OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 22 MAY 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.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
This report outlines the need to establish a Working Party to act as the judging
panel for this year’s Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design and to agree
the proposed dates for the judging and presentation of the awards.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design was inaugurated in 1982 as a
memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk District
Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme
considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment within
the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of historic
properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make innovative use
of traditional building forms and detailing.
Under the North Norfolk District Council Constitution, a Working Party has to be set
up to consider, evaluate and judge submissions under the award scheme and make
awards accordingly. Membership of this Working Party is usually drawn equally from
the East and West Committees with the addition of a Chairman (who may be a
member of either Committee) agreed between them. The Working Party has
generally comprised nine Members, the relevant Portfolio Holder, and a permanent
representative from the Allen family. It is proposed that this structure be repeated
again with Graham Allen’s son, Mr Edward Allen, once again agreeing to be the
family member. The closing date for entries is 30 June 2008.
It is suggested that the Working Party convenes on 1 August 2008 at the Council
Offices to consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will
commence with a short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by
a tour of those short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the
Council Chamber on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with members
of the Working Party voting on the entries. The awards will then be presented at a
ceremony in September – suggested date 25 September 2007, after the East Area
Committee meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:1.
That Members nominate a total of nine Councillors from West and East
Development Control Committees to form the Graham Allen Award
Working Party, one of whom will be elected Chairman.
2.
That the dates for judging of entries and presentation of the awards be
accepted.
Source: (C Young, Extn 6138 - File Reference G A Award 2008)
Development Control Committee (West)
1
22 May 2008
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 - 20071574 - Installation of underground LPG supply tanks;
Blakeney Hotel The Quay for Blakeney Hotel
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :06 Dec 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Installation of three no. 2000 litre tanks for the storage of LPG to supply the hotel
kitchen. The three identical cylindrical tanks would have a diameter of 1m and a
length of 3.04m. They are to be set upon a concrete plinth measuring 6.8m x 4.6m in
plan and set 1.44m below existing ground level. Following installation the whole
structure would be backfilled to existing ground level leaving only the three circular
lockable access hatches visible at ground level.
It is proposed to site the installation at the southern edge of the hotel garden, 3m
from the party boundary with a neighbouring dwelling.
An amended drawing has been submitted correcting inaccuracies on the original
drawing with regard to the extent of the application site and the position of the
proposed development relative to neighbouring properties.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous Committee meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object:1. Policy 122 - Hotels - We feel that this application is detrimental to the effect on the
surrounding area, in particular the residential amenities of nearby occupiers - Letters
of objection have been received from many residents in the vicinity.
2. We feel that this application is not appropriate to the respective settlement in terms
of the over-all design and location of the site.
3. Concerns with regard to the close proximity of this proposal to boundaries of
neighbouring properties.
4. Safety aspect concerns.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection received from the owners of nine adjoining and nearby dwellings
and two local landlords with properties in the vicinity of the site (Blakeney
Neighbourhood Housing Society Ltd and Blakeney Timeshare Management Ltd.)
summarised:-
Development Control Committee (West)
2
22 May 2008
1. Major hazard within residential area. Risk of explosion within 3m of closest
neighbouring dwelling.
2. Possible odour pollution.
3. Inappropriate development of an industrial scale within the Conservation Area.
4. Possible damage to neighbouring properties arising from construction
work/excavations.
5. The proposed location is at the furthest point on the site away from the hotel
kitchen. Could an alternative location be found closer to the kitchen and further from
the neighbouring properties?
6. Source of constant anxiety to adjoining residents.
7. There have been instances of serious damage arising in circumstances where fuel
of this type has ignited.
8. Any commercial benefits to the applicant should not be seen to outweigh the
impact on the lives of surrounding residents.
9. Installation is proposed only 3m from an existing facing bedroom window with no
fence or garden between.
10. Proposed installation would appear to conflict with relevant Regulations and LP
Gas Association code of practice.
11. Possible use of chlorate based weedkillers in the hotel garden would present a
fire risk.
12. Given the use of the hotel garden it will be impossible to keep people away from
the installation (particularly children).
13. How will the applicant prevent people smoking or neighbours having
bonfires/barbecues in close proximity?
14. How is the tanker delivery bay (in the adjacent car park) to be kept clear on
delivery days?
15. Given the public nature of the car park and hotel garden how will the public be
excluded from the area when fuel is delivered?
16. Proposed arrangement would not allow the delivery vehicle driver to have a clear
view from the vehicle of the tanks.
17. Existing trees and deep rooted shrubs may cause damage to the tanks.
18. Concerns regarding health and safety risks associated with LPG in the event of
leakage (risk of explosion and asphyxiant property of LPG vapour).
19. Concerns regarding the accuracy of the submitted drawings.
20. Applicant states that the installation will be screened from public view. It will
however be directly visible from neighbouring properties adjoining the site.
21. The full extent of the soil bank at the site perimeter is unclear from the submitted
drawings.
22. Submitted drawings do not show the position of the existing tank nor the location
of the hotel kitchen.
23. Location of the gardener's shed is not indicated.
24. Location of the connecting pipe from the tanks to the hotel is not shown. The
length of the pipe that would be necessary gives rise to concerns about possible
leaks.
25. Proposed location appears to have been chosen to minimise the risks to hotel
staff/guests at the expense of the hotel’s neighbours.
26. No justification has been provided with the application of the need for the
installation nor the choice of location.
27. The private residential road is unsuitable to accommodate heavy delivery lorries.
28. Proposal to increase the size of the hotel car park will detract from appearance of
the area.
29. Proposed installation is 3m from domestic oil storage tank (2000 litres) in
neighbouring garden.
One e-mail received from nearby resident raising no objection providing the safety
issues in relation to neighbouring properties are properly considered by the Council's
Environmental Control Officer.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
22 May 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - No comments.
Environment Agency (Waste Regulation) - The Environment Agency has assessed
this application as having a low environmental risk. Due to workload prioritisation we
are unable to make a full response to this application.
Environmental Health - Based on the information provided by the applicant to support
this application I am satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements of the current
legislation. Although the location is not ideal given the proximity of the tanks to the
residential properties I have no further comments to make as I feel there would be no
adverse environmental effects as the current separation distance guidance has been
met.
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 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 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 appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
2. Impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residents.
3. Health and safety issues.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to give the application the
opportunity to reconsider moving the proposed installation to a position on the site
further from the neighbouring dwellings. At the time of writing the applicant's
response was awaited.
The Blakeney Hotel and grounds lie within the selected small village boundary and
are designated as residential in the Local Plan. The site also falls within the
Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
22 May 2008
The proposals envisage significant works within part of the hotel garden. Despite the
substantial nature of the works the completed project would not significantly alter the
appearance of the site. The tanks would be underground and existing ground levels
would be maintained with the reintroduction of grass over the affected area. Above
ground a soil bund approximately 700mm high together with possible chain link
fencing would be installed around the perimeter of the installation. The submitted
drawing also indicates a new 1.8m close boarded fence between the hotel garden
and the car parking area on the road side (west) of the proposed LPG tanks.
However, this fencing, together with the resulting reshaping of the car park, does not
require planning permission and are not therefore under consideration.
Given the limited visual impact the relationship with neighbouring residential
properties is considered acceptable. The concerns regarding safety are dealt with
below.
Whilst there would clearly be some alteration to the appearance of the hotel garden it
is not considered that the proposals would detract from the appearance or character
of the Conservation Area. Accordingly the development accords with Local Plan
Policy 42.
The proposed development would be ancillary to the existing use of the site. There is
no material change of use and on this basis there can be no objection in principle to
the proposals. However, the concerns raised by the Parish Council and local
residents regarding the desirability of placing a large quantity of highly flammable
material in close proximity to neighbouring properties can be easily understood. In
the light of public concerns the applicant has been asked whether the installation
could be sited elsewhere on the site further away from neighbouring properties. In
response the applicant has stated that this location has been chosen as the most
convenient for deliveries. It is not practical to place further tanks next to the present
tank (adjacent to the hotel building) and the applicant wishes the application to be
determined as it stands.
The Environmental Protection Team Leader has confirmed that the proposals meet
the current safety requirements. In the light of this response it is not considered that
there any grounds to justify a refusal of planning permission. The proposals would
accord with current Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:- APPROVE
3.
BRININGHAM - 20080539 - Conversion of redundant barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Hall Farm Dereham Road for Mr and Mrs E Jones
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :27 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20080540 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
Development Control Committee (West)
5
22 May 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a single-storey barn, which has a total floor area of 75sq.m
to a one bedroom unit of holiday accommodation.
Access to the site would be via an existing concrete roadway which passes to the
rear of properties fronting the Dereham Road and joins the county highway
immediately to the west of the village hall.
Car parking for the holiday accommodation would be provided on a hard standing
immediately to the north of the barn.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Combe due to the degree of local concern, particularly
around highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to on the following grounds:1. Too close to existing property.
2. Too many holiday homes already.
3. Loss of access to farmyard where people walk to the village hall.
4. New access to B1110 too close to a bad bend with poor visibility.
REPRESENTATIONS
26 letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. Substantial rebuilding of the listed building is required.
2. Light pollution - one of the windows will directly overlook the adjoining property.
3. The proposed development would increase traffic on an already dangerous
junction, with the B1110 which is very dangerous.
4. The farmyard would become dangerously busy, especially for pedestrians, cyclists
and horse riders.
5. Increased danger for those using the village hall.
6. Could affect bats, owls and swallows.
7. The development would increase the number of holiday homes in the village by
25%.
8. Villagers will loss the use of the farmyard access to Bayes Lane which prevents
the need to walk along the main road, where there is no footpath.
9. Access to the village hall would be restricted as villagers would need to wall along
the main road.
10. The village would not benefit from the coercion of the building for holiday
accommodation.
11. The building should remain as was intended for its purpose.
12. Any new development should be for permanent accommodation.
Structural Inspection Report and Protected Species Survey submitted by the agent in
support of the application.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection; this fairly sympathetic conversion should not compromise the simple
agrarian appearance and character of the building and would have little impact upon
the setting of the main listed farmhouse. The development would secure the future of
this attractive little cart shed.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
22 May 2008
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environment Agency (National Rivers) - Low environmental risk and provides
advisory comments.
Environmental Health - No objection, subject to consultation with the Environment
Agency in respect of the Bio-disc sewage disposal system.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to a condition requiring the
building to be recorded.
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 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
Policy 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).
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 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).
Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Development Control Committee (West)
7
22 May 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location.
2. Design and impact on listed building.
3. Highway safety.
4. Impact on protected species.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area where Policy 29 would in principle
allow conversion to holiday accommodation. In addition as the building is listed
through its association with the farmhouse Policies 36 and 37 are also pertinent.
At the present time the building is vacant and is not used in association with either
the farm or the farmhouse. Furthermore, given the fact that it is only 7m away from
the house it is not considered that a storage or commercial use would be acceptable
in this location and could detract from the setting of the barn and farmhouse whilst
not necessarily securing the building's survival.
The design would utilise existing openings, would not result in any extension and the
structural survey submitted as part of the application indicates that whilst the building
needs extensive repairs it is capable of conversation without significant
reconstruction and or alteration. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
has indicated that the proposed scheme of conversion is acceptable and would help
to secure the future of what is considered to be an attractive building.
In terms of the impact on the amenities of the existing farmhouse, there is a close
boarded fence separating the barn from the farmhouse, which would be retained. In
addition the garden area for the holiday accommodation would be to the east of the
building, away from the main house. It is therefore considered that there would be no
loss of amenity to either property.
A Protected Species survey submitted as part of the application indicates that there
is no evidence of bats or barn owls within the building but it advises that if any
protected species are encountered during the development, work should stop
immediately and further advice sought.
At the time of writing the report the views of County Highways were awaited. Subject
to no highway objection it is considered that the reuse of the barn as holiday
accommodation would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of the following conditions:2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no enlargement of or other alteration to the holiday
accommodation hereby permitted shall take place unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority
4) The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time
other than for holiday purposes or for purposes which are incidental to the residential
use of the dwelling known as Hall Farm.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
22 May 2008
REASONS:2) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
4) The site lies in an area of Countryside as defined in the North Norfolk Local Plan
whereby proposals for new independent dwellinghouses are not normally permitted,
and the restriction is necessary to accord with Policy 5 of the adopted North Norfolk
Local Plan.
4.
BRININGHAM - 20080540 - Alterations to redundant barn to provide holiday
accommodation; Hall Farm Dereham Road for Mr and Mrs E Jones
Target Date :27 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Alteration to Listed Building)
See also 20080539 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
THE APPLICATION
Seeks alterations to a single-storey barn, which has a total floor area of 75sq.m to
facilitate its conversion to a one bedroom unit of holiday accommodation.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Combe due to the degree of local concern in respect of
the associated planning application.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to on the following grounds:1. Too close to existing property.
2. Too many holiday homes already.
3. Loss of access to farmyard where people walk to the village hall.
4. New access to B1110 too close to a bad bend with poor visibility.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. Substantial rebuilding of the listed building is required.
2. Light pollution - one of the windows will directly overlook the adjoining property.
3. The proposed development would increase traffic on an already dangerous
junction, with the B1110 which is very dangerous.
4. The farmyard would become dangerously busy, especially for pedestrians, cyclists
and horse riders.
5. Increased danger for those using the village hall.
6. Could after bats, owls and swallows.
7. The development would increase the number of holiday homes in the village by
25%.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
22 May 2008
8. Villages will loss the use of the farmyard access to Bayes Lane which prevents the
need to walk along the main road, where there is no footpath.
9. Access to the village hall would be restricted as villages would need to wall along
the main road.
10. The village would not benefit from the coercion of the building for holiday
accommodation.
11. The building should remain as was intended for its purpose.
12. Any new development should be for permanent accommodation.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) - No objection; this
fairly sympathetic conversion should not compromise the simple agrarian
appearance and character of the building and would have little impact upon the
setting of the main listed farmhouse. The development would secure the future of this
attractive little cart shed.
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 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
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).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Design and impact on listed building.
APPRAISAL
As the building is listed through its association with the farmhouse Policies 36 and 37
are pertinent.
