OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 20 AUGUST 2009
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as
Condition No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
FAKENHAM - 20090364 - Erection of four three-storey dwellings; 25 Nelson
Road for Nelson Grove Development Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 Jun 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070382 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
eight dwellings
Approved, 04 Jul 2007
20080904 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of 4 semi-detached
dwellings
Approved, 18 Nov 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of four, three-storey dwellings to the rear of 25 Nelson Road.
Outline permission for eight dwellings was granted in 2007 agreeing the access and
layout of the development. Reserved matters for four dwellings to the front of the site
were approved in 2008. This proposal seeks an amended siting for the dwellings on
plots 7 and 8 which are proposed to be detached rather than a pair of semis as
indicated at the outline stage. Plots 5 and 6 are included at the applicant's request.
Amended plans have been received regarding a number of alterations to the scheme
including reduction in the gable widths of plots 5 and 6, the redesign of the garage to
plot 7 and a revised parking and turning layout.
The materials proposed would generally match those of the dwellings at the front of
the site which are currently under construction.
Amended plans are awaited in respect of revised site plans.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
20 August 2009
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection from nearby residential dwellings on the following grounds
(summarised):
1. Overlooking from plots 5 and 6 to the garden of the dwelling to the west (1 Hayes
Lane).
2. Dwellings proposed are too big and out of scale for their situation.
3. Overbearing impact on The Coach House to the south west.
4. Roof materials should be red pantiles rather than grey.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection given the amended plans received satisfactorily amending the design of the
garage to plot 7.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
a condition ensuring protection of the four TPO'd trees on the site.
County Council (Highways) - No objection given the amended plans received
sufficiently amending the design and layout of the parking and turning areas.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - No comments received.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - The application complies with Policy EN 6, subject to the
imposition of the Code for Sustainable Homes condition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee (West)
2
20 August 2009
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
2. Design.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be carried
out.
The site is located within the residential policy area of Fakenham where new
residential development is considered to be acceptable providing it accords with
other relevant policies contained in the Core Strategy. The rear gardens to plots 7
and 8 are outside the development boundary.
The principle of numbers and siting was agreed at the outline stage under application
20070382. An indicative street scene was also submitted at that time.
In respect of residential amenity, concern from neighbours to the west has been
raised regarding loss of privacy to their garden particularly from the second floor
gable windows in the roofslope of plots 5 and 6. However, given the screening in the
form of trees and hedging along the western boundary and the positioning of the
proposed dwellings facing the end section of the neighbours' garden, away from the
dwelling it is not considered that the development would significantly impinge on the
amenities of the neighbouring dwelling to the west. Furthermore given the distance to
the adjacent gardens to the east and sufficient screening, again no significant
adverse impact on their amenities would result.
In terms of impact on The Coach House, the general siting of the dwellings has
already been agreed at the outline stage. Whilst the proposed dwellings would be
taller than The Coach House, they would be set slightly back from it and orientated to
ensure that no direct window-to-window overlooking occurs. In addition no second
floor views would be achieved from the rear elevation as only rooflights are proposed
on the rear roof slope, which would be above eye level. Furthermore no significant
adverse loss of light to The Coach House would result given the siting of the
dwellings to the north east of the building. Overall therefore the dwellings on plots 7
and 8 are not considered to affect significantly the amenities of the neighbouring
dwelling to the south west.
In terms of design of the dwellings on plots 7 and 8, whilst the east and west facing
elevations have fairly large gable widths, they are largely screened from the
Conservation Area by the existing boundary screening and adjacent dwellings and
are orientated so that they are not highly visible to the street scene. The design and
proportions of the more prominent front elevation are considered appropriate. As
such, the dwellings on plots 7 and 8 are considered to have no significant adverse
visual impact on the character or appearance of the street scene or Conservation
Area.
Plots 5 and 6 are more prominent within the development particularly on entering the
site. Amended plans indicating a reduction in width of the gables of this pair of semis
would create dwellings of a more vertical proportion with narrower gables, resulting in
an acceptable bulk and height suitable for the development and having no adverse
visual impact in the street scene.
