in the
immediate area on plots of varying sizes. It is therefore considered that the erection
of two dwellings on the site would not be out of keeping with the form and character
of the area.
The plans originally submitted with the application were not considered acceptable
due to the poor layout and relationship of both the proposed dwellings with the
adjacent neighbouring dwellings, and proposed driveway.
The plans have been amended and the siting of the proposed two-storey dwelling
fronting Norwich Road has been revised by setting the dwelling further back into the
site and retaining the existing access to serve this proposed dwelling only. A tree
survey has also been provided indicating the retention of an Ash tree and Yew tree
which were previously shown to be removed. Subject to no objections from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager to the amendments described it is
considered that this aspect of the proposal would enhance the character of the
village and the Conservation Area and would not have a significant detrimental
impact upon the appearance of the Area of High Landscape Value.
However, a further amended plan has been received in respect of the position of the
proposed dwelling fronting Pecks Lane, together with further information regarding
the visibility splay in Pecks Lane. This has improved the relationship with the
neighbouring dwelling in the east known as 'Fairways' and created more space for
the rear garden. However, at the time of writing this report further comments were
awaited from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
The Committee will note that this is an outline application only with all matters
reserved apart from layout and access. However, subject to the dwellings being
appropriately designed and careful consideration given to the position of windows it is
anticipated that both of the dwellings could comply with the Council's basic amenity
criteria.
An ample garden area would be retained for the existing property and appropriate car
parking in accordance with the Council's car parking standards provided.
Subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and
the Highway Authority and no objections following the re-advertisement and reconsultation with the Parish Council regarding the amended plans, the proposed
development is considered to be acceptable and would accord with Development
Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections to the amended plan
regarding the size and siting of the single-storey dwelling, no objections from
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Highway Authority, and
no objections following the re-advertisement and re-consultation with the
Parish Council and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
14 July 2008
7.
SHERINGHAM - 20080813 - Use of land for the display of sculptures; The Leas
opposite Burlington Hotel The Esplanade for Sheringham Plus
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :17 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Open Land Area
Residential
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the use of land for the display of three sculptures, consisting of a compass to
be sited showing actual directional points in relation to Sheringham; a skeletal
sculpture for sitting, climbing on and jumping off; and two options for a monolithic
sculpture to be sited for viewing at various different heights.
The proposed sculptures would be constructed using recycled sea defence timber.
Amended plan received showing correct orientation of the compass sculpture.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicants’ representative is a member of staff.
TOWN COUNCIL
No comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:1. Would be detrimental to lose an important piece of land which is on this side of
town the only green unencumbered recreational space for both visitors and locals to
enjoy.
2. The proposed erections would considerably restrict the usable area for sports and
games.
3. Physical obstruction constituting a safety hazard.
4. Should be relocated to alternative site close by on the smaller lawn by the
children's playground between the hotel and the steps leading to the promenade.
5. Would reduce the size of the Leas by approximately one third.
6. Would have a detrimental effect on the leisure amenity of the Leas which is used
by holiday makers, schools and Sheringham locals.
7. Loss of amenity space.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
Conservation and Design Section has no objections to the proposed Art and
Sculpture Trail in the Sheringham Conservation Area. We consider the proposed art
and sculpture trail a welcome enhancement as it attempts to tackle some very
unsightly areas on the sea front and to provide some interesting features within the
open area north of the Burlington Hotel. The theme follows local history and has
carefully been put together. The murals would be carried out in muted colours and
therefore more readily blend into the environment. Our preferred style for the
monolithic style sculpture would be possibility 2.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
14 July 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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 8: Open Land Areas (protected against general development - reserved for
leisure/recreation 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).
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 5: Public realm (proposals should enhance the appearance and usability of
these areas).
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 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of proposal in Open Land Area.
2. Impact on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within an area designated as an Open Land Area in the Local
Plan, where uses that are open in character and serve education, leisure or nature
conservation purposes will be retained and encouraged.
The sculptures are proposed to the east of the site where existing fixed tables and
chairs are located. The majority of the site would not be altered by the proposal. It is
therefore not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the open character of the area.
The Committee will note the comments received from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager who has no objections to the proposal, which is considered to
enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area. The Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that the preference for the design of
the monolithic sculpture would be the second of the options.