At the present time the building is vacant and is not used in association with either
the farm or the farmhouse. Furthermore given the fact that it is only 7m away from
the house it is not considered that a storage or commercial use would be acceptable
in this location and could detract from the setting of the barn and farmhouse, and
would not necessarily secure the building’s survival.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
22 May 2008
The alterations to the exterior of the building would be fairly minimal with existing
window and door openings being utilised. In addition a structural survey submitted as
part of the application indicates that whilst the building needs extensive repairs it is
capable of conversation without significant reconstruction and or alteration. Internally
only the central section would be subdivided to create an entrance hall, kitchen and
bathroom with the other two spaces remaining as a single volume.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that the proposed
scheme of conversion is acceptable and would help to secure the future of what is
considered to be an attractive building.
It is therefore considered that the alterations to the barn to form holiday
accommodation would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) Unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority all works of
repair to the historic fabric of the listed building shall be undertaken using a suitable
lime mortar mix which contains no Portland cement, to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
3) Unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority all
rainwater goods to the buildings, shall be of a metal finish, painted black, to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4) Unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the
alterations to the exterior of the building shall be undertaken in reclaimed materials,
to match the existing, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To protect that part of the building which is to be retained, in accordance with
Policy 37 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) In order to preserve the character and appearance of the listed building, in
accordance with Policies 13 and 37 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) In order to preserve the character and appearance of the listed building, in
accordance with Policies 13 and 37 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
5.
BRININGHAM - 20080548 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Bayes Barn Dereham Road for Mr and Mrs E Jones
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :27 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a single-storey former lambing barn, which has a total floor
area of 122sq.m to a two bedroom unit of holiday accommodation.
The site is accessed via Bayes Lane an unmade roadway off the B1110 Dereham
Road, which joins the county highway immediately to the west of the village hall.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
22 May 2008
An amended plan has been received which deletes three windows in the north east
elevation of the barn.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Combe due to the degree of local concern particularly in
respect of highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:1. Extra traffic to Bayes Lane would be a hazard to walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
2. New access to B1110 too close to a bad bend with poor visibility.
3. There are owls and bats in the vicinity of the site.
4. Too many holiday homes already.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twenty-nine letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise
the following concerns (summarised):1. Possible noise pollution from development, disturbing a tranquil valley.
2. Bayes Lane is too narrow to take traffic of the amount and type the proposed
development would entail.
3. The proposed development would increase traffic on an already dangerous
junction, with the B1110 which is very dangerous.
4. Increased danger for those using the village hall.
5. Could affect bats, owls and swallows.
6. The proposed septic tank will mean run-off could pollute water course in valley
bottom.
7. The development would increase the number of holiday homes in the village by
25%.
8. Bayes Lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders who could be
affected by the development, affecting the amenities of local residents.
9. The village would not benefit from the conversion of the building for holiday
accommodation.
10. Any new development should be for permanent accommodation.
11. The development would destroy the peace and quiet of a fabulous beauty spot.
12. The development would result in light pollution.
One letter of support has been received which makes the following comments
(summarised):1. The development would not be intrusive to other residents, being tucked away well
off the lane.
2. The development will perhaps result in one or two extra vehicles per day.
3. The people living there will have first hand experience of the track.
Structural Inspection Report and Protected Species Survey submitted by the agent in
support of the application.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Natural England - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
22 May 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 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
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 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).
Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location.
2. Design.
3. Impact on the Area of High Landscape Value.
4. Highway safety.
5. Impact on protected species.
APPRAISAL
The site lies in the Countryside policy area where Policy 29 would in principle allow
the conversion of the barn for holiday accommodation, subject to complying with the
criteria contained in the policy.
The barn, which is of traditional brick and flint construction under a clay pantile roof,
has an enclosed west facing courtyard and is situated in a fairly open landscape
some 200m to the north west of the village of Briningham.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
22 May 2008
As far as the design is concerned, the north western elevation, which looks over
Lobbs Valley, would utilise the existing cart lodge openings, whilst on the north east
elevation, which is the most visible being seen from Bayes Lane, it is proposed to
insert a door and a single, vertically proportioned window. The only alterations to the
other two elevations would be the insertion of a single window opening, one in each
elevation. Due to the slope of the land to the south east of the barn and the mix of
trees and vegetation to the south west neither of these windows would be unduly
obvious. A Structural Survey submitted as part of the application indicates that whilst
the walls and roof structure of the barn need repairs it is capable of conversation
without significant reconstruction or alteration.
As far as car parking is concerned, this would be provided on the former sugar beet
pad to the north east of the barn, but due to the fact that pad is cut into the slope of
the land vehicles would not be visible when approaching the site from the south east
along Bayes Lane. Views of the barn from the north east are obscured by a tall
hedgerow to the northern side of the lane. The principal views of the barn are from
Lobbs Valley itself, to the north west, and when approaching the barn along Bayes
Lane from the same direction. However, since the barn nestles into the slope of the
land and since the courtyard is surrounded by an existing wall some 1.8m high it is
not considered that the scheme of conversion would have a significant impact on the
Area of High Landscape Value.
As far as the access is concerned, Bayes Lane is a narrow unmade roadway which
has high banks to either side and a tall hedge to its northern boundary. When leaving
the B1110 there is sharp bend in the lane before it curves gently down towards the
barn. With the exception of Corner Cottage, which is accessed off Bayes Lane close
to the junction with the B1110, it does not appear that the lane serves any other
properties and is used primarily to access the adjoining field and by walkers, cyclists
and horse riders. At the time of writing the report the views of County Highways were
awaited.
Another area of concern to local residents is that of bats and barn owls. A Protected
Species survey submitted as part of the application indicates that the barn is uses as
a roost by barn owls but is not used for nesting purposes, in addition there was no
evidence of bats. The report recommends mitigation measures including the
introduction of at least two barn owl boxes in trees close to the site.
Whilst the concerns of local residents are noted it is not considered that the
conversion of the barn for holiday accommodation would detract from the
appearance or character of the surrounding landscape. Subject to no objection from
County Highways it is considered that the development would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approval subject to no objection from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of the following conditions:2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no enlargement of or other alteration to the holiday
accommodation hereby permitted shall take place unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority
Development Control Committee (West)
14
22 May 2008
4) The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall be used for holiday
accommodation purposes only and shall not be used as the sole or main residence
of the occupiers.
5) Prior to the commencement of the works the recommendation in Section 8 of the
Protect Species Survey prepared by Chris Vine, dated November 2007 and received
by the Local Planning Authority on 1 April 2008 shall be carried out in full to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
4) For the avoidance of doubt and because the holiday accommodation is located in
an area designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk Local Plan where the Local
Planning Authority would not normally permit permanent residential accommodation,
in accordance with Policies 5 and 29 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) To provide protection to legally protected rare species in accordance with
requirements of Policy 29 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
6.
RAYNHAM - 20080506 - Erection of fifty-eight dwellings; RAF West Raynham
Massingham Road West Raynham for Tamarix Investments Limited
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :27 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Open Land Area
Parish Boundary Consultation Area
Selected Small Village
Contaminated Land
THE APPLICATION
The erection of 48 detached, semi-detached and terraced two-storey dwellings and a
two-storey block comprising 10 flats. The proposed dwellings would be spread within
and adjoining the two distinct areas of former MoD housing to the north-east and
west of the former airbase complex.
Access, layout and scale are under consideration at this stage. Vehicular access to
all the proposed units would be achieved by utilising/upgrading the existing road
network within the site. It is proposed that the scale of all new buildings would reflect
the existing buildings
Twenty-three of the proposed units are offered as affordable homes.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
22 May 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There have been no previous applications on the site but the five other applications
have been submitted in conjunction with this application which give a fuller picture of
the applicant's proposals for the site as a whole:
20080507 - Conversion of hangars to twenty loft style holiday apartments.
20080508 - Change of use of community centre to site office/sales centre and
barrack block 101 as temporary housing for site construction workers.
20080509 - Change of use of former MoD buildings to community centre, creche
health care clinic, aviation museum and church.
20080510 - Use of building 28 as A1 (retail shop).
20080511 – Use of former MoD buildings as squash court and gymnasium.
Applications 20080507 and 20080508 are reported below.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control having regard to the unique
nature of the proposals and Development Plan policy issues.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects. This proposal is the largest development in the Parish since RAF West
Raynham was built and it is proposed at a time when the North Norfolk District
Council Local Development Framework is incomplete. Given that there are still 150+
houses to refurbish and sell/let North Norfolk District Council should defer this
proposal until it can be assessed in relation to the Local Development Framework.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from a local resident (summarised):
1. Surrounding road network is inadequate to safely accommodate the traffic
associated with the proposed development both when the houses are built and
during the construction phase.
2. Noise and disturbance to nearby residents arising from increased traffic.
The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the application:1. Arboricultural Survey and Assessment.
2. Habitat and Protected Species Survey and Report.
3. Flood Risk Assessment.
4. Community Involvement Statement.
5. Historical and Site Development Study.
6. Land Contamination Assessment.
7. Lighting/Light Pollution Statement.
8. Open Space Statement.
9. Utilities Statement.
10. Transport Statement.
These documents are available for inspection in the Planning Office.
The applicant's 'Mission Statement and General Ethos' is appended to the Agenda
(see Appendix 1).
CONSULTATIONS
East Rudham Parish Council - Object. East Rudham Parish Council considered all
the applications together as the Parish Council's concerns are for the impact
developments at RAF West Raynham will have on the residents of East Rudham.
East Rudham Parish Council is very concerned that the road from the airbase to East
Rudham is designated as a heavy/light traffic route. East Rudham is currently
Development Control Committee (West)
16
22 May 2008
experiencing high and difficult traffic movements through the parish. Any significant
increase in traffic movements would be intolerable. East Rudham Parish Council
considers that a comprehensive traffic survey needs to be carried out to determine
the level of traffic which would converge at the A148 at East Rudham. The Parish
Council is also concerned regarding the support services, e.g. sewerage. The
facilities at East Rudham would be unable to cope with the sewerage outfall created
by the development at West Raynham Airfield.
Great Massingham Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
West Rudham Parish Council - No objection. Subject to review of the transport links.
Residents will not be confined to work on site as in RAF days so much more traffic is
likely on access roads that are little better than country lanes. New building should
not be considered until existing housing stock is sold off. All external lighting to be
focussed downwards.
Helhoughton Parish Council - Object. There are very real concerns regarding the
increase in traffic through Helhoughton If consent is granted for the building of 58
new dwellings as per application 20080506 and the conversion of hangars to loft
style holiday apartments as per application 20080507. Helhoughton Parish Council
considers that the increased traffic through Helhoughton generated by this proposal
would be totally unacceptable.
Little Massingham Parish Council - Object. The Parish objection to this proposal is on
the basis that at present none of the services have been proved effective. There are
numerous houses yet to be sold and with this are the effects on the wider community.
How will all these houses be served as far as schooling? All local schools are full.
The traffic is a major issue especially as when it was an RAF base most worked on
site and so had no need to commute. Such a large community must be fully planned
prior to any new build going ahead and the existing infrastructure must be seen to
work first.
Weasenham St Peter Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments.
Breckland District Council - The submission version of the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy identifies former RAF West Raynham in the
Economy policies as a location for economic re-use provided such re-use is on the
Technical Areas. The North Norfolk Local Development Framework recognises that a
careful balance needs to be struck between the need to take a positive approach to
the re-use of these areas and the fact that in wider sustainability terms they are
poorly located in terms of accessibility to services and facilities.
The provision of 58 new 'infill' housing units within the existing residential areas is not
of a scale to directly concern Breckland. In principle the proposal for new housing is
contrary to national policy set out in PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPG13, regional policy and
North Norfolk's emerging Local Development Framework policy, all of which seek to
direct new housing provision to sustainable locations (market towns and local service
centres) and where there is an identified need. The re-use of existing housing stock
would have met the small localised need and any additional housing is likely to
exacerbate unsustainable travel patterns, including traffic through Weasenham
(identified in the Transport Statement as a 'major route to the site').
The proposal to provide a new community centre, recreation facilities and a retail
shop will provide new facilities reasonably close to Breckland communities such as
Weasenham and Wellingham where there is currently a paucity of service provision.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
22 May 2008
In principle Breckland Council raises an objection to the residential element of this
proposal in terms of the unsustainable location and potential impact on Breckland
Communities identified as being on a 'major transport route' to the site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting Comments.
County Council (Highways) - The Mission Statement and Preamble talks about an
opportunity to re-create a sustainable village community. I consider that it is
premature to be looking at individual applications before a master plan for the site is
produced showing how that will be done. Is the scale of what is being proposed really
sustainable? Ideally a development large enough to sustain a primary school should
be developed. If a new village is to be formed here the question is what is the best
and most sustainable way to do that. New housing should be matched by new
employment opportunities. I am concerned that we will end up with a commuter
village in the countryside. Traffic and transport issues are clearly going to be
important and decisions need to be made in the light of how the whole site will be
redeveloped not on a piecemeal basis.
It is recognised that this site must have generated traffic when the base was in use
and that there are a significant number of building assets on the site that could be
reused. However, there has been no meaningful assessment of the former traffic and
transport situation at the site in the lead up to the site being closed to establish a
realistic traffic base from the site in its recent past and an understanding of the traffic
and transport solutions in place at that time. The applicant's Transport Statement is
not accepted.
Access for construction traffic will be a major issue with this site. The route out to the
A148 at East Rudham is apparently the route formally used by the RAF. This route
should be properly surveyed to look at its suitability as a construction traffic route and
identify any necessary improvements such as passing bays on stretches of road that
are less than 5.5m wide. There will be a need for a legal agreement to be in place to
address the issue of extra-ordinary wear and tear caused by construction traffic and
for all construction traffic to use only this route to the site.
The refurbishment of the existing housing will lead to the County Council as
Education Authority having to fund bussing for Primary and Secondary pupils to local
schools. According to the application preamble (page 2) there are 128 married
quarters and 44 officers quarters houses extant on the site. This total of 172 houses
is estimated to bring forward this many children:
Age 5-11: 43.69, Age 11-16: 24.08, Age 16-18: 4.82
Planning permission is being sought for an additional 58 dwellings, comprising 10
multi-bed flats and 48 multi-bed houses, equating to 53 family houses, which are
estimated to bring forward this many children:
Age 5-11: 13.46, Age 11-16: 7.42, Age 16-18: 1.48
The County will therefore have to lay on two new schools services to get children to
the local primary school in Raynham and Secondary school pupils to Fakenham. The
children from the new housing will be able to be accommodated on the buses for the
existing housing so the new housing will not give rise to additional buses being
needed.