In respect of the materials proposed, it has been indicated that these are to match
those of the dwellings currently being constructed at the front of the site which
include grey pantiles. Further details in respect of the precise details of these
Development Control Committee (West)
3
20 August 2009
materials to be approved would be conditioned. Given the variation in dwelling styles
and types along the street, with a mix of red and grey roofing and that the dwellings
form part of the existing development; it is considered that the proposed grey roofing
materials would not have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance or
character of the area.
The layout of the dwellings permitted at outline stage resulted in the rear gardens of
plots 7 and 8 lying outside the development boundary. The proposed layout of these
plots is similar to that previously approved and still therefore requires the removal of
permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings to ensure that control
over the open character of the countryside is retained.
No details in respect of the proposed landscaping scheme have been submitted and
so details in this respect would be required via condition.
In summary, the principle of the number and layout of the dwellings on the site has
already been accepted with the granting of the outline permission (20070382), the
design and scale of the dwellings are considered to have no significantly detrimental
impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or on the character or appearance
of the street scene or wider area.
The development would therefore conform with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval, subject to receipt of a satisfactory amended site plan and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
2.
SALTHOUSE - 20090434 - Erection of two-storey front extension, single- storey
side extension and dormer window; The Patch Coast Road for Mr Colman
Target Date :17 Jul 2009
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside Policy Area
Tidal Flood Zone
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two-storey, fully glazed, timber framed extension to the front
elevation of the dwelling which would provide for an extended drawing room at
ground floor and a master bedroom to the first floor. In addition a single-storey
hipped roofed lean-to extension is proposed to the eastern elevation which would
create an entrance lobby with cloakroom, whilst at second floor level it is intended to
introduce a dormer window to the rear elevation which would serve an additional
bathroom.
Revised plans have been received which substitute the proposed glazed apex to the
gable of the two-storey front extension with a tiled hipped roof to match the
remainder of the property and reduce the overall amount of glazing.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
20 August 2009
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object, principally on the ground of light pollution from the proposed glass extension
which is also not in keeping with surrounding properties.
Salthouse residents (and visitors) treasure their dark skies at night, the Council has
previously adopted the CPRE 'Dark Skies' policy. The Council believes that this
development in the form proposed would produce significant light pollution affecting
both the village and the adjacent marshes with their various international
conservation designations. The Council would prefer brick/flint construction and
traditional windows in keeping with existing properties and with the character of the
village.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Campaign to Protect Rural England, Norfolk (CPRE) objects on the grounds of
light pollution that would result from the proposal to construct a two-storey
'vernacularly constructed glass box' on half the frontage of the house. They consider
that this would at times of poor light, dusk and at night present an extremely intrusive
wall of light. It would be highly visible from a wide angle from the vicinity of the house;
and more so from views south from the shoreline across the marshes. It would
impact very adversely on the character of the village, and the wider landscape. The
north Norfolk coastal area remains a 'dark skies' area, and this must be valued. In the
East of England at 2000 only 5% remained in this category.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) - Awaiting comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Whilst not having visited the site it appears that there is
the potential for light pollution from the proposed extension, which could affect the
perception of the remoteness and tranquillity of the marshes and coast of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and North Norfolk Heritage Coast to the north, which is a
key characteristic of the area’s natural beauty. The impacts could include the effects
of sunlight reflected from large areas of glazing, particularly at certain times of day
and year, or from artificial light in the proposed extension seen at dusk or at night.
The architect has not included any assessment of the sensitivity of the surrounding
landscape, potential impacts, or mitigation. I would therefore suggest, if the Council is
otherwise satisfied that the proposed extension meets its criteria and is appropriate in
its village context, that the applicant/architect. is requested to make this assessment
and propose appropriate modifications or mitigation if required, and that the Council
assesses this based on its statutory duty to have regard to the objectives of Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty designation i.e. the conservation and enhancement of its
natural beauty.
Environmental Health - Given that the Environmental Protection Team do not have
any legislative control over the erosion of dark skies the following comments are
confined to the likelihood of nuisance of light pollution affecting residential premises.