Subject to the applicants agreeing option 2 for the monolithic sculpture, the proposed
development is considered to accord with Development Plan policy.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
14 July 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to the confirmation of option 2 for the monolithic
sculpture and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080467 - Alterations to barn and removal of
condition 2 of planning permission 20021709 to enable full residential
occupancy; The Merchant House 48 High Street for Ms S Keynejad
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :20 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20080468 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19931158 - (Full Planning Permission) - Modification of outbuilding and incorporation
into the original residence via a conservatory/footway to form additional living
accommodation
Approved, 10 Jan 1994
20021709 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of annexe to holiday unit
Approved, 24 Jan 2003
20071360 - (Full Planning Permission) - Alterations to barn and removal of condition
2 of planning permission 20021709 to enable full residential occupancy
Refused, 29 Oct 2007
THE APPLICATION
Part demolition and conversion of detached two-storey holiday unit to two-bed
permanent dwelling. One off-street parking space is to be provided for existing and
proposed dwellings with a parking and turning area between the two buildings served
from the existing vehicular access from High Street.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection/no comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters from the owners of adjoining and nearby properties (summarised):1. Current use generates noise from slamming of car doors and engine revving.
Problems do not arise when only one car is parked on the premises.
2. Vehicular access is very tight. Damage to the neighbouring property has occurred
in the past due to careless driving.
3. Concerned that damage may occur to the shared underground drainage system
beneath the driveway/parking area.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
14 July 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - These
proposals address issues raised in the refusal of an earlier application. The
application was refused on the grounds of insufficient amenity space and lack of
privacy.
The barn to the rear is listed by virtue of being within the curtilage of the main listed
building and clearly had a subordinate function to the main building.
Listed Building consent was granted at this time for demolition of part of the brick and
flint barn in order to provide some amenity space devoted to the barn. From a
Conservation and Design point of view it was disappointing to see loss of fabric and
original character of a historic building for the sake of amenity space, but on balance
it was considered that the proposals had little detrimental effect on the main listed
property or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
This revised application attempts to address the issues of lack of amenity space and
privacy. One of the ways this is achieved is to propose demolition of even more of
the historic fabric of the barn. 25% of the northern end of the barn is to be removed in
order to increase the private external space given over to this dwelling. In
conservation terms the principle of loss of so much of a historic building at the
expense of creating amenity space cannot now be supported even if removal of a
lesser degree of the historic fabric was reluctantly given previous approval.
Other inclusions in this application are a 1.8m high brick wall and lower set of railings
dividing the amenity space of the two dwellings. This will unfortunately further divide
the already cramped original courtyard between the two dwellings and cast shadow
onto the amenity space to the east of the barn.
Parking will be addressed by Highways but from a Conservation perspective the
enclosed limited space for parking between two listed buildings is not satisfactory
and has a negative effect on the street scene of the Conservation Area.
If the only way of achieving the necessary amenity space for two separate dwellings
is to demolish even more historic fabric in order to reduce the size of the barn and
further subdivide the courtyard, it would indicate that this proposal is not suitable for
the limited size of the site and for these reasons this application is recommended for
refusal.
County Council (Highways) - No objection in the light of the previous planning
permission for holiday use.
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 and an individual who has objected.
However, having considered the likely impact and the general interest of the public,
refusal of the application for the reasons 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 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).
Development Control Committee (West)
20
14 July 2008
Policy 36: Change of Use of Listed Buildings (acceptable where existing uses cannot
secure buildings survival and where special character will be safeguarded).
Policy 37: Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings (prevents proposals which
would be detrimental to character).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appropriateness of use for existing building.
2. Relationship between existing and proposed dwellings and the standard of
amenity to be provided for each.
3. Impact on appearance and character of Conservation Area and listed building.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to enable Members to visit the site.
The site lies within a residential area as designated in the Local Plan. It also lies
within the designated Conservation Area. The Merchant House is a Grade II listed
building and the outbuilding subject of this application is listed by reason of its
association with the principal building.
Planning permission was granted in January 2003 for the change of use of this
building from ancillary residential accommodation to a holiday unit. A planning
application last year seeking permission to lift the holiday occupancy restriction and
enable permanent residential use was refused for reasons relating to the lack of
adequate amenity space for existing and proposed dwellings and the lack of privacy
resulting from the close proximity of the two buildings (20071360).
The parking arrangement is as previously approved when permission was given for
the holiday unit.
The current proposals have been designed to address the previous refusal. In order
to increase the garden space it is now proposed to demolish approximately 25% of
the existing outbuilding. A high boundary wall is now proposed between the two
parking spaces and further planting is proposed to restrict the view between facing
windows. However, these modifications would not fully resolve previous concerns.