I recommend a holding highway objection until a proper Transport Assessment has
been carried out to support all the applications. I will, of course, be willing to discuss
the scope of this document with the developer to avoid abortive or unnecessary work
being undertaken.
County Council (Planning) Education: There is sufficient space at local schools to absorb the likely number of
children which the development will bring forward. Accordingly the County Council's
Children's Services Department will not be seeking developer contributions on this
occasion.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
22 May 2008
Fire Service: Norfolk Fire Services have indicated that the proposed development will
require the following infrastructure, depending on whether there are plans for the site
to be served by mains water. Either 3 hydrants or a charged static water tank (or
similar to the satisfaction of fire and rescue authority) will have to be provided by the
developer. If hydrants are to be provided these will have to be installed during
construction to the satisfaction of Norfolk Fire Service and at no cost. The hydrants
could be delivered through a planning condition.
Library Provision: Additional stock will be required to increase the capacity of the
service. A developer contribution of £3,480 (ie £60 per dwelling) will be sought
payable in one lump sum on occupation of the tenth dwelling.
Environment: There may be a requirement for landscaping and future maintenance of
planted areas on highway land. Where there are mature trees, hedges or other
vegetation bounding the site and these are growing on land to be adopted as part of
the highway, a commuted sum will be required to cover their future maintenance.
Environment Agency (Comments summarised):
Flood Risk: Applicant's Flood Risk Assessment is insufficient in considering flood
risk. Further information is requested in this respect. Further comments will be
submitted pending receipt of the enhanced FRA.
Groundwater and Contaminated Land: The information provided indicates the
possible presence of a fuel storage tank, oil/lubricant/inflammable storage/workshop,
transformer and a possibly backfilled marl pit on or adjacent to the proposed
development site 'B' and a possibly filled marl pit on development site 'C'. As these
uses of the site may have caused contamination that poses a risk to controlled
waters the Environment Agency will object to the application unless conditions are
imposed, a) requiring the submission of a scheme to identify contaminants and
assess the risks to all potential receptors and propose any necessary remedial
measures, b) the carrying out of and verification of recommended works, c) provision
of a long term monitoring and maintenance plan and d) cessation of development if
contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the site pending
further discussion with the Local planning Authority.
Water Quality: No objection to the reuse of the existing sewage treatment works,
subject to further consideration of the requirement for nutrient removal. A discharge
consent will be needed.
Environmental Health - No objection. Notwithstanding the general information
submitted with the application a condition should be imposed requiring an
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting
the site and the subsequent implementation of any necessary measures arising from
the report.
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council - The application does not present
any concerns for the Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk.
Planning Policy Manager - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
22 May 2008
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 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 8: Open Land Areas (protected against general development - reserved for
leisure/recreation purposes).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Conflict with Development Plan Policy.
2. Adequacy of the surrounding highway network to accommodate additional traffic.
APPRAISAL
West Raynham Airbase is designated in the Local Plan as a Selected Small Village.
The Local Plan identifies two residential areas within the settlement. These comprise
the former officers' quarters (44 dwellings) and the former married quarters (128
dwellings). These two areas are quite separate and distinct. The married quarters
comprise a fairly tight-knit development of two-storey semi-detached and terraced
houses while the officers' quarters comprise a more loose-knit development of
detached and semi-detached two-storey houses. The applicant's intention is to
renovate all of the existing housing stock. This process has already commenced.
Under Local Plan policy it would be acceptable to build individual dwellings or small
groups of dwellings within the existing residential areas designated as residential in
the Local Plan. Any larger proposals would have to include affordable units for those
in excess of four. It is accepted that had this been a 'traditional' settlement there
could have been incremental development over the years resulting in a substantial
increase in the total number of dwellings. It is only the closure of the airbase and
subsequent retention of the site in MoD ownership that has prevented this from
happening.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
22 May 2008
Prior to submission of the planning application discussions took place between
officers and the applicant (without prejudice) to establish the total number of infill
plots that could potentially have been developed over the years within the designated
development boundary and in compliance with Local Plan policies. This theoretical
exercise resulted in the number of dwellings currently proposed. However, in
producing the layout now proposed this number of units are proposed to be sited
more logically to reflect the character of existing development and this has placed 29
of the units outside (but adjacent to) the village development boundary. The
proposals also envisage 15 new dwellings on land identified in the Local Plan as
Open Land Area.
The current proposals are clearly contrary to Local Plan policy. Firstly the number of
units exceeds the Local Plan definition of a small group of houses. Secondly, twentynine of the proposed dwellings fall outside the development boundary within the
Countryside policy area. Thirdly, fifteen of the proposed new dwellings would be built
on land identified in the Local Plan as Open Land Areas. Therefore there is a case
for refusal on policy grounds. However, it is accepted that 58 dwellings (in small
groups) could have been provided within the Selected Small Village in accordance
with policy. If the number of dwellings had been provided over time in groups of up to
four there would have been no requirement for affordable housing. Neither would the
infrastructure enhancements and community facilities now being offered have been
achievable. Furthermore the current proposals provide the opportunity for a more
spacious and better quality of development than would have been achievable within
the confines of the Selected Small Village boundary.
The applicant's acquisition and control of the entire site does present a unique
opportunity to create a sustainable community within the confines of the former
airbase. Within the many redundant buildings on the site opportunities exist to
introduce future community and employment opportunities and Members will note
that current proposals for some of these buildings are put forward in the current
planning applications. Given the size and number of useable buildings on the airbase
it is considered that the applicant's proposals to expand the resident population
deserve serious consideration.
The applicant's intention is to create a sustainable village community environment.
Linked with an eco-friendly programme of refurbishment it is also proposed to
incorporate the following measures:
1. Reconstruction of the private sewage treatment plant.
2. Repair and improvement to private borehole for water provision.
3. Rainwater recycling.
4. Improvements to electricity infrastructure including private generation.
5. Biomass electricity and central heating plant (subject to planning permission) for
electricity generation and community heating in existing buildings.
6. Incorporation of all possible insulation procedures.
7. Solar heat and possible ground source heat systems where appropriate.
8. Advanced waste recycling.
9. Upgrading of existing environmental layout to give security and privacy.
In association with this application the applicant is offering to enter into a Section 106
Obligation in respect of the following measures:
1. Provision of 23 affordable homes under the auspices of a registered social
landlord within an agreed timetable linked to the release of the new market housing.
2. Designation of protected zones of open space.
3. Provision of community centre and crèche when 50% of the existing housing stock
has been re-occupied.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
22 May 2008
4. Provision of a shop within 6 to 9 months.
5. Covenant not to develop any further infill plots within the designated village
settlement boundaries.
6. Provision of the gymnasium, squash and tennis courts within an agreed timetable.
Further discussions are taking place between the applicant and County Council
Highways. It is clear from a number of the consultation responses that the highway
issues are of considerable importance in this case. Subject to the outcome of these
discussions and the resolution of all outstanding technical issues it is considered that
the potential benefits arising from the overall proposals for the former airbase may
justify consideration as a departure from Development Plan policy.
Any further responses received will be reported at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee will be updated at the meeting.
7.
RAYNHAM - 20080507 - Conversion of hangers to twenty loft style holiday
apartments; RAF West Raynham Massingham Road West Raynham for
Tamarix Investments Limited
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :27 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20080506 and 20080508 on this agenda.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Contaminated Land
THE APPLICATION
Change of use and conversion of four large similar aircraft hangars to create 20
holiday apartments. The four buildings are of steel frame/concrete construction with
glazed panels in the main front/rear walls and sliding doors in the side elevations.
Each of the buildings has a footprint of approx. 91m x 57m. The application seeks
permission for change of use only. No details have been submitted but the
applicant's Design and Access Statement outlines the concept of the creation of an
"airpark" enabling individuals to use the airstrip for their own aircraft coupled with the
opportunity of having their own rented apartment for a limited duration. The self
contained apartments would be created within the vast roof spaces, with south facing
balconies overlooking the proposed short runway.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control having regard to the unique
nature of the proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects. The proposal is residential in nature yet it lies in the "technical" area of the
former airbase (see Core Strategy Policy EC4) and not in the area identified as
residential.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
22 May 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter of objection from nearby resident (summarised):
1. Concern regarding the adequacy of the local road network to accommodate
additional traffic.
2. Possible fire risk if it proposed to create living accommodation above aircraft
storage areas.
3. Noise associated with aircraft movements.
4. Risk to RAF aircraft that still carry out low level flights in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
East Rudham Parish Council - Object. East Rudham Parish Council considered all
the applications together as the Parish Council's concerns are for the impact
developments at RAF West Raynham will have on the residents of East Rudham.
East Rudham Parish Council is very concerned that the road from the airbase to East
Rudham is designated as a heavy/light traffic route. East Rudham is currently
experiencing high and difficult traffic movements through the parish. Any significant
increase in traffic movements would be intolerable. East Rudham Parish Council
considers that a comprehensive traffic survey needs to be carried out to determine
the level of traffic which would converge at the A148 at East Rudham. The Parish
Council is also concerned regarding the support services, eg sewerage. The facilities
at East Rudham would be unable to cope with the sewerage outfall created by the
development at West Raynham Airfield.
Great Massingham Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
Weasenham St Peter Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
West Rudham Parish Council - No objection. Need not obvious; Should not develop
into a "holiday village". All external lighting to be focussed downwards
Helhoughton Parish Council - Object. There are very real concerns regarding the
increase in traffic through Helhoughton if consent is granted for the building of 58
new dwellings as per application 20080506 and the conversion of hangars to loft
style holiday apartments as per application 20080507. Helhoughton Parish Council
considers that the increased traffic through Helhoughton generated by this proposal
would be totally unacceptable.
Little Massingham Parish Council - Object. Is this a viable option? The Parish Council
feel that the area needs affordable housing not holiday homes. There are still unsold
holiday barns close by at Woodfarm, Helhoughton unsold for two years so why have
more in this area?
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments.
Breckland District Council - The submission version of the North Norfolk LDF Core
Strategy identifies former RAF West Raynham in the Economy policies as a location
for economic re-use provided such re-use is on the Technical Areas. The North
Norfolk LDF recognises that a careful balance needs to be struck between the need
to take a positive approach to the re-use of these areas and the fact that in wider
sustainability terms they are poorly located in terms of accessibility to services and
facilities.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
22 May 2008
County Council (Highways) - The Mission Statement and Preamble talks about an
opportunity to re-create a sustainable village community. I consider that it is
premature to be looking at individual applications before a master plan for the site is
produced showing how that will be done. Is the scale of what is being proposed really
sustainable? Ideally a development large enough to sustain a primary school should
be developed. If a new village is to be formed here the question is what is the best
and most sustainable way to do that. New housing should be matched by new
employment opportunities. I am concerned that we will end up with a commuter
village in the countryside. Traffic and transport issues are clearly going to be
important and decisions need to be made in the light of how the whole site will be
redeveloped not on a piecemeal basis.
It is recognised that this site must have generated traffic when the base was in use
and that there are a significant number of building assets on the site that could be
reused. However, there has been no meaningful assessment of the former traffic and
transport situation at the site in the lead up to the site being closed to establish a
realistic traffic base from the site in its recent past and an understanding of the traffic
and transport solutions in place at that time. The applicant's Transport Statement is
not accepted.
Access for construction traffic will be a major issue with this site. The route out to the
A148 at East Rudham is apparently the route formally used by the RAF. This route
should be properly surveyed to look at its suitability as a construction traffic route and
identify any necessary improvements such as passing bays on stretches of road that
are less than 5.5 m wide. There will be a need for a legal agreement to be in place to
address the issue of extra-ordinary wear and tear caused by construction traffic and
for all construction traffic to use only this route to access the site.
In themselves the loft style holiday apartments are unlikely to cause significant
problems post construction. However, they will eat into the base traffic level and that
impact needs to be assessed and addressed.
Environment Agency - Standard advice regarding the provision of private sewage
treatment plants and surface water disposal
Environmental Health - No objection in principle. Has some concerns over the noise
aspect of aeroplanes arriving and taxiing under the apartments in respect of both
noise and hours of use. If possible would like further details or to agree some of
these issues before approval. If this is not possible then would need to look at
conditions around hours of use, insulation and noise control. Also has concerns over
the storage of hazardous material, fuel etc, in and out of the aeroplanes which would
be stored below the residential apartments.
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council - the application does not present any
concerns for the Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk
Planning Obligations Co Coordinator - Fire Service: Norfolk Fire Services have
indicated that the proposed development will require the following infrastructure,
depending on whether there are plans for the site to be served by mains water. Either
3 hydrants or a charged static water tank (or similar to the satisfaction of fire and
rescue authority) will have to be provided by the developer. If hydrants are to be
provided these will have to be installed during construction to the satisfaction of
Norfolk Fire Service and at no cost. The hydrants could be delivered through a
planning condition.
Environment: There may be a requirement for landscaping and future maintenance of
planted areas on highway land. Where there are mature trees, hedges or other
vegetation bounding the site and these are growing on land to be adopted as part of
the highway, a commuter sum will be required to cover their future maintenance.
No contribution will be sought in respect of Education and Library Provision in this
instance.
Development Control Committee (West)
24
22 May 2008
Fire Officer - Awaiting comments.
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
Policy HO 9: Re-use of rural buildings as dwellings (specifies criteria for converting
buildings to dwellings).
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 EC 10: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to
be attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
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. Appropriateness of use of buildings
2. Adequacy of the surrounding highway network to accommodate additional traffic.
APPRAISAL
This application relates to four large structures arranged in a crescent at the south
eastern edge of the developed part of the former airbase. The buildings are the
largest remaining structures on the airbase and are a prominent feature in the
landscape.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
22 May 2008
The buildings are situated in the Countryside policy area as designated in the Local
Plan. Conversion to holiday accommodation is in broad compliance with Local Plan
Policy 5 (recreation/tourism). However, given the countryside location the proposed
change of use has to be considered with particular reference to Local Plan Policy 29.
The buildings appear to be in generally sound condition. The applicant's Design and
Access Statement suggests that the change of use could be achieved with no
significant alteration to the external appearance other than the introduction of roof
glazing and opening up of the existing glazed areas on the elevations facing the
runways. In this respect it is accepted that the proposed change of use could
preserve the appearance and character of these interesting buildings in compliance
with the physical requirements of Local Plan Policy 29. In any case, if the eventual
detailed proposals result in material alterations to the external appearance of the
buildings these would have to be the subject of a further application for planning
permission.