Having assessed the information provided by the applicant I can find no evidence to
suggest that the lighting within the building will be anything other than a normal
lighting scheme for internal spaces. Whilst not wishing to suggest that there would be
no glow from the building I do not believe it would fall within the remit of a nuisance
Development Control Committee (West)
5
20 August 2009
regime. This is because it is very unlikely that this lighting would be powerful enough
to be intrusive on neighbouring properties. I would also suggest that in line with most
residential properties lights are unlikely to be left on all night and as such are unlikely
to disturb residents significantly.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse Policy EN 10:
Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design.
2. Impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
3. Issue of light pollution.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Flood risk.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order to allow Officers the
opportunity to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Team, Conservation
and Landscape Sections, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Norfolk
Coast Partnership on the potential issues of light pollution generated by the
development.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area, Conservation Area and also
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where Policies EN 1, EN 2, EN 4, EN 8, EN
9 and EN 13 are applicable.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
20 August 2009
The existing dwelling is situated on rising ground to the south side of the coast road
A149, and is set back some 60m from the edge of the carriageway with the front
boundary of the site, which is set behind a wide grass verge being formed by a flint
wall some 1.5m in height. In addition there are a number of trees and other
vegetation to the western boundary of the site, whilst to the east, a mix of dwellings
which are set close to and abut the highway, mask views of the property.
The dwelling itself is square in plan and is of a hipped roofed construction with a
projecting wing to the west which is terminated in a double pile gable end, and small
gable to the left had side of the front elevation. To the east is a two-storey cat-slide
roof projection with the whole building being predominantly of flint on red brick plinth
under a clay pantile roof.
The most contentious element of the scheme is considered to be the two-storey
extension to the front elevation of the dwelling, which would be 5.2m in width by 3m
in depth with a gable facing the coast road and would be 15sq.m in plan. It would be
constructed of oak in-filled with full height glazing to ground and first floor, under a
hipped clay pantile roof.
Whilst this element would result in a new intervention to the building it is considered
that it would remain subordinate to the overall appearance of the building, and at the
same time lifting what is a somewhat bland front elevation. In addition the use of
natural oak to the frame would result in a visually lightweight structure which when
viewed against the flintwork of the rest of the dwelling would give the extension a
recessive appearance.
It is therefore considered that whilst the extension is innovative in its design and
appearance its overall scale and massing would be in keeping with the rest of the
dwelling and that it would preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area. Given
that the dwelling is set some distance back from the Coast Road and the nature of
prevailing development close to the highway, together with trees and other
vegetation in the vicinity of the site, is not considered that the front extension would
have a significant impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In respect of the issue of light pollution, the Council's Environmental Protection Team
has indicated that whilst it recognises the desire to keep skies dark and note the
CPRE 'Dark Skies' Policy they do not consider that, from the information provided by
the applicant, the development would fall within the Council's remit of light pollution
affecting residential premises. Furthermore they suggest that in line with most
properties is it unlikely that lights would be left on all night and as such are unlikely to
disturb residents significantly. At the time of writing the report the comments of the
Council's Conservation and Landscape Sections are awaited.
In respect of the side extension this would be subservient and hardly visible from the
highway. The other element to the scheme is the dormer window to the rear,
although fairly large measuring 2.6m in width by 1.7m tall under a hipped pantile roof,
due to the rising ground behind the house together with the rear boundary wall, the
dormer would not be visible from any vantage point.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties is concerned, the front extension
would have first floor glazing both to the east and west elevations. However given the
location of the properties to either side it is not considered that in either case this
would give rise to issues of privacy or direct overlooking. Similarly the dormer to the
rear elevation would not result in overlooking issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
20 August 2009
On the issue of flood risk although the access to the site is within the Flood Risk
Zone 3 area the dwelling is set some 35m further back and as such there are no
flood risk implications.