The proposals envisage a distance of 10m between the primary windows in the east
facing wall of the proposed dwelling and a secondary window in the facing wall of the
existing house. Although this falls 8m short of the relevant Local Plan basic amenity
criterion it is accepted that the proposed boundary wall would reduce the likelihood
for overlooking and loss of privacy. However, neither the existing nor the proposed
dwelling would benefit from a 10m rear garden. Even with the extent of demolition
now proposed the new dwelling would benefit from a garden measuring only 6m x
6.5m. The existing house would be left with a smaller area (discounting that part of
the curtilage to be taken up by the parking space). Whilst this sub-standard
arrangement might be reasonably expected to meet the needs of a dwelling and
holiday unit it is still not considered that the space available is sufficient to meet the
reasonable needs of the occupiers of two permanent dwellings.
Members will also note the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's
objection to the substantial degree of demolition now proposed.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
14 July 2008
The proposal is therefore 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 36: Change of Use of Listed Buildings
Policy 37: Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas
The proposed development conflicts with the objectives of the above policies in that
the site is of insufficient size to provide adequate useable private amenity space for
the reasonable needs of the occupiers of both the proposed and existing dwellings.
Furthermore the proposed partial demolition of the holiday unit to create a garden
area for the proposed dwelling would detract from the character of the building itself
and the appearance and character of this part of the designated Conservation Area.
9.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080468 - Alterations to barn and dwelling to
facilitate use as two separate dwellings; The Merchant House 48 High Street for
Ms S Keynejad
Target Date :20 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Alteration to Listed Building)
See also 20080467 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071361 - (Alteration to Listed Building) - Demolition of part of barn and dwelling to
facilitate use as two separate dwellings
Approved, 26 Oct 2007
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of northern gable-end wall and approximately 25% of the existing building
and the construction of a new chamfered gable-end wall to facilitate conversion of
building into a two-bedroom dwelling and the provision of an enlarged garden area
and revised parking/turning arrangement.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection/no comment.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
14 July 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - These
proposals address issues raised in the refusal of an earlier application. The
application was refused on the grounds of insufficient amenity space and lack of
privacy.
The barn to the rear is listed by virtue of being within the curtilage of the main listed
building and clearly had a subordinate function to the main building.
Listed Building consent was granted at this time for demolition of part of the brick and
flint barn in order to provide some amenity space devoted to the barn. From a
Conservation and Design point of view it was disappointing to see loss of fabric and
original character of a historic building for the sake of amenity space, but on balance
it was considered that the proposals had little detrimental effect on the main listed
property or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
This revised application attempts to address the issues of lack of amenity space and
privacy. One of the ways this is achieved is to propose demolition of even more of
the historic fabric of the barn. 25% of the northern end of the barn is to be removed in
order to increase the private external space given over to this dwelling. In
conservation terms the principle of loss of so much of a historic building at the
expense of creating amenity space cannot now be supported even if removal of a
lesser degree of the historic fabric was reluctantly given previous approval.
If the only way of achieving the necessary amenity space for two separate dwellings
is to demolish even more historic fabric in order to reduce the size of the barn and
further subdivide the courtyard, it would indicate that this proposal is not suitable for
the limited size of the site and for these reasons this application is recommended for
refusal.
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 and an individual who has objected.
However, having considered the likely impact and the general interest of the public,
refusal of the application for the reasons 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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 37: Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings (prevents proposals which
would be detrimental to character).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to enable Members to visit the site.
This application arises from the refusal last year of planning permission for the
conversion of this building into a permanent dwelling. One of the reasons for refusal
related to the inadequacy of the proposed garden areas. The current application
seeks consent for an amended scheme which would provide a larger garden for the
Development Control Committee (West)
23
14 July 2008
proposed dwelling by demolishing a larger part of the existing building. Listed
Building Consent for a lesser degree of demolition and the removal of a single-storey
projection at the rear of the main house was granted under application 20071361.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is now recommending refusal on
the grounds that too much of the historic building (listed through its association with
the main building) would be lost with no real justification and to the detriment of its
character.