Notwithstanding the unusual nature of these buildings their proposed re-use for
holiday purposes accords with Development Plan policy in broad terms.
Subject to the resolution of the concerns raised by County Council Highways and
subject to no new grounds of objection being received the application is
recommended for approval
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to appropriate conditions, no new
grounds of objection from outstanding consultees and prior resolution of the
concerns raised by County Council Highways regarding the impact of the
proposals on the surrounding highway network.
8.
HELHOUGHTON - 20080508 - Change of use of community centre to site
office/sales centre and barrack block 101 as temporary housing for site
construction workers; RAF West Raynham Massingham Road West Raynham
for Tamarix Investments Limited
Target Date :23 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20080506 and 20080507 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19860688 - Barrack block 101
Approved, 21 May 1986
19870324 - (Circular 18/84; Full) - Community centre.
Observations, 16 Mar 1987
THE APPLICATION
Relates to two buildings in the north eastern part of the former airbase. Firstly, the
use of detached two-storey barrack block to house construction workers employed
on the site during the current refurbishment of existing properties and future works
within the former airbase and, secondly, change of use of former community centre
to serve as site office and sales centre.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
22 May 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control having regard to the unique
nature of the proposals and Development Plan policy issues.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
CONSULTATIONS
East Rudham Parish Council - Object. East Rudham Parish Council considered all
the applications together as the Parish Council's concerns are for the impact
developments at RAF West Raynham will have on the residents of East Rudham.
East Rudham Parish Council is very concerned that the road from the airbase to East
Rudham is designated as a heavy/light traffic route. East Rudham is currently
experiencing high and difficult traffic movements through the parish. Any significant
increase in traffic movements would be intolerable. East Rudham Parish Council
considers that a comprehensive traffic survey needs to be carried out to determine
the level of traffic which would converge at the A148 at East Rudham. The Parish
Council is also concerned regarding the support services, eg sewerage. The facilities
at East Rudham would be unable to cope with the sewerage outfall created by the
development at West Raynham Airfield.
Great Massingham Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
Weasenham St Peter Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
West Rudham Parish Council - Supports the application. What about after
construction? - school? All external lighting to be focussed downwards.
Little Massingham Parish Council Support the application.
Raynham Parish Council - No objection. Temporary must mean temporary.
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments.
Breckland District Council - The submission version of the North Norfolk LDF Core
Strategy identifies former RAF West Raynham in the Economy policies as a location
for economic re-use provided such re-use is on the Technical Areas. The North
Norfolk LDF recognises that a careful balance needs to be struck between the need
to take a positive approach to the re-use of these areas and the fact that in wider
sustainability terms they are poorly located in terms of accessibility to services and
facilities.
The provision of 58 new "infill" housing units within the existing residential areas is
not of a scale to directly concern Breckland. In principle the proposal for new housing
is contrary to national policy set out in PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPG13, regional policy
and North Norfolk's emerging LDF policy, all of which seek to direct new housing
provision to sustainable locations (market towns and local service centres) and
where there is an identified need. The re-use of existing housing stock would have
met the small localised need and any additional housing is likely to exacerbate
unsustainable travel patterns, including traffic through Weasenham (identified in the
Transport Statement as a "major route to the site").
The proposal to provide a new community centre, recreation facilities and a retail
shop will provide new facilities reasonably close to Breckland communities such as
Weasenham and Wellingham where there is currently a paucity of service provision.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
22 May 2008
In principle Breckland Council raise an objection to the residential element of this
proposal in terms of the unsustainable location and potential impact on Breckland
Communities identified as being on a "major transport route" to the site.
County Council (Highways) - The Mission Statement and Preamble talks about an
opportunity to re-create a sustainable village community. I consider that it is
premature to be looking at individual applications before a master plan for the site is
produced showing how that will be done. Is the scale of what is being proposed really
sustainable? Ideally a development large enough to sustain a primary school should
be developed. If a new village is to be formed here the question is what is the best
and most sustainable way to do that. New housing should be matched by new
employment opportunities. I am concerned that we will end up with a commuter
village in the countryside. Traffic and transport issues are clearly going to be
important and decisions need to be made in the light of how the whole site will be
redeveloped not on a piece meal basis.
It is recognised that this site must have generated traffic when the base was in use
and that there are a significant number of building assets on the site that could be
reused. However, there has been no meaningful assessment of the former traffic and
transport situation at the site in the lead up to the site being closed to establish a
realistic traffic base from the site in its recent past and an understanding of the traffic
and transport solutions in place at that time. The applicant's Transport Statement is
not accepted.
Access for construction traffic will be a major issue with this site. The route out to the
A148 at East Rudham is apparently the route formally used by the RAF. This route
should be properly surveyed to look at its suitability as a construction traffic route and
identify any necessary improvements such as passing bays on stretches of road that
are less than 5.5m wide. There will be a need for a legal agreement to be in place to
address the issue of extra-ordinary wear and tear caused by construction traffic and
for all construction traffic to use only this route to the site
The proposals for the former community centre and barrack block 101 are unlikely to
cause significant problems and both uses would appear to be temporary. However,
what happens to the buildings when that temporary use ceases? However, they will
eat into the base traffic level and that impact needs to be assessed and addressed.
Environment Agency - Standard advice regarding the provision of private sewage
treatment plants and surface water disposal.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council - The application does not present
any concerns for the Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk.
Planning Policy Manager - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
28
22 May 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Conflict with Development Plan Policy.
2. Adequacy of the surrounding highway network to accommodate additional traffic.
APPRAISAL
The buildings subject of this application are situated in the Countryside policy area.
Accordingly these proposals have to be considered with particular reference to Local
Plan Policy 29. In both cases the buildings are capable of accommodating the
proposed use without substantial rebuilding or extension. The barrack block was
refurbished and remodelled internally in the 1980's to provide living accommodation
for MoD personnel. Little work would be required to put the building back into
residential use. The former community centre is a newer building dating from the
1980's which is similarly suitable for its intended proposed use. The proposals would
have a neutral impact on the appearance of the locality. In these respects there is no
conflict with Policy 29. However, neither of the proposed uses features in the list of
appropriate development for countryside locations set out within Local Plan Policy 5.
The proposed site office/sales centre raises no significant conflict with policy.
Although not a preferred use for a countryside location it would be difficult to justify a
refusal of planning permission given the relationship of the proposed use to the
refurbishment works already under way on the site, including those to the existing
dwellings.
Barrack block 101 lies in a position approximately 74m from the selected small
village boundary. As such it cannot be considered to be 'adjacent' to the settlement
for the purposes of Local Plan policy 29 (which would open the possibility for
residential use). Nonetheless it is again considered that the unique circumstances in
this instance call for a more flexible approach. Allowing those directly involved in
construction work to live on the site would reduce potential traffic movements by
reducing the need for workers to commute. It should also be borne in mind that
should planning permission be granted for building operations on the site those
directly involved in the building operations would be entitled to live in caravans on the
site for the duration of works without the need for planning permission (under Class
A, Part 5, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995). Accordingly, it is not considered that the granting of a
temporary permission restricting occupation of the building solely to those actively
engaged in building/engineering operations on the former airbase would significantly
conflict with Development Plan policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
29
22 May 2008
Further discussions are taking place between the applicants and County Council
Highways. Subject to a successful outcome to those discussions the application will
be recommended for approval on a temporary basis.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval for a temporary period of two years subject to appropriate
conditions, no new grounds of objection from outstanding consultees and
prior resolution of the concerns raised by County Council Highways regarding
the impact of the proposals on the surrounding highway network.
9.
HEMPSTEAD - 20080555 - Change of use from public house to residential
dwelling; Hare and Hounds Baconsthorpe Road for Mr and Mrs Purkiss
Target Date :28 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Change of use of ground floor of detached two-storey building from public house with
residential accommodation over to single dwelling.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
The need to balance the policy objectives against the circumstances of the
applicants.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from a local resident (summarised):1. Previous owners of the public house had run thriving and well supported
businesses providing an excellent food menu and exercising initiative in attracting
customers. Not so the present owners.
2. Premises are currently shabby and unwelcoming.
3. Erratic opening hours. Not uncommon for the gates to be closed on Sundays and
weekday evenings.
4. Despite the applicants' statement to the contrary there would be local support for
an excellent well run pub. If trade has died it has more to do with the publicans than
the villagers.
5. The asking price for the property appears well in excess of the true value.
The applicants have submitted a statement together with summary accounts for
2005/6 and 2006/7 and correspondence with a company specialising in the sale of
licensed premises. These documents are appended to the agenda (see Appendix
2).
Development Control Committee (West)
30
22 May 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Baconsthorpe Parish Council - Objects. The reasons stated by the applicants to
close the public house are somewhat unacceptable. In addition there are already too
many holiday properties in the village.
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 87: Country Pubs (only allows change of use to other purposes if there is
another public house nearby or retention is proven to be unviable).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Viability of public house.
2. Marketing of property.
APPRAISAL
The property lies at the western edge of the village of Baconsthorpe in the
Countryside policy area as designated in the Local Plan.
Local Plan Policy 87 seeks to prevent the change of use of public houses in
countryside locations unless: (a) there is another pub within a half mile radius, (b) all
reasonable efforts to sell or let the business as a going concern have been
exhausted and (c) the proposed use accords with Local Plan policy regarding the reuse of buildings in the countryside.
Members will note from the information provided by the applicants the precarious
state of the business. In this case there is no other public house within half a mile so
the principal issue is whether the applicants should be required to market the
business to establish whether anyone else would be willing to take it on as a going
concern (in accordance with Local Plan Policy 87).
To date the market has not been tested. The two responses from estate agents
provided by the applicants indicate that their expectations regarding the value of the
business may be over-optimistic. Whilst there is nothing that the Council as Local
Planning Authority can do to force the applicants to run a failing business it is
considered that, in the absence of a proper marketing exercise, it would be wrong at
this stage to grant a planning permission which would facilitate the likely permanent
closure of the pub.
In the light of the clear conflict with Development Plan policy the application is
recommended for refusal.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
22 May 2008
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 87: Country Pubs
The applicants have failed to establish through a marketing exercise whether or not
the public house is potentially viable. Furthermore, the proposals would result in the
loss of an important social and community facility in the Countryside policy area in
conflict with the objectives of the above policy.
10.
HINDOLVESTON - 20080387 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; land at
Foxboro House 85/87 The Street for Mrs R M Williams
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :06 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two-storey dwelling with lean to garage which would have an
eaves height of 5m, gable width of 7m and an overall height to the ridge of 7.5m. The
total floor area excluding the garage would be 85sq.m.
Access to the site would be directly off The Street, with turning and manoeuvring
area for two vehicles within the site. In addition the property would have a maximum
garden depth of 10m and width of 12m.
An amended plan has been received which shows the layout of the access and
turning area.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Combe in the light of the planning issues raised by the
Parish Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:1. The house is too large for the plot.
2. It is forward of the building line and is out of character in a line of older buildings.
3. The street scene as sketched is misleading, as the new house would be
considerably higher due to the higher ground level.
4. The retaining wall and bank to the east could be unsatisfactory.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from the owners of neighbouring
properties which raise the following concerns (summarised):1. Would result in a loss of light to neighbouring properties.
2. Proposed dwelling would be set considerably forward of neighbouring properties.
Development Control Committee (West)
32
22 May 2008
3. The rear windows of the proposed dwelling would overlook the neighbouring
garden and driveway resulting in a loss of privacy.
4. The site plan is out of date and misleading as No.91 The Street no longer has a
front porch.
5. There are concerns that the rainwater soakaways would erode the higher ground.
6. The property is out of character in the street scene.
7. The access is on a slight bends and the road is used by heavy farm machinery
and commercial vehicles.
8. There will be a loss of privacy to our south facing garden.
9. The additional shingle drive will only contribute to the noise and disturbance
created by the existing driveway.
Two further letters have been received from the owners of neighbouring properties in
respect of the amended plan which reiterate their previous concerns.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - (Original comments). The restricted visibility onto the
highway is unacceptable at the present time and the applicant should submit further
details which show the parking and turning arrangements and a vehicular access
which is perpendicular to the highway.
Awaiting further comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk 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).
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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
3. Design.
4. Access and highway safety.
Development Control Committee (West)
33
22 May 2008
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the development boundary for Hindolveston where in principle the
erection of an additional dwelling would be acceptable subject to enhancing the
character of the village and complying with other Development Plan policies.
The site currently forms the side garden to the east of Foxboro House, a large twostorey white rendered property, which was formerly a public house. It is separated
from that property by a gravel access drive. To the east of the site, set on slightly
lower ground, are a pair of semi detached flint and red brick cottages, Nos.91 and 93
The Street, whilst to the rear of the site No.89 The Street, Rose Cottage, is set some
35m back from the edge of the carriageway.
In terms of the relationship of the proposed dwelling to neighbouring properties,
although it would be set on of slightly higher ground than No.91, the street scene
submitted as part of the application indicates that the overall height of the dwelling
would be comparable with Foxboro House and approximately 600mm higher than the
neighbouring property to the east. The rear elevation would be some 22m from the
blank gable end of No.89, but this property has a small part of its garden and parking
area facing the proposed dwelling. As such, whilst there would be a degree of
overlooking from the two first floor bedroom windows of the north elevation of the
proposed dwelling, since it would be set at a slight angle, it is not considered that this
would result in any significant overlooking of No.89. In terms of the relationship to
No.91, although set approximately 2.5m forwards of that property, the distance
between the two dwellings (in the region of 8m) and the orientation would not result
in any significant loss of light to that property. Furthermore there would be no
windows in the gable end facing No. 91 and the dwelling would be separated from
that property by an existing hedgerow some 1.4m in height. In addition No.91 has its
driveway adjacent to the site boundary.
It is therefore considered that whilst there would be a degree of overlooking of the
property to the rear, given the overall form and character of the area and the fact that
this property has the majority of its private amenity space to the rear, it is not
considered that this is sufficient to justify refusal of the application.
As far as the design of the dwelling is concerned, although Foxboro House and
Nos.91 and 93 The Street are older period properties there is a mix of house types in
this part of The Street, both in terms of architectural style and relationships to each
other. It is therefore considered that, subject to the use of appropriate materials, the
dwelling would blend successfully with other properties in the street scene.