It is therefore considered that subject to no overriding objection from outstanding
consultees in respect of the potential for light pollution the scheme as proposed
would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to no new grounds of objection from outstanding consultees
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
SHERINGHAM - 20090649 - Erection of single-storey front extension and porch;
6a North Street for Mr and Mrs Bentley
Target Date :24 Aug 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Boundaries for Reuse and Adaption of Buildings in the Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19791280 - Alterations to convert existing house to 2 separate units
Approved, 28 Sep 1979
20051752 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey extension
Approved, 15 Dec 2005
20090283 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey front extension and
porch
Refused, 20 May 2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single-storey front extension and porch. The front extension
projects by approximately 1.2m and would have a lead flat roof. The porch extension
projects by 1.45m and has a pitched tiled roof.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Bevan Jones having regard to the following planning
issue:
Not considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object due to the lack of detail in comparison to the original plans.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design Manager (Conservation) - The extension would be located
on the most prominent part of the building which is visible from the public domain.
Critically the proposed extension would also mean the balance between the two
dominant street facing gables of 6A and 6B would no longer be unified. Currently the
Development Control Committee (West)
8
20 August 2009
gable jetties out with the feature oriel window below then returns back to the flat
plane. The extension would alter this well defined and traditionally layered frontage.
A previous application with a pitched roof was refused and this flat roof amendment
offers little if any improvement. The extension will only add 1.4m of space and
potentially compromise the character of the building and Conservation and Design do
not consider this a worthwhile compromise. In conclusion Conservation and Design
feel the application will not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation
Area and therefore recommend the application for refusal under Policy EN 8.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy 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. Impact on the Conservation Area.
2. Design.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated Sheringham Conservation Area and the building
itself makes a significant contribution to the character of the area and street scene.
Proposals in this locality should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of the area.
The front porch extension is of a suitable design and scale and is positioned to
ensure it has no adverse impact on the appearance of the dwelling. This element of
the proposal is considered to be acceptable and would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
With regard to the proposed front sitting room extension, a previous similar
application with a pitched roof to the front extension was refused earlier in 2009
(20090283) by virtue of its inappropriate design and siting having an adverse impact
on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area. This application has
amended the previously refused scheme by incorporating a flat roof rather than a
pitched roof on the front lounge extension.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
20 August 2009
Whilst the dwelling is set back approximately 37m from the highway, the front lounge
extension element is located on a prominent publicly visible elevation on the dwelling
and would be visible in the Conservation Area. Its siting creates an imbalance
between the two dominant facing gables of the pair of semi detached dwellings and
would detrimentally alter the well defined and traditionally layered frontage, failing to
preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy EN 8 of the adopted
Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse on the grounds that the proposed sitting room extension would fail to
preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area contrary to the
requirements of Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
4.
SUSTEAD - 20090590 - Continued use of land for maize maze open to visiting
members of the public and winter storage of equipment and structures; Hall
Farm Cromer Road Metton for Mr Harrison
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :07 Aug 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside Policy Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20020449 - (Full Planning Permission) - Use of land for 'maize maze' open to visiting
members of the public with associated play area and car park
Temporarily Approved, 06 Jun 2002
20040265 - (Full Planning Permission) - Continued use of land for 'maize maze' open
to visiting members of the public with associated play area and car park
Temporarily Approved, 28 Jun 2004
20060349 - (Full Planning Permission) - Variation of conditions 3 and 4 of 20040265
to permit retention of equipment and structures, including shed and storage container
not previously approved, on site during period when maze is closed
Temporarily Approved, 26 Apr 2006
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking a permanent permission for the continued use of land for a maize maze
open to visiting members of the public and winter storage of equipment and
structures.
The maze would be open from 1 July to 31 October in any year.