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 37: Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings
The proposal would result in the loss of a significant section of an interesting
curtilage building to the detriment of its character contrary to the objectives of
the above policy.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - 20080682 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide one
and a half storey habitable accommodation and erection of attached double
garage; 14 Kingsway for Mrs L Flude
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080698 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 3 The
Granary High Street for Mr and Mrs Hartley
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
BLAKENEY - 20080699 - Installation of advertisement; 3 The Granary High
Street for Mr and Mrs Hartley
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080866 - Demolition of dwelling; 39 Morston Road for Martin
King Construction
(Prior Notification)
BRISTON - 20080714 - Extension and enclosure of covered way to provide rear
entrance lobby and erection of front entrance canopy; Old Nursery Farm
Fakenham Road for Mr and Mrs G Hewson
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080724 - Variation of conditions 16 and 17 of
planning permission 20071351 relating to mitigation and enhancement
measures for bats, barn owls and nesting birds to exclude unit 5; Swan Lodge
Barns Cley Road Holt for Swan Lodge Barns Developments LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
24
14 July 2008
CORPUSTY - 20080722 - Conversion and extension of cartshed barns to two
units of holiday accommodation; Hall Farm Aylsham Road Saxthorpe for Mr
and Mrs Mitchell
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - 20080669 - Conversion of outbuilding to one unit of holiday
accommodation and change of use of land from agricultural to garden; Dunton
Hall Farm Tatterford Road for Mr P Allingham
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080759 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Stable
Studios Oxborough Lane for W J Aldiss Limited
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
FAKENHAM - 20080769 - Erection of single-storey extension; 1 Baxter Close
for Mr Cox
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - 20080614 - Internal alterations to form additional visitor centre
toilets; Holkham Hall Holkham Park Wells-Next-The-Sea for Coke Estates
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20080656 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 1 Lodge Farm
Cottage Norwich Road for Mr and Mrs Westwood
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080663 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 15 Market Place
for Butcher Andrew Solicitors
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
HOLT - 20080697 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail)
and A3 (cafe); 28 High Street for Mr J Barnes
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080764 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 1 Park Close for Mr
L Carter
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - 20080703 - Erection of two-storey dwelling with attached
garages/stores; land at 45 The Street for Mr N Curtis
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20080633 - Continued use of annexe as a separate dwelling
without complying with condition 3 of planning permission 20020789; The
Annex at 63 Fakenham Road Great Ryburgh for Mr A James
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20080636 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Tersandamar
Moor Lane for Mr G E Banham
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071305 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 20061012 to enable enclosure of car port; 37 Seaview Crescent for Mr
R Hammond
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
25
14 July 2008
SHERINGHAM - 20071565 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling; land
rear of 23 Cremers Drift for R N Blaber and M J Chapman
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080644 - Demolition of outbuilding and erection of twostorey side extension; 4 Cedar Grove for Mr Knowles
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - 20080677 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 26 Lancaster
Road Sculthorpe for Mr S Dewing
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20080701 - Internal alterations to form en-suite bathrooms;
Mileham 6 Common Place for W C T A Limited
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080708 - Erection of single-storey and first floor
rear extensions; 43 Freeman Street for Mr B J Marshall
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080733 - Erection of single-storey extension; Picts
4 Invaders Court Standard Road for Mr and Mrs Osborne
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080739 - Retention of log cabin; Arch House 50 Mill
Road for Mr J Reynolds
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20080660 - Internal and external alterations to convert one
dwelling into three dwellings; The Cottage The Street for Norwood Northern
Investments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - 20071643 - Retention of flue pipe; Copys Green Farm Copys Green
for Dr S Temple
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WIGHTON - 20080649 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 950757
to extend opening hours to 9.00am to 9.30pm; Shrublands Wells Road for Mr G
Polson
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - 20080706 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
pitched roof to side extension; Ryors Lodge Stibbard Road for Cadesign
Norfolk Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
26
14 July 2008
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - 20080751 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling; land
at The Street for C J C Lee (Saxthorpe) Limited
(Outline Planning Permission)
BRINTON - 20080702 - Installation of replacement casement windows;
Daubeney Hall Farm Lower Hall Lane Sharrington for Mr M Burkitt
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080673 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey
dwelling; Sunnyside Jolly Sailors Yard for Mrs S J Warner
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080707 - Erection of first floor side extension; Vine
House Freeman Street for Mr and Mrs J Millwood
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
No items.
13.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - 01/013/DEV6/06/001 - Change of use of agricultural land for the
siting of caravans for residential purposes.; land off Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 12 Aug 2008
BRISTON - 20071468 - Retention of storage shed; Emery Wood Craymere Road
for Ms P Rowan
INFORMAL HEARING
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
PUBLIC INQUIRY
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070922 - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
annexe; Umgeni Coast Road Cley-Next-The-Sea for Lady Rathcavan
PUBLIC INQUIRY 05 Aug 2008
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
Development Control Committee (West)
27
14 July 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 (NORTH WARD) - 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
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BODHAM - 20080036 - Continued display of direction signs; Entrance to
Gypsies Lane, off Cromer Road for Crayford & Abbs Ltd
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
BRISTON - 20071304 - Erection of dwelling; New Hall Farm Mill Road for Mrs N
Smith
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
FAKENHAM (SOUTH WARD) - 20070673 - Erection of three two-storey
dwellings; 24 Holt Road for Mr J Doughty
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
WOOD NORTON - 20071441 - Use of land for siting 5 touring caravans and
erection of single-storey warden's dwelling; Four Acre Farm Holt Road for Mr
and Mrs L J Palmer
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
28
14 July 2008