In terms of the access and turning area an amended plan has been received which
shows what is considered to be an adequate manoeuvring area, but the comments of
the Highway Authority are awaited on the acceptability of these changes.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would not have a significantly
adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties and the design would be
compatible with other properties in the surrounding area. Subject to there being no
objection from the Highway Authority it would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Highway
Authority and the imposition of the following conditions:-
Development Control Committee (West)
34
22 May 2008
2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
numbers 01/2/2008 (B) and 02/2/2008) received by the Local Planning Authority on
17 April 2008 and the amended plans showing the proposed vehicular access and
turning space and visibility splays received by the Local Planning Authority on 30
April 2008, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4) Before the development is started samples of the facing materials to be used for
the external walls and roof shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full accordance
with the approved details.
5) The existing hedgerow along the north, east and southern boundaries shall be
retained at a minimum height of 1.4m from ground level, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of not less than ten years
from the date of this permission.
6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no enlargement of or other alteration to the dwelling hereby
permitted shall take place unless planning permission has been first granted by the
Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings,
in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy
13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
6) The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and the
visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
11.
HOLT - 20071747 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Public Conveniences
Church Street for North Norfolk District Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :03 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071076 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two semi-detached three-storey
dwellings
Withdrawn, 08 Nov 2007
Development Control Committee (West)
35
22 May 2008
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of detached single-storey purpose-built public convenience and erection
of detached three-bedroom dwelling with attached single garage. The proposals
envisage the widening of the existing pedestrian access by the demolition of a 1.8m
length of flint wall at the site frontage.
Amended plans received incorporating revised design.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor High having regard to the principle of the development
and high level of public interest.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects most strongly to the amended application. This is a non-residential street,
within a Conservation Area with adjacent listed buildings. Such a proposal is
overdevelopment. There would be traffic difficulties with this proposal (to which the
highways officer may be unfamiliar). The entrance to the proposed dwelling is where
funeral and wedding cars wait and local deliveries for the library take place. The
proposal would result in the loss of a fine wall.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received in respect of the originally submitted scheme:16 letters/emails from local residents and businesses and further letters from Holt
and District Chamber of Commerce and the Holt Society each raising some or all of
the following objections (summarised):1. Church Street is not a residential area.
2. If site is to be redeveloped it should be for business use or an amenity for the
benefit of visitors to the town.
3. Proposals will exacerbate traffic/parking problems.
4. Inappropriate position for new dwelling at entrance to churchyard.
5. Removal of part of important flint boundary wall.
6. Detract from character/appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.
7. Poorly designed house with little in common with its surroundings.
8. Overdevelopment of site with inadequate amenity space and potential overlooking
of neighbouring property.
9. Church Street serves significantly more properties than the applicant’s agent
implies (including a recently approved extension to the school car park).
10. Loss of trees.
11. Loss of public convenience.
12. Awkward relationship to approved bungalow to rear/north.
13. Danger to pedestrians from traffic generated by the proposed development.
14. Loss of an attractive public building.
15. Main library building is early 19th century of high quality. Proposed building will
detract from its setting.
16. Surrounding buildings are not all 'of domestic scale'.
17. Public conveniences should be retained and enhanced for the benefit of the town.
18. This formerly private site came into public ownership for the sole purpose of the
provision of a public convenience for the town.
19. Better use for the site would be a tourist information centre/museum with
replacement public toilets.
20. Applicant's agent has under estimated the actual traffic movements in Church
Street associated with the church, school, businesses and dwellings.
21. No need for new dwelling at this location.
Development Control Committee (West)
36
22 May 2008
22. Future residents of the proposed dwelling would suffer inconvenience from the
current problems arising from traffic and parking in Church Street in association with
weddings/funerals, Sunday and daily services and concerts at the church.
23. Bell ringing could cause disturbance to future residents.
24. The site lies on the route of the Great Fire of Holt of 1708.
25. Public toilets are needed at this end of the town.
In addition to the above individual letters a petition was received containing 430
signatures objecting to the proposals on the basis that the site should be retained for
the benefit of the town including the provision of public toilets.
One email in support of the original proposals was received (summarised):Support proposals to remove public toilets little used in the past by visitors/shoppers.
Letters received in respect of the revised scheme:6 letters of objection from local residents and businesses raising some or all of the
following matters (summarised):1. Detract from the appearance of the locality.
2. Increased traffic.
3. Proposed building wholly lacking in architectural merit and inappropriate in this
important location close to the church.
4. Single-storey development would be better subject to the provision of adequate
space.
5. Loss of important boundary wall (contemporary with the Georgian library building
to the west).
6. Loss of trees.
7. Public Conveniences should be retained for the benefit of the town.
8. Site should be developed for community use.
9. Church Street is not a residential location.
10. Occupiers of the proposed dwelling will suffer inconvenience from the high level
of traffic using Church Street in connection with the school, church and businesses.
11. Ringing of the church bells may cause nuisance to occupiers of the new dwelling.
12. The site should be sold to the Town Council to give Holt residents more of a say
in its eventual use.
13. Revised design has no more to commend it than the original scheme. Increased
mass will have a greater impact on the neighbouring property.
14. Proposals fail to satisfy the Council's basic amenity criterion regarding garden
size.
15. The formation of the vehicular access will result in 'an accident waiting to happen'
given the high level of traffic using Church Street.
16. Proposals fail to enhance the form and character of the Conservation Area.
17. Proposed building too close to wall.
18. Two-storey development is out of keeping.
19. Loss of important trees.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Comments in respect of amended proposals: The proposed development would not
have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the Holt Conservation
Area. The design could be described as 'conventional'. Should the application be
approved I would prefer to see an alternative solution to the front door and its
'colonnade'. This is not a Georgian property. Impose standard conditions requiring
the prior approval of external materials.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
37
22 May 2008
County Council (Highways) - Comments in respect of amended proposals: As with
the earlier application on this site for two dwellings I have no objection to the granting
of permission. Impose standard conditions regarding access and provision of on-site
parking.
Environmental Health - Comments in respect of amended proposals: No objection.
Impose standard condition requiring submission of refuse storage details and note
advising potential for the site to be contaminated in view of historical 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.
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 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 7: Town and Large Village Centres (broad range of development/uses
encouraged).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy 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. Suitability of location for residential development.
2. Impact on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
3. Impact on amenities of adjoining properties.
4. Highway safety and traffic issues.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the town centre as designated in the Local Plan. In policy terms
there is no objection to the proposed redevelopment of this site for residential
purposes given that the development does not result in the loss of retail floorspace
and given also that the erection of a single dwelling would cause no harm to the
prime retail function of Holt Town Centre (Policy 7).
Development Control Committee (West)
38
22 May 2008
The existing building on the site is of no special interest or significance. Accordingly
there can be no objection in principle to its demolition providing the redevelopment of
the site can be seen to preserve or enhance the appearance and character of this
part of the Conservation Area. The amended proposals would result in a building
which is not inappropriate in terms of its scale and design. The proposed use of lime
render for the external walls and red clay pantiles for the roof is considered suitable
for this location as are the general scale and design. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager's reservations concerning the proposed front door and
colonnade could be addressed with a suitable condition requiring the prior
submission and approval of precise details prior to construction.
The amended proposals would result in a satisfactory relationship with all
surrounding properties. Concern has been expressed regarding the impact of this
development on the approved single-storey dwelling to the rear (north) of the site.
Whilst the proposed building would clearly have some impact this side the distances
are not considered to be unreasonable and it should also be noted that only one
small window is proposed in the facing wall of the proposed building at first floor, this
serving a bathroom. In any case the distance between facing windows would exceed
the Local Plan basic amenity criteria. A condition requiring the window to be fitted
with obscured glass would ensure that there is no overlooking or loss of privacy.
The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal.
The amended proposals conform with Development Plan policy and the application is
therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to appropriate conditions.
12.
HOLT - 20080418 - Removal of condition 5 of planning permission 20061473 to
delete requirement for installation of traffic calming measures; land at Meadow
Close and Grove Lane for McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :12 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061473 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of forty-three
sheltered apartments and twenty-one affordable dwellings
Approved, 07 Feb 2007
THE APPLICATION
Condition 5 of planning application 20061473 required speed bumps to be positioned
at the entrance to the development nearest Meadow Close and just after the junction
to the sheltered housing to the rear of the site. The current application seeks the
removal of this condition.
Development Control Committee (West)
39
22 May 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker due to the concerns of local residents in respect of
highway safety in the vicinity of the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. Already traffic problems in Grove Lane caused by its narrowness, lack of
pavements and parking facilities.
2. Problems exacerbated by the enormous speed vehicles currently travel along
Grove Lane.
3. Not only should proposed speed bumps be retained but more added in Grove
Lane itself.
4. There is an existing problem with some residents exceeding the speed limit, which
could be made worse when this development is complete.
5. The additional traffic using the development will only exacerbate the existing
problem.
6. Our concerns regarding highway safety do not appear to have been addressed by
yourselves or the Highways Department.
7. Instead of speed bumps a footpath should be constructed from the development to
Pearson's Road.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Norfolk Constabulary - Comments awaited.
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 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
40
22 May 2008
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on highway safety.
APPRAISAL
Following discussions between the developer and the County Council (Highways) in
respect of the details of the speed bumps, a letter from the Assistant Engineer
(Estate Development) at Norfolk County Council to the developer, dated 3 July 2007,
submitted as part of the current application, states in respect of the traffic calming
ramp details that, notwithstanding condition 5, requiring traffic calming, it is not
necessary due to the short length of road. The proposed feature is also unsuitable
due to the potential noise and vibration that would occur and should therefore be
removed.
In view of these comments, the fact that the Highway Authority has raised no
objection to the current application and the fact that the section of highway under
consideration is only 50m in length, notwithstanding the concerns of local residents it
is not considered that the development should be required to include these traffic
calming measures.
In respect of local residents' concerns regarding the need for traffic calming
measures in the area of the site, particularly along Grove Lane, at the time the
original application no off-site highway improvement works were required by Norfolk
County Council Highways or were suggested by the Norfolk Constabulary.
At the time of writing this report the views of Norfolk Constabulary were awaited.
In view of the comments of the Highway Authority is not considered that the refusal of
this application could be justified and as such the development would accord with
Local Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:- APPROVE
13.
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20080329 - Erection of thirty-eight dwellings; land off
Grove Road for Melton Constable Country Club
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :02 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
Large Village
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19941558 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of 8 bungalows and
122 houses
Development Control Committee (West)
41
22 May 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of 38 dwellings, 15 of which would be affordable, on a 1.17ha site.
The development would provide for a mix of house types consisting of 7 x 2 bed
houses, 8 x 2 bedroom flats, which would comprise the affordable units and the
remaining 16 x 3 bedroom houses and 7 x 4 bedroom houses. An area of open
space, having a site area of approximate 1275sq.m, is proposed which would front
Grove Road.
The main access to the site would be from the Briston Road junction, where visibly
improvements are being proposed. At this stage permission is only being sought for
the access and layout with all other matters reserved for future consideration.
Revised plans have been received which show the number of dwellings reduced from
40 to 38.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by Councillor Combe having regard to potential impact of the development
on the amenities of neighbouring properties and on the appearance and character of
this part of the Melton Constable Conservation Area.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
No objection to amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
43 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. Proposal is contrary to Policy 3 of the Local Plan which limits the number of new
dwellings.
2. The number of proposed dwellings is too dense for the site.
3. Inappropriate siting of dwellings within close proximity of the industrial estate.
4. The loss of the green space would have a detrimental impact on the quality of life.
5. The loss of the bowling green would be a great shame.
6. The site has been used as common land for at least 20 years and qualifies to be
protected as common land.
7. It is considered that with the exception of the gas works site the land has been
used for recreational purposes since the days of the railway and should remain as
such.
8. The Melton Constable Community Trust believes that the area should be reserved
as a village green.
9. The green space proposed within the development would be totally inadequate.
10. Would reduce the amount of places for children to play.
11. It is not safe for children to cross the main road to use the other playground to the
north of the village.
12. Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that there is the potential here to
create higher quality amenity space and to increase the biodiversity of the vicinity.
13. Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that "the site is one of the key
open spaces within the Conservation Area".
14. The proposed amenity space should be linked with a foot/cycle path to the Lomax
development.
15. The alterations to Melton Street and Grove Road would result in the potential loss
of car parking spaces.
16. Increased traffic would also increase noise and disturbance.
17. Already a lack of car parking in the village.
Development Control Committee (West)
42
22 May 2008
18. There is already car parking and congestion problem particularly outside the
Doctor's surgery.
19. Would place extra strain on the infrastructure of the village where access for
emergency vehicles is already difficult.
20. Development would erode the character of the Conservation Area.
21. The development would alter the original historical plan form of the village linking
it to the parish of Briston.
22. The proposed development would spoil the unique character of the surrounding
street scene.
23. Would increase the demand for primary school places, which is already at
bursting point.
24. Would place extract pressure on an already busy Doctor's surgery.
25. Increased pressure on local sewage system.
26. The development would cause further drainage problems, increasing flood risk in
the area.
27. There are natural springs on the site which would be affected by the
development.
28. The development could affect the biodiversity of the site, where Great Crested
newts have been recorded.
29. Negative environmental impact on Burgh Beck stream, which feeds the River
Glaven.
30. Part of the site was a gasworks and the land is contaminated.
31. Disturbance of the contaminated land could pose a considerable health risk.
32. Electricity supply in the area is already erratic.
33. The development would exacerbate the water pressure problems already
experienced in the area.
34. The refurbishment/renovation of the Melton Constable County Club should be no
justification for allowing this development proceed.
35. The construction works would result in significant noise and disturbance.
36. Loss of local distinctiveness, Melton Constable is a unique Railway village.
37. Would destroy the 'small village atmosphere'.
38. Noise and disturbance from Industrial Estate would affect properties.
39. Some of the industrial units operate 24 hours a day.
40. Existing bank adjacent to the residential estate could result in overshadowing of
properties.
41. No assessment of local need in terms of open space, sports and recreational
facilities has been carried out.
42. Local Authority should avoid erosion of recreational space.
In addition a petition signed and addressed by 54 individuals has been received who
feel that the development would adversely affect access to services, result in a
significant increase in traffic, affect access for emergency services and result also in
the loss of what is considered to be the last area of open space.
9 letters of support have been received from local residents, including 6 who state
they are members of the Melton Constable County Club, which make the following
comments:1. There is a need for more affordable housing in the area, especially for young
people.
2. The village has two very large playing fields already for children to play.
3. The development of the site would improve the appearance of an untidy area.
4. The development would provide extra car park spaces which are greatly needed to
accommodate existing houses.