The site includes a play area and car park. The structures and equipment on the site
for which winter storage is sought consist of a shed, storage container, kiosk and two
bridge platforms.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
20 August 2009
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning issue:
Material considerations put forward by the applicant to justify approval of the
application.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Felbrigg Parish Council - Object. Although this is a popular tourist attraction, the
access to and from the facility along Metton Road is unsuitable for the volume and
speed of traffic generated by the facility to the detriment of local residents, especially
those in Metton Road, Felbrigg.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection. The site
is not set high in the landscape and the continued use of the land for growing maize,
a conventional agricultural crop will not have an adverse visual impact. The
associated timber structures, namely a kiosk and two bridge platforms are small in
scale and will not stand out. A rounded timber post and rail fence has been erected
on the southern site boundary and a hedge planted along part of the length close to
the farm. This should be extended to continue along the full length of the boundary to
assist in screening of vehicles in the car park.
County Council (Highways) - The Highway Authority maintains that the highway
network serving this attraction is unsuitable to cater for the additional vehicular
movements likely to be engendered by the proposed development. The roads in
general are narrow, have poor alignment and lack of passing provision. However, it is
accepted that the attraction has been operating successfully for a number of years
without any recorded incidents. From inspection of the site, I noted that traffic is
generally directed towards the site using C303 Metton Road, over a distance of
approximately 2km. There is a general lack of passing provision on this road, which
has led to verge overrun and general deterioration. As a means of reducing the
impact from this proposal the Highway Authority recommend, that if permanent
consent were to be granted then minor haunching works would need to be carried
out by the applicant equating to the provision of 5 passing places. Additionally the
access to the facility shall be required to be surfaced to provide a permanent point of
access.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
20 August 2009
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact upon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and rural character of area.
3. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as designated in the Core
Strategy where recreational and tourism uses are considered to be acceptable in
principle. The majority of the site is also located within an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, where proposals should not detract from the special qualities of the
area.
The 'Maize Maze' has been operating on the site for the last seven years. A
temporary planning permission was originally given by Members of the East
Committee (prior to change of Parish to West of District) under planning application
reference 20020449. Whilst Officers had no objection in principle to the location of
the maze and the erection of associated equipment and structures in the Countryside
policy area the Highway Authority did raise an objection on highway safety and
convenience grounds. It was considered that because the surrounding road network
is considered unsuitable to cater for the frequency of vehicles likely to be associated
with the proposed development by virtue of its restricted carriageway widths, lack of
suitable passing provision, poor road alignment and substandard road junctions that
this proposal would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to the safety and
convenience of other highway users. Officer recommendation was therefore one of
refusal on highway grounds.
However, the East Committee gave temporary approval for two years subject to
conditions which are shown on the decision notice in Appendix 1.
The application was renewed in 2004 under planning reference 20040265. This was
a delegated item as no objections were received. The Highway Authority had
requested details of vehicular movements associated with the proposal and advised
that the figures provided at that time would indicate a relatively low key use but that
the previous concerns of the suitability of the surrounding road network remained.
These concerns were also based on the potential for an increase in the amount of
visitors to the site from the figures given at that time. A temporary approval for a
further five years was agreed by the Highway Authority in the interests of highway
safety and convenience.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
20 August 2009
You will note from the planning history that a further application was submitted in
2006. This was to allow for the storage of the equipment and structures on the site
over winter. This also was considered to be acceptable and given a temporary
approval to coincide with the dates referred to in the 2004 application.
The current application has now been submitted seeking a permanent permission for
those temporarily approved under 20040265 and 20060349.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager regarding this matter. Subject to the continuation of fencing and hedging
along the whole of the southern boundary it is not considered that the maze or the
structures on the site would have a significant detrimental impact upon the rural
character of the area or detract from the special qualities and setting of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
However, the Committee will also note the comments of the Highways Officer
regarding the requirement of five passing places along the Metton Road and
surfacing of access in order for the proposed permanent use to be considered
acceptable in this location.
Following receipt of these comments the applicant was advised of the Highway
Authority requirement and confirmed that he is not in agreement, as the site has
been operating for seven years without an incident occurring. Therefore, without the
agreement of the applicant to provide the passing places the Highways Officer has
advised that the Highway Authority will object to the application.
The vehicular traffic movements at the site over the last five years have been
requested from the applicant and at the time of writing this report were still awaited.
Once received these figures will be referred to the Highway Authority for further
comment.