5. The additional traffic will make very little difference considering there is already a
lorry route through the village.
Development Control Committee (West)
43
22 May 2008
6. The additional traffic would be mitigated by the provision of off street car parking
which is long overdue.
7. The development would be in keeping the historic and heritage nature of the
village and the Conservation Area.
8. The development of the site would help to secure the future of the Melton
Constable County Club, which provides a place for people of all ages to socialise.
In addition 124 letters of support have been received from members of the Melton
Constable County Club, in the form of a standard letter which states that the
signatory believes the application has a number of positive attributes for the village.
A letter has also been received from consultants attached to which is a petition in
support of the application signed and addressed by 50 individuals who feel the
development would provide many benefits for the village and wider community.
A further letter has been received from consultants which seeks to clarify some of the
issues raised:For the avoidance of doubt the whole site is in private ownership and there are no
third party rights over any of the site.
All the discussions we have had to date with Norfolk County Council Highways
Department indicated that the measures proposed will satisfy their requirements and
therefore there is no objection to the application on those grounds.
The planning application includes a partial solution for car parking for existing
residents by providing additional off-road spaces totalling 15 units for existing
residents. We would also point out that there are 3 parking lay-bys being created on
Grove Road which will add a further 6 parking spaces for the public that are not
available now. The extra spaces and lay-bys will significantly contribute to a
reduction in on-street car parking.
We are aware of the concerns of Briston Parish Council regarding a footpath link
between this site and the existing Lomax Development and we are happy to remove
the footpaths proposed if it is considered to be inappropriate. The intention was to
enable nearby residents to gain access to a wider area of public open space and to
provide safer footpaths and cycle routes to the school.
An Ecological Assessment has been received from the applicant's agent.
A Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Millard Consulting has been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Briston Parish Council - (Original comments) - Objects to the application on the
following grounds:1. Even with the provision of an additional 23 parking spaces for existing residents it
is doubtful if there would be any improvement on the current parking situation within
Melton Constable.
2. Grove Road would have difficulty in coping with the extra traffic and the junction
with Grove Road/Briston Road is not adequate to deal with the additional traffic.
3. The proposal would put added stain on surface water/sewage system.
4. Grove Road is prone to flooding and part of the site is known to be marshy.
The Parish Council in a subsequent letter has also indicated whilst they are in the
process of agreeing the transfer of the public amenity areas within the adjacent
Lomax development they consider that in the event of the Grove Road site being
approved that in 'principle' the link between the two amenity areas would not be
advisable.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
Development Control Committee (West)
44
22 May 2008
Anglian Water - Consider that the existing network system has adequate capacity to
supply the development, however suggests that the developer should take measures
to achieve water efficiency. In addition they would require a condition relating to their
assets which are close to or cross the site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - (Original
comments): Are concerned regarding the impact of the development on the setting of
the existing built form, and in particular the historic railway village which lies at the
heart of the Conservation Area.
Most importantly the open areas to the south of Grove Road form the setting to the
Conservation Area as was highlighted in the recent document, 'Melton Constable
Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals', North Norfolk
District Council 2007. Accordingly they consider very careful consideration needs to
be given to the location and impact of the proposed housing. The views towards and
out of the village from the site are significant and this open area does provide the
backcloth or foreground to the village in landscape terms. However, they consider
that this does not preclude the possibility of development.
The existing historic core of terraces is of high density. Any new development on the
site concerned should pay regard to this issue and to the very distinct form, scale and
character of the Conservation Area. This could be achieved through building design
and density. Whilst noting that some illustrative elevations have been submitted and
welcome the attempt to reflect local distinctiveness in any new housing however it
will be important at the detailed stage to ensure that building design is
complementary in style rather than mere 'pastiche'. Any new development should not
undermine the integrity of the built historic fabric which was very much 'of its time'.
The use of modern materials and building methods in any new build would be
compatible with the Victorian architecture by demonstrating contemporary techniques
and materials.
In respect of the traffic management proposals the widening of Grove Road and
provision of a footway along the application site frontage is acceptable, as are the
minor alterations to provide a visibility splay at the junction with Fakenham Road and
Melton Street.
Therefore provided a substantial amount of open landscape is retained along Grove
Road, whereby the setting and context of the historic village can be appreciated,
there is no overriding objection to this proposal.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Original comments)
No objection to the proposed tree removals provided that detailed landscape
proposals include replacement tree planting. Furthermore a significant lime on
Briston Road should be retained. It is understood that the submitted plans indicate
that visibility splays can be achieved without removal of these trees.
The Norfolk Biological Records Centre has records of Great Crested Newts in the
Melton Constable area, and the site could be potential foraging habitat for the newts
with breeding ponds nearby. 'The trees and hedgerows that are also to be removed
could provide other suitable ecological habitat.' It is therefore recommended that an
ecological survey is carried out prior to determining the application to identify any
protected species and other ecological information inline with the recommendations
of PPS9.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
Development Control Committee (West)
45
22 May 2008
County Council (Highways) - (Original comments) - Requires additional information in
respect of the layout of the turning heads, car parking, size of garages and lay-bys
etc. In addition, they require the existing footpath on the north side of Grove Road
between the site and the Briston Road to be widened to 1.8m.
Comments have been received in respect of the amended plan which state that the
four bedroom dwellings do not comply with County Council requirement for three car
parking spaces. The retention of the Lime tree within the visibility splay is acceptable.
The County Council could not sustain a refusal on the grounds of access to the site
and do not require improvements to the existing footpath. However would be seeking
waiting restrictions at the Green Road/Briston Road junction.
Environment Agency (Waste Regulation) - (Original comments) - The site lies within
a Flood Zone 1, the lowest risk zone. Whilst the site is outside the floodplain the
development could generate significant volumes of surface water. As such surface
water drainage will need to be addressed in the form of a Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA). To ensure that the additional surface water generated by the development
can be managed without increasing both on-and off-site flood risk.
They therefore object on flood risk grounds until such a time that a satisfactory FRA
is submitted.
In respect of contaminated land they raise no objection subject to the imposition of an
appropriate condition requiring the submission of a full contaminated land survey.
Environmental Health - (Original comments) - Due to the springs in close proximity to
the site further information is required on surface water disposal methods. In addition
they also require the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to contaminated
land, lighting and noise, together with details of refuse storage areas.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
G P Practices Senior Partner/Practice Manager - Awaiting comments.
Miscellaneous Planning Obligations Co-ordinator (County Planning) - Require
contribution in respect of Primary and High School provision and also library
provision and fire service.
North Norfolk Primary Care Group - Awaiting comments.
Planning Policy Manager - Planning Policy Manager - (Original comments) - The
Local Plan was adopted in 1998 and in some areas of policy might be regarded as
out of date. In the intervening years the Government has published a number of new
policy statements and the Authority is in the process of replacing the current Local
Plan with the Local Development Framework (LDF). It could be argued that emerging
policies more accurately reflect Government thinking and hence ought to be afforded
more weight.
The LDF does not propose to alter the development boundary of the village and the
site will continue to be designated as part of a residential area. Therefore, given that
the proposal includes 40% affordable housing, under both the current Local Plan and
the emerging Core Strategy, should it be approved, there is no in principle objection
to residential development of this site.
There is a high demand and a high level of need for housing in the District. The East
of England Plan requires that the Authority provide for the erection of a minimum of
8000 dwellings in the period 2001- 2021. Development of unidentified sites (windfall)
has been providing approximately 370 dwellings per year since 2001. This will need
to increase to around 424 per year to ensure the 8000 dwellings are built within the
Development Control Committee (West)
46
22 May 2008
plan period. A Strategic Market Housing Assessment prepared for the Authority by
Fordham research suggests that there is substantial demand for new dwellings and a
need for in excess of 900 affordable dwellings per year.
The emerging LDF will therefore seek to provide for a general increase in housing
provision for the rest of the plan period and in order to do this, will be identifying
specific sites for house building (residential allocations). However, the Site Specific
Proposals document which will allocate these sites is unlikely to be adopted until
2009/10 and in the interim windfall development, such as that proposed on this site,
will comprise the main source of new dwellings. District-wide there is currently a fairly
large ‘stock’ of planning permissions and a further 400-450 dwellings which are
recorded as under construction. However in the absence of land allocations, or an
increase in windfall development rates, it seems unlikely that the number of dwellings
built each year will reach the required figure of around 424 until specific new
allocations are made.
PPS3 requires that Local Planning Authorities identify and maintain a five year land
supply. This should comprise sufficient specifically identified sites to accommodate
five years worth of the annual requirement (in the case of North Norfolk 5 years x 424
dwellings = 2120 dwellings) where it is clear that development can and will take
place. Currently the Council can identify sufficient sites to provide an approximate 4.7
years supply. In the absence of a full 5 year supply PPS3 requires that planning
authorities should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having
regard to the policies of the PPS including:Achieving high quality housing.
Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting housing
requirements.
The suitability of the site for housing, including environmental sustainability.
Using land effectively and efficiently, and ensuring the proposed development is in
line with planning for housing objectives and does not undermine wider policy
objectives.
The current position in respect of housing supply and needs, the absence of a full
five year land supply, and the advice in PPS3 does not favour a restrictive approach
towards housing provision. The Core Strategy therefore suggests that allocations of
up to 50 dwellings may be appropriate in Briston and Melton Constable reflecting the
relative sustainability of the two settlements, which together have a broad range of
day to day services and facilities.
In light of the above there is no strategic policy objection to the proposal.
The proposal should also comply with Policy 13 (design and setting of development),
Policy 42 (should preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area,
including consideration of the impact that the proposed highway works may have on
the prevailing character of the area), Policy 105 (provision of public open space), and
Policies 147 and 153 (access and car parking). Some account should also be taken
of the emerging policies of the Core Strategy particularly EN6 in respect of energy
efficiency and how the proposed layout of development may impact on this.
In respect of Open Space provision the proposal meets the requirements of the Local
Plan which for developments of this size requires the provision of a LAP (Local Area
of Play). I am however aware that there are local concerns in relation to the provision
of 'usable' open space in this part of the village. In this regard it would be preferable
to link the proposed open space on this site with that on the adjacent Lomax scheme
to make a more usable area (the Lomax scheme includes the provision of a LEAP
immediately adjacent to the open space proposed on the current application). A
footpath connection between the two sites is also desirable. However account should
also be taken of the Melton Constable Character Appraisal which identifies this site
as an open space.
Development Control Committee (West)
47
22 May 2008
Comments awaited on amended plans.
Strategic Housing - Supports the application subject to the applicant meeting the
Council's affordable housing requirements in terms of affordability and tenure mix.
North Norfolk Safety Community Partnership - Makes suggestions which should be
incorporated into any application for full planning permission.
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 or refusal of this application as recommended is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
North Norfolk Safety Community Partnership's comments have been passed to the
applicant's agent.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 3: Large 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 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 56: Affordable Housing on Large Housing Sites (specifies criteria for affordable
housing provision in residential developments).
Policy 105: Playing Space in New Housing Developments (refers to playing space
requirements).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Control Committee (West)
48
22 May 2008
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Acceptability of layout.
3. Car parking.
4. Highway safety.
5. Loss of open space.
6. Impact on Conservation Area.
7. Flood risk.
8. Site contamination.
9. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary of Melton Constable as defined
in the North Norfolk Local Plan, is designated as part of a residential area, and is
within Melton Constable Conservation Area. Residential development of the site is
acceptable in principle but Policy 3 of the Local Plan normally restricts such
development to small groups of houses (defined as not more than eight dwellings)
which enhance the character of the village. As an exception to Policy 3 larger groups
of dwellings can be permitted under Policy 56 (affordable housing on large sites
including those in large villages) provided a significant proportion, currently 40%, of
the total number of dwellings proposed are affordable. The policy also requires that
the application meets a need for the affordable dwellings.
As indicated in the response from the Planning Policy Manager, the Housing Needs
Survey identified a high demand for affordable housing across the District, which was
reinforced by the Strategic Market Housing Assessment prepared for the Authority,
which suggests that in excess of 900 affordable dwellings are required per year.
Given this high level of demand although at the present time there is a fairly large
'stock' of planning permissions, in the absence of land allocations, or an increase in
windfall sites, together with the absence of a full five year land supply, the advice in
PPS3 does not favour a restrictive approach towards housing provision. The LDF
Core Strategy therefore suggests that allocations of up to 50 dwellings may be
appropriate in Briston and Melton Constable reflecting the relative sustainability of
the two settlements, which together have a broad range of day to day services and
facilities. In view of this demand the Local Planning Authority has not been seeking
the justification required by Policy 56. Strategic Housing has confirmed that the type
and mix of affordable housing being offered is acceptable.
As far as the layout of the development is concerned, this would be divided into two
elements separated by an area of open space. To the east the site would comprise
16 dwellings consisting of 3 and 4 bedroom properties. Six of the dwellings in the
form of a terrace would front Grove Road, whilst a further terrace of six properties
would face onto a shared surface access road into the site. The remaining four
dwellings would be to the rear of the site. To the west of the open space an access
road curving round into the site would serve 8 flats and two 2 bedroom houses at the
rear, whilst fronting Grove Road would be a terrace of 5 dwellings consisting of a mix
of 2 and 4 bedroom houses. The remaining 7 dwellings would front the access road
Development Control Committee (West)
49
22 May 2008
into the site. The introduction of the two terraces fronting Grove Road, together with
the remaining layout of the site, would reflect the distinctive form and character of
Melton Constable, whilst the provision of the open area would provide an area of
public open space and would contribute to the overall setting of the development. It is
therefore considered that the development as proposal would preserve the character
and appearance of the Melton Constable Conservation Area.
In terms of the basic amenity criteria, with the exception of the flats, each property
would have its own private rear garden area, which in the majority of cases would
comply with the Local Plan requirement of 10m in depth. The exception to this would
be the two terraces fronting Grove Road where 5 of the properties would have
garden depths in the region of 8m and 3 a depth of only 5m. However give the overall
mix of dwellings this shortfall is considered to be acceptable in this location. In terms
of window to window distance all of the dwellings would comply with Local Plan
requirements.
Concerning car parking, each dwelling would be provided with two car parking
spaces, either in the form of open parking, or a combination of a garage and parking
space, served off the access roads. In addition, at the western end of the site
adjacent to the industrial estate 15 car parking spaces would be allocated for the use
of existing residents in Melton Street and Colville Road. Grove Road itself would be
widened and 3 x 18m long parking bays would be provided.
In response to the amended plans the Highway Authority raised concerns in respect
of the size of the garages proposed and the fact that the allocation of two car parking
spaces for the four bedroom properties did not accord with the County Council car
parking standards. As far as the requirements of the North Norfolk Local Plan are
concerned, the provision of two car parking spaces per dwelling would comply with
the car parking standards, as would the internal dimensions of the garages.
In terms of off-site highway improvement works a requirement of the Highway
Authority is that there should be improvements to the junction of Grove Road and
Briston Road, where they require visibility improvement to the Briston side of the
junction and also a reduction in the radius of the junction itself. Works to the visibly
splay would require the removal of a small tree, but it is understood that the Highway
Authority would have no objection to the retention of a much larger lime tree. In
addition although the Highway Authority is seeking a widening of Grove Road itself it
has confirmed that it no longer requires a widening of the footway to the north side of
Grove Road to 1.8m and for the existing footpath in Grove Road to be linked to the
junction or Briston Road. In addition it no longer requires a 20mph zone with
associated traffic management measures in Colville Road, Melton Street and Grove
Road.
The Highway Authority has also confirmed that it is satisfied that the existing road
network in the vicinity of the site is adequate to serve and additional 38 dwellings.
As such in re-consulting the Highway Authority on the amended plans the Local
Planning Authority has requested written confirmation that the traffic management
measures are no longer required and that they are satisfied that the existing road
network in the vicinity of the site is adequate to serve an additional 38 dwellings.
A further area of concern to local residents is the loss of open space and the informal
amenity area. Until recently, although in private ownership, the eastern part of the
site has been used as informal recreational space and the parking of cars by local
residents, whilst the area at the western end is used as a bowling green. Although
Development Control Committee (West)
50
22 May 2008
the development provides for an area of open space of some 1,275sq.m at the centre
of the site which meets the requirements of the Local Plan as a Local Area of Play for
a development of this size in visual amenity terms this would result in a significant
loss of open space. The draft Melton Constable Conservation Area Character
Appraisals and Management Proposals suggest that the site is one of the key open
spaces within the Conservation Area. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has indicated that, providing a substantial amount of open landscape is
retained along Grove Road, whereby the setting and context of the historic village
can be appreciated, there is no overriding objection to this proposal. Furthermore
whilst this open area provides the backcloth or foreground to the village in landscape
terms he considers that this does not preclude the possibility of development.
Given the local concerns regarding the loss of 'usable' open space in this part of the
village, it is considered that it would be preferable to link the proposed open space on
this site with that on the adjacent Lomax scheme, which includes the provision of a
play area immediately adjacent to the open space proposed on the current
application. The amended plans show a footpath connection between the two sites. It
is understood Briston Parish Council is likely to adopt the adjacent open space once
the Lomax development is complete but the Parish Council has stated that it
considers that such a link would be undesirable.
A further area of concern raised by the Environment Agency is that of potential risk of
on-and off-site flood risk, which could result from the significant volumes of surface
water generated by the site. The applicant's agents have therefore submitted a full
Flood Risk Assessment and mitigation measures for the site which has been sent to
the Environment Agency for comment.
Following local concerns and the fact that records show that the site and nearby
ponds could be a potential foraging habitat for Great Crested newts and that trees
and hedgerows that are to be removed could provide other suitable ecological habitat
the applicant's agent has commissioned an Ecological Survey which has been
passed to the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager for comment.
Concerns have also been raised by local residents in respect of the contamination of
part of the site occupied by the former gas works. In 2004 a site investigation was
carried out in relation to contamination and extracts of that report have been
submitted as part of the current application. As a result both the Environment Agency
and the Council's Environment Health Division would in the event of permission
being granted require conditions relating to further site investigation and if necessary
remedial measures.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, clearly any development in this
area would have an impact on the enjoyment of the occupiers of existing dwellings,
both in terms of their outlook, possible noise and disturbance and increase in
potential traffic movements. However given the fact that the site is within the
development boundary for Melton Constable that in general the layout satisfies the
Local Plan requirements in terms of basic amenity criteria and open space and would
not result in direct overlooking of neighbouring properties there can be objection in
principle to the development as proposed. Furthermore the Council's Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that there is no overriding objection to
the proposal.
Therefore subject to the satisfactory resolution of the flood risk and ecological issues
together with no new grounds of objection from outstanding consultees it is
considered that the scheme as amended would not significantly conflict with
Development Control Committee (West)
51
22 May 2008
Development Plan policies. However, should resolution of these issues not be
possible, the application will be recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to satisfactory resolution of the flood
risk and ecological issues, no new grounds of objection from outstanding
consultees, the making of S.106 Obligations concerning education, library and
fire service contributions and the imposition of appropriate conditions
including affordable housing, or in the absence of such resolution delegated
refusal.
14.
RYBURGH - 20080619 - Change of use from office/storage to ten residential
dwellings, one residential flat and A1 (post office/store); The Granary Station
Road Great Ryburgh for Michael McNamara Associates
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 Jul 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Archaeological Site
Residential
Railway Proposal
Selected Small Village
Village Employment
Wensum Valley Project
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070637 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from office to four residential
units
Withdrawn, 31 May 2007
20071266 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from B1/B2
(business/general industrial) to A1/A3 (shop and store/restaurant)
Withdrawn, 12 Oct 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to convert the existing granary building and change its use to create 10
residential dwellings (8 two-storey and 2 single-storey), one flat and an A1 (post
office/store). Access would be taken from Station Road via the existing Maltings
access with parking for 15 cars at the northern end. Gardens for the proposed units
would be on the eastern side ranging in depth from approximately 3.5m to 10m.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green having regard to the following planning issues:
Creation of affordable housing and community benefits.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
52
22 May 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of support have been received. Summary of comments:1. Applicant has sought in vain to find commercial users for the property.
2. These proposals represent a practical way forward.
3. The village shop is going to close and this proposal will help fill the void.
4. Will provide valuable affordable and starter homes for young people.
5. A Community Interest Company, Ryburgh Community Enterprise CIC, has been
incorporated to run the shop and post office. (Incorporation number: 06563430 registered 11 April 2008).
6. The owner of the Granary will gift the shop premises to the company and has
agreed to let the village buy the first unit of housing for less than the market value to
provide extra space. The additional space will allow the company to establish more
than just a shop but a tea room and maybe a doctor's surgery.
7. This is a real opportunity for Great Ryburgh to take a step forward to sustain the
village for the future.
8. The shop will be of great benefit to those who do not have a car.
9. Grants have been received for the project.
10. If the application fails, the impact on Great Ryburgh will be huge.
Applicants' Design and Access Statement attached at Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Transportation) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Recommend conditions regarding control of noise (from
adjacent Crisp Maltings), contamination assessment (if digging up ground for water
pipes etc) and lighting condition.
Planning Policy Manager - Awaiting comments.
Strategic Housing - There is a substantial need for affordable housing across the
district, a Strategic Housing Market Assessment undertaken by Fordham Research
identifies a need for in excess of 900 affordable dwellings per year. There are at
present 267 applicants currently on the Council's Common Housing Register who
have indicated a preference for Great Ryburgh.
Policies 4 and 58
Under the above policies 'in selected small villages development proposals for more
than four dwellings may be permitted provided that all the excess dwellings are for
affordable housing'.
The proposals are for the conversion of the existing office and storage buildings
resulting in the creation of eleven residential units plus a Post Office/Store. Therefore
under Policy 58, the maximum of four will be permitted for sale on the open market
with seven dwellings being affordable. The applicant has included for 5 of the units to
be affordable. However, the above Local Plan policies have been in existence for a
number of years and the cost of the requirement for the full quota of affordable
housing may be prohibitive to the re-development. The applicant has provided no
supporting financial information to support a reduction in the amount of affordable
housing required under the above policies.
In conclusion Strategic Housing supports this application subject to the applicant
meeting the Council's affordable housing requirement in terms of quota, affordability
and mix.
Development Control Committee (West)
53
22 May 2008
A Section 106 Agreement will be required for all affordable housing contributions
made under Policies 58. The Section 106 Agreement will be completed prior to the
issuing of outline or full planning consent (whichever is first). This agreement will
include provisions to ensure:
the agreement is a local land charge;
the amount, type and mix of the affordable housing;
in instances of on-site provision the applicant will covenant to transfer completed
affordable housing units built to an agreed standard and at an agreed cost to a
Registered Social Landlord which requires no grant subsidy and whereby the
Registered Social Landlord will be able to charge social rent levels or an
affordable level of shared equity for low cost home ownership;
that the dwellings are occupied initially, and in perpetuity, only by those in
housing need;
phasing of dwelling provision.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk 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 10: Village Employment Areas (reserved for small-scale business, industrial,
storage purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 16: Pollution Control (aims to protect public amenity and natural habitats
against potentially polluting developments) (prevents sensitive development near to
existing polluting environments).
Policy 17: Control of Noise (aims to protect public amenity from noise generating
developments) (prevents sensitive developments near to noisy environments).
Policy 18: Light Pollution (aims to prevent insensitive lighting schemes to protect
residents, traffic safety and environment).
Policy 58: Affordable Housing in Selected Small Villages (developments of over four
dwellings should be made up of affordable housing provision, subject to genuine
local needs).
Policy 73: Development in Village Employment Areas (specifies criteria for
development appropriate for such areas, in terms of uses, size, type and
environmental impacts).
Policy 132: Fakenham to Norwich Disused Railway Trackbed (safeguards against
prejudicial development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
Development Control Committee (West)
54
22 May 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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 7: Safeguarding land for sustainable transport uses (safeguards railway
land against prejudicial development).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Affordable housing.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
4. Impact on character of the existing building.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application site is within a village employment area where B1, B2 and B8 uses
are normally considered acceptable, whilst the introduction or intensification of nonemployment generating uses will not be permitted. As such, the proposed
development would be contrary to the saved policy in the North Norfolk Local Plan
and should only be permitted where there are material circumstances to justify a
departure from adopted policy.
The applicant's supporting information indicates the history of lettings and marketing
which suggests that there are difficulties in both finding and retaining suitable
commercial occupiers and the income generation is therefore limited. The applicant
therefore considers that the submitted scheme is the only option left for the building.
Further consideration will be given to this matter when the comments of County
Council (Planning) and the Planning Policy Manager have been received.
Notwithstanding the fundamental policy objection to a housing scheme within a
village employment area, the proposal includes a significant proportion of affordable
housing, which is a material consideration which could outweigh the policy conflict. In
Selected Small Villages development proposals for more than four dwellings may be
permitted provided that all the excess dwellings are for affordable housing.
The number of affordable dwellings must not exceed the total need for such housing
in the civil parish in which the development proposal is situated and its adjoining civil
parishes.
Development Control Committee (West)
55
22 May 2008
The number of affordable units falls two short of the number expected for a scheme
of eleven dwellings in a selected small village. There is therefore a requirement for
the applicant to justify why seven affordable units cannot be provided and, if they
cannot provide the necessary number this should be backed up by supporting
evidence. The applicant has been asked to provide further justification to support the
application.
Officers are giving further consideration as to whether it would in principle be
possible to secure the affordable housing requirements by means of a condition
rather than through Section 106. Members will be updated on this issue.
A significant proportion of the dwellings proposed would have garden depths that fall
well short of those recommended by the basic amenity criteria. Only units 4-8 meet
the minimum distance of 10m, with Unit 10 having the shallowest depth of 3.5m. The
shallow garden depths and close proximity of a neighbouring property to the east,
known as 'The Dehn' means that many of the units, particularly the flat above the
shop and houses 1 to 3, would not comply with the minimum window-to-window
distances required by the basic amenity criteria, particularly given the number of
windows present on the western elevation of the adjacent property. As such, careful
consideration should be given to the internal layout of the building to ensure that the
best relationship is created. The applicant also is being requested to confirm details
of boundary treatments to private gardens.
The application proposes a number of changes to the external appearance, some of
which would be less than sympathetic to the character of the building. The applicant
has been asked to consider this and make necessary amendments. Committee will
be updated.
In respect of highway safety, the comments of County Highways are awaited.
In summary there are a number of significant outstanding matters and Members will
be updated orally at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Committee will be updated orally.
15.
SCULTHORPE - 20070398 - Conversion of barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; Cranmer Hall Creake Road Cranmer for Robbie Wright
Builders
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 May 2007
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20070399 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
Historic Parks and Gardens (Ungraded)
Development Control Committee (West)
56
22 May 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19991418 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barn to dwelling
Refused, 16 Feb 2001
Appeal Dismissed, 16 Feb 2001
20010513 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of garden wall
Approved, 20 Sep 2001
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a barn and attached outbuilding to two units of holiday
accommodation. It would comprise three bedrooms, a sitting, room, dayroom, kitchen
and three bathrooms, over two floors, would have a total floor area of approximately
269sq.m whilst the single-storey outbuilding also providing three bedrooms would
have a total floor area of 141sq.m.
Access to the site would be via an existing tarmac driveway off Dunton Road to the
north of the site and an amenity area for both units of accommodation together with
car parking for the main barn would be provided within the existing walled courtyard.
Car parking for the single-storey unit would be provided within a double car port
attached to the unit.
Amended plans have been received from the applicant's agent which show minor
fenestrational changes to the main barn, a revised block plan together with details of
landscaping and amenity areas and sections through each of the buildings.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original plans - No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter of objection has been received from the owners of Cranmer Hall which raises
the following concerns:- (Letter attached as Appendix 4)
1. As the site is within the countryside the granting of permission for holiday
lets/residential use would be contrary to Council's policy unless in the case of a listed
barn it was in danger of collapse.
2. The barn is wind and water tight and not considered a "Building at Risk" as such
there is no justification to depart from policy.
3. The Inspector at the appeal, we understand concluded that this barn should never
become a residence and if the Council should overturn the Inspector's decision this
comprises an unreasonable act which cannot be justified and as such we are advised
such a decision would result in an application to the High Court.
4. The granting of permission would only seek to endorse all the wrongdoing in the
past on this case and would it is suggested give a green light to one and all that
conversion to residential can be obtained through a combination of patience and
persistence.
5. The barn became divided from the Hall in the 1950's when we purchases Cranmer
Hall - we would be happy to be presented with an opportunity to purchase the barn in
order to preserve the integrity of the hall and the group as a whole.
6. From a security point of view this group of buildings is remote and we do not like
the idea of large groups of frequently changing people being on the premises of
whom we know nothing of whatsoever.