There are a number of issues to balance in the determination of this application. the
'Maize maze' is clearly a successful venture and, whilst unlikely on its own to
significantly increase tourism and economic development benefits to the wider
economy it nonetheless contributes to the varied and diverse range of attractions that
North Norfolk has to offer.
However, there can be little dispute that the highway network serving the site is
narrow and, as a result, unsuitable for high volume traffic use and with very few
opportunities to pass, damage is being caused to the highway verge. There is an
opportunity to improve the highway network, as suggested by the Highway Authority,
but the applicant is unwilling to provide for such improvements and instead is seeking
the benefit of a permanent consent based on the fact that the venture has been
operating for seven years without significant problems.
On balance whilst mindful of economic development considerations, given that this is
the only realistic opportunity to secure highway improvements as part of the
permanent permission and given the Highway Authority advice, approval of the
application would be contrary to Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
The material circumstances put forward by the applicant are not considered sufficient
to override the Development Plan policy requirements and the application is therefore
recommended for refusal.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
20 August 2009
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse on the grounds that the highway network serving this attraction is
unsuitable to cater for the additional vehicular movements likely to be
engendered by the proposed development. The roads in general are narrow,
have poor alignment and lack of passing provision. The proposal would be
detrimental to highway safety and convenience.
5.
TATTERSETT - 20090575 - Erection of two-storey front extension; 18
Wellington Crescent Sculthorpe for Mrs Taylor
Target Date :05 Aug 2009
Case Officer :Ms M Hemstock
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20090280 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey front extension
Withdrawn, 11 May 2009
THE APPLICATION
Erection of two-storey front extension.
The property is part of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The extension would create
a new seating area at ground floor level and a bedroom at first floor level.
The plans submitted indicate an extension approximately 4.5m wide with a depth of
approximately 3.5m and a ridge height matching that of the existing dwelling, at
approximately 7m. Materials proposed include bricks and tiles to match existing, with
brown uPVC windows being re-used. No windows are proposed in either of the side
elevations.
Awaiting additional plans showing corrected location plans.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wakefield having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on the street scene.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the basis that a two-storey front extension would not be in keeping with the
building line or character of the existing properties.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from neighbour at 14/16 Wellington Crescent on the following
grounds (summarised):
1. Close proximity.
2. Loss of light.
3. Unpleasant to look out on.
4. Loss of parking.
5. Untidy within street scene.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
20 August 2009
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Require the addition of advisory note relating to possible
contamination due to the site history.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
4. Impact on neighbouring property to the west.
5. Car parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where extensions to existing
dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with relevant Core
Strategy policies.
This revised application follows a previous withdrawn application (20090280) and
informal discussions with the applicant and agent. The original application submitted
in March 2009 was for a two-storey front extension to the right side of the property,
which was withdrawn due to concerns that it would be overbearing and cause loss of
light to the attached neighbour.
Whilst the two-storey extension would sit well forward of the main wall of the house, it
is not considered that the proposal would have any significant impact on the amenity
of the adjoining properties in terms of loss of light or outlook nor would it have a
significantly harmful impact on the wider street scene.
A number of properties have already been altered nearby and there already is a
precedent for a front extension, although this is smaller than that proposed as part of
this application.