Development Control Committee (West)
57
22 May 2008
A letter has been received from a planning consultant acting on behalf of the owners
of Cranmer Hall, which outlines the history of the site and the fact that the previous
retrospective planning and listed building applications were refused on appeal. It also
points out that when English Heritage were consulted on the current applications they
were not made aware of the site history. As a result the letter suggests that English
Heritage be provided with this additional information and be given the opportunity to
comment further.
A letter has also been received from a planning consultant acting on behalf of the
applicant (copy attached as Appendix 4) which outlines the history of the site, its
listed status, makes an analysis of the planning appeal and presents a basis for the
assessment of the current application based on Local Plan and emerging policies
contained within the Local Development Framework. The letter concludes that the
most appropriate commercial use consistent with Policy 29 that is appropriate in the
surrounding group of buildings at Cranmer Hall and the Coach house would be
holiday accommodation. Such a use it is suggested would also conform with PPS1
and 7 as it would have the least impact use for the existing structure and therefore
would retain the setting of the listed buildings adjacent and have the least impact on
the neighbouring occupiers and uses.
A further letter of objection has been received from the owner of the Hall which raises
the additional concerns (letter attached as Appendix 4):1. Due to the proximity of the barn to the hall there would be overlooking issues.
2. The development would compromise our rights to peaceful enjoyment and the
future viability of Cranmer hall as a family home.
3. It is considered that the most appropriate use for the barn would be for storage
which was the original intention of the barn.
4. There have been no material changes since the last application in March 2007.
5. Residential conversion could have harmful effects on the fabric and character of
the area's large number of historic farm buildings.
6. The additional dwellings would be contrary to Policy 6.2 in that it would result in
additional car journeys and have landscape and wildlife issues.
7. There are bats in the outhouses.
In addition two letters have been received from a planning consultant acting on
behalf of the owners of the Hall (Appendix 4), one of which refers to the possible
presence of bats in the vicinity of the building and it is likely that a substantive colony
of bats are likely to be present in the barn. The letter therefore suggests that a study
should be undertaken by a qualified ecologist before planning permission is granted.
The other letter questions the validity of the current application. As it has been under
consideration for a year, and that as the applicant has not indicated in writing, within
six months plus eight weeks after the submission of the application their willingness
for the Council to continue considering it, if it came to an appeal it would be a nullity
and could not be considered by the inspectorate. In addition, the letter also makes
reference to the application itself, and suggests that the report before Members is
misdirecting the Committee and suggests that the reference to PPG15 at the end of
the report are quotes and miss the advice contained in paragraph 3.9 which states
that there is a need to identify the optimum viable use that is comparable with the
fabric, and this may not be the most profitable use. The letter suggests that a holiday
use is not the optimum use, especially as the owner of Cranmer Hall has offered to
buy the barn and use it for storage, which would be less damaging to the fabric of the
building.
Development Control Committee (West)
58
22 May 2008
A further letter has been received from the planning consultant acting on behalf of the
applicant in response to the letter of objection from the neighbour and her planning
consultant, which suggests that the objector's comments are almost exclusively
concerned to rehearse the issues raised in 2000 - 2002 which were based on the
proposed conversion of the barn to permanent residential and that the issues raised
at that time in respect of the unauthorised works were satisfactorily resolved. Whilst
in respect of the possibility of bats he advises that a preliminary bat survey is being
undertaken. In respect of the validity of the current application he considers that the
time limits for lodging an appeal are of relevance in this case as the application is still
under consideration by the Local Planning Authority. The letter also points to the fact
that the barn is a curtilage building and has relevance for its external appearance, as
advised by English Heritage (letter attached as Appendix 4).
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Original
comments: The fundamental difference between the current application and that
refused on appeal in 2001 is that the application is now for 'holiday use'. The
proposed alterations to the main barn which dates from the 18th Century, take
account of the existing opening as well as some previous ones. The overall impacts
of the external alterations are neutral and it is possible to 'read' the building's former
use as a barn. All existing openings and re-created ones should follow the sizes of
existing or previous as much as possible. The appeal decision paid substantial
regard to the interior character and spatial layout. As with the previous scheme
significant changes to the interior are proposed, which are inevitable when a
conversion of this nature is proposed. The submitted plans show a full height sitting
room which means that it would still be possible to appreciate the overall building
volume to some degree. PPG 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and the
Council's own approved planning policies seek to balance the impact of change on
historic buildings and their long term economic viability. In this particular case the
internal changes are considered acceptable in the context of the generally successful
retention of external appearance and especially in the context of the 'associated'
listed status of the barns. The true value of the main barn lies in its historic
connections with Cranmer Hall and the adjacent Coach House. The barns are not
listed in their own right due to their limited intrinsic architectural value. Given that the
proposal would retain the essential exterior character of the barns I therefore have no
objection in principle to this scheme.
Further comments awaited on amended plans.
County Council Highways - Original comments: No objection; however the access
should be shown within the red line of the application site.
Comments on amended plan: No objection.
English Heritage - Original comments: By the conversion of the listed Coach House
and subdivision of the farm yard the setting of Cranmer Hall adjacent to its service
building has been dramatically altered. The creation of a distinct boundary between
the Hall and the barns has also altered their relationship. As the barn has vehicular
access that does not affect the Hall or Coach House and the proposed external
alterations to the building are minimal this development would not greatly affect that
already altered setting. Whilst it would be preferable for the barn to continue in a
functional relationship to the Hall, the change of use of the other buildings and the
separation of ownership have removed that possibility. The Council must consider
how appropriate a holiday let type of occupation is for the site, but in terms of its
impact on the setting of the Hall there is little difference, or an actual improvement by
way of the frequency of use and clamour for ancillary structures.
Development Control Committee (West)
59
22 May 2008
Following the re-consultation of English Heritage in the light of letter the from the
planning consultant, a copy of a letter sent to the planning consult by English
Heritage has been received by the Local Planning Authority which states "English
Heritage has long accepted the principle of a residential use and our advice to the
Council on both applications is based on the view that we do not feel the impact upon
the setting of the Hall or Stables of that use would be unacceptable". "We have
previously accepted the design in terms of the impact on the setting of the Hall and
Stables and that remains our advice" "North Norfolk District Council may wish to
secure further details from the applicant about marketing for a commercial use and
assess the information against the relevant Local Plan policies, but that is a matter
for the authority".
Comments on amended plans - Nothing to add to previous advice.
Environmental Health - Original comments: No objection subject to an advisory note.
Comments on amended plans: Comments as previous.
Garden History Society - Original comments: No comments.
Further comments awaited on amended plans.
Norfolk Gardens Trust - Original comments – No objection to the conversion as the
alterations would not damage the historic landscape however car parking south of
the complex into the former formal landscape should not be permitted and that car
parking should be contained within the buildings, between the barn and the Coach
House.
Comments on amended plans: No further comments to add.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments awaited.
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 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 25: Historic Parks and Gardens (prevents insensitive developments).
Development Control Committee (West)
60
22 May 2008
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
Policy 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 39: Development near Listed Buildings (attention needed to protect character
and setting).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy HO 9: Re-use of rural buildings as dwellings (specifies criteria for converting
buildings to dwellings).
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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the character of the building to be converted.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to visit
the site.
The barn is not listed in its own right but is a curtilage building to Cranmer Hall, a
Grade II* listed building and as such it assumes the status of a listed building. The
site is also located within the Countryside policy area, where Policy 29 of the Local
Plan would allow the conversion of the buildings for holiday accommodation
providing, in the case of buildings which have significant architectural, historical or
landscape value, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the
appearance, character, setting or fabric of the building. In addition Policies 36 and 37
of the Local Plan are also considered to be pertinent.
As Members will be aware, there is a significant history to this site which is relevant
to the consideration of the current application.
On 2 November 1999 a planning application was received under reference
19991418, to convert the barn and outbuilding to a single unit of permanent
residential accommodation. Following a site meeting it was agreed that remedial
works could be undertaken to the roof to make it watertight and that the gable ends
be propped. At that time a listed building application was invited and this was
received on 19 January 2000, (reference 20000082) for conversion to a residential
unit. Both applications were considered by the Development Control Committee
(West) on 9 March 2000, when the application was deferred pending negotiations on
the possible purchase of the building by a neighbour. The applications were
reconsidered by the Committee on 6 April 2000 when it was reported that the
Development Control Committee (West)
61
22 May 2008
applicant had no intention of selling the building to his neighbours. The applications
were again deferred to allow an inspection of the site. In addition, Committee
instructed that the applicant be advised that in the event that any further work other
than repair or maintenance being carried out on the building authorisation be given
for prosecution to be commenced.
At the site meeting the applicant confirmed that no further works would be carried out
other than re-pointing of an area of wall to the west of the building, which constituted
repairs. On 4 May 2000 the Development Control Committee (West) again deferred
both applications to allow a further detailed report to be submitted and to negotiate
amendments to obviate possible overlooking. At the following meeting on 1 June
2000 the Committee authorised to the Director of Environmental Services to refuse
permission unless design improvements could be negotiated. On 29 June 2000 it
was resolved to refer the applications to the Joint Development Control Committee
with a recommendation for refusal. The matter was subsequently considered by the
Joint Development Control Committee on 27 July 2000 and Full Council on 31
October when it was resolved to refuse the applications in view of the applicant's
refusal to negotiate for a more appropriate use for the barn, there was an alternative
use available and the proposal for residential accommodation was against the spirit
of Local Plan Policies 29, 36 and 37. In the intervening period appeals against nondetermination were lodged.
Those appeals were heard at a Public Inquiry on 16 January 2001 when both
applications were dismissed (see copy of appeal decision attached as Appendix 4).
However during the period that the applications were under consideration further
works were undertaken on the site, including the reconstruction of the east gable
wall, the upper level of the west gable reconstructed without the tumbling detail,
cross bracing and steel tie rods introduced to the roof structure, plastic rainwater
goods fixed, whilst internally spine beams and cross beams, together with floor joists
had been inserted to create the upper floor. These alterations were referred to in the
Inspector's report, paragraphs 29 - 36. The Inspector concluded in respect of effect
of the proposal on the character, appearance and setting of the listed building the
proposal was unacceptable either because of the works indicated on the drawings or
carried out on site, or because of the lack of information.
In view of these findings the Committee required remedial works identified by Officers
to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Conservation and Design Manager.
Following a number of meetings and inspections, it was reported to the Development
Control Committee (West) on 5 September 2002, that with the exception of one
outstanding item, all the works had been satisfactorily completed. The only
outstanding item was an area of herringbone flooring within the yard to the north of
the barn. Whilst some of the flooring had been re-laid, the developer was unable to
salvage sufficient material to relay the whole area. This matter remains unresolved.
Of the other remedial works the Committee took the decision not to require the
removal of the spine, cross beams and floor joist within the interior of the main barn
as it was considered that this would be more damaging to the historic fabric of the
building than leaving them in place.
In respect of whether the proposal constituted the most appropriate method of
securing the long term future of the building the Inspector concluded that nonresidential uses had not been fully explored and that it had not been shown that the
proposal constitutes the most appropriate method of securing the long term future of
the building, particularly as there had been a desire on the part of the neighbour to
purchase the property. In addition the Inspector suggested that a marketing exercise
Development Control Committee (West)
62
22 May 2008
should be undertaken. As a result, a further outcome of the appeal decision was that
following a report to the Joint Development Control Committees (East and West) on 3
May 2001 it was resolved to adopt a new policy in respect of proposal for the
conversion of listed buildings, which was agreed by the Executive Committee on 11
June 2001. This required that in the case of applications for the conversion of listed
buildings and in particular concerning residential conversion applicants would be
expected to undertake a thorough investigation of all options with a view to finding
the optimum viable use compatible with the fabric, interior and setting of the listed
building.
In view of this decision, following receipt of the current application, in May 2007 the
applicant's agent was made aware of this requirement together with the continuing
desire of the owner of the neighbouring property, to purchase the building.
In respect of the third issue identified in the appeal decision, that of the effect on the
living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties, the Inspector concluded that
subject to the slit window in the eastern gable end being obscure glazed and non
opening it would not result in overlooking problems. Furthermore, the effect of the
proposal on the living conditions of occupants of nearby properties would not be
unacceptable. However, as part of the remedial works the Committee required the
removal of the slit window and its replacement with a large sash window which was
formerly in this location. In order to overcome any issues of overlooking the
submitted drawings forming this application indicate obscure glass to this sash
window. In addition, it is suggested that it should be non opening, as ventilation can
be provided from the other window within the room.
The letter from the applicant's consultant points to the fact that Cranmer Hall has
been subdivided from the barns since the 1950's and that in 1999 when the present
owner acquired the barns they were considered to be structurally unstable.
Furthermore, unlike the adjoining Coach House which is listed Grade II* and which
has already been converted to permanent residential use under current Local Plan
policies, the barn and outbuilding currently are not listed in their own right but through
their association with the Hall. In addition to the Coach House and the Hall there are
a further three residential units in converted building within the complex, two of which
are apparently holiday lets.
The letter goes on to state that the general procedural note adopted by the Executive
Committee is neither a formal policy nor is it Supplementary Planning Guidance of
the Council, and has never been publicised and then considered in the light of
representations. Moreover this application does not relate to a listed building, but to
an unlisted curtilage building, where listed building controls apply, but principally in
relation to the exterior as part of the setting of adjacent listed buildings.
Paragraphs 23 to 25 of the same letter outlines alternative possible uses for the barn
and why they are considered unacceptable.
In terms of consideration of this application, the principal difference from the
application previously refused is that the applicant is currently seeking the conversion
of the buildings to holiday accommodation, which in principle would comply with
Policy 29 of the Local Plan. However, as stated above, this requires that where
buildings have significant architectural, historical or landscape value, the proposal
would not have a detrimental effect on the appearance, character, setting or fabric of
the building. In addition, Policy 37 Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings,
states that alterations or extensions that would be detrimental to the character of
listed buildings will not be permitted.
Development Control Committee (West)
63
22 May 2008
The advice contained in PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment suggests
that the best use for a building will often be the use for which it was originally
designed and continuation or reinstatement of that use should certainly be the first
option when the future of a building is considered. However, it also states that for the
great majority of buildings this must mean economically viable uses if they are to
survive, and new, and even continuing, uses will often necessitate a degree of
adaptation. In addition not all original uses will now be viable or even necessarily
appropriate