In respect of parking, the proposal would have sufficient spaces to comply with the
requirements of Policy CT 6. Concerns raised regarding the shared driveway are a
civil matter and cannot be taken into account as part of the determination of the
application.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
20 August 2009
On balance, whilst the applicant is proposing a large front extension, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would comply with Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at the next meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to make
their representations at the next meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
SHERINGHAM – 20090777 – Erection of A1 (retail supermarket) and D1 (Norfolk
Food Academy) with associated kitchen garden, parking, landscaping and
infrastructure; Sheringham Town Allotments, land south of A149 Weybourne
Road for Greenhouse Community Projects
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visits are recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order to
expedite proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
7.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - 20090573 - Erection of rear porch/garden room; Pine
Cottage Long Lane for Mr Peck
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20081523 - Retention of kitchen extractor units; Kings Arm Public
House Westgate Street for Mr N Davies
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20090503 - Demolition of garage and erection of single-storey
side extension; 8 Kingsway for Mr Bryant
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20090523 - Erection of glasshouse and cold frame; Kimberley
New Road for Sir J Quinton
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
16
20 August 2009
BRISTON - 20090567 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Pine View
Gloucester Place for Mr K P Graves
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - 20090497 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Little
Haynor The Green for Mr and Mrs Ward
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090511 - Erection of first floor side extension; 99 North Park
for Mr Hutchison
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090512 - Installation of tiled capping to boundary wall, re
building of front wall and erection of additional section of wall; Flintstones, 3
Swan Street for Mr Oldfield
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090513 - Installation of tile capping to boundary wall, re
building of front wall and erection of additional section of wall; Flintstones, 3
Swan Street for Mr Oldfield
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FAKENHAM - 20090583 - Formation of vehicular access and closing of existing
access; 21 Norwich Road for Mr C Thoday
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - 20090547 - Erection of rear conservatory; 6 Raynham Road for Mrs
Higgins
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20090524 - Demolition of single-storey side extension and erection of
two-storey side extension and front porch; 20 Edinburgh Road for Mr and Mrs
Rounce
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20090408 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings; land
adjacent 10 Holt Road for Flagship Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20090491 - Erection of garden store; Chestnut Cottage 11 Station
Road Great Ryburgh for Mr T Saunders
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20090341 - Erection of two-storey extension with glazed infill;
Creek Cottage Coast Road for Mrs Woodhouse
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20090421 - Change of use land from agricultural to informal
recreation; land off Purdy Street for Salthouse Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20090548 - Erection of attached cart shed style car-port;
Horseshoe House Chapel Lane for Mr Margereson
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
17
20 August 2009
SHERINGHAM - 20090529 - Installation of replacement illuminated fascia signs;
29 High Street for Norwich and Peterborough Bldg Soc
(Illuminated Advertisement)
SHERINGHAM - 20090542 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 22 Brook
Road for Mr and Mrs Lowe
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20090502 - Erection of single-storey side extension and front infill
extension; Moor End House Moor End Road for Mr Prentice
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20090568 - Construction of water abstraction borehole;
Sheringham Hall off Park Road Sheringham Park for The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090578 - Erection of first floor rear extension; East
Haven Jolly Sailors Yard for Mr A Fulford
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090588 - Construction of dormer window and
replacement two dormer windows and erection of wc/store/potting shed and
replacement boundary wall; Tudor Cottage Jolly Sailors Yard for Mr Chitty
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090589 - Internal alterations and erection of
replacement rear extension and dormer window, re-building of chimney stacks
and garden wall/outbuildings; Tudor Cottage Jolly Sailors Yard for Mr Chitty
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090595 - Installation of satellite dish; The Cottage
Stearmans Yard Freeman Street for Mrs Clark
(Alteration to Listed Building)
8.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
RYBURGH - 20090565 - Erection of rear conservatory; 84 Fakenham Road
Great Ryburgh for Mr Brantingham
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
9.
NEW APPEALS
None.
10.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
20 August 2009
11.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
SHERINGHAM - 20080836 - Demolition of bungalow and erection of three, one
and a half storey dwellings; 18 Hadley Road for Mr K Welch
WARHAM - 20081276 - Erection two-storey dwelling; 79 The Street for Holkham
Estate
WARHAM - 20081310 - Erection of two dwellings; adjacent The Reading Room
The Street for Holkham Estate
12.
APPEAL DECISIONS
HINDRINGHAM - 20081166 - Erection of cottage style dwelling and garage; land
adjacent to 44-46 Wells Road for Mr and Mrs M Woodhouse
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
HOLT - 20081526 - Erection of building to provide serviced holiday
accommodation; land at Jenis Barn Thornage Road for Mr S Chapman
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
LANGHAM - 20081176 - Erection of dwelling and garage; land adjacent Stable
Court, Langham Hall Holt Road for Mr A Burlingham
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
19
20 August 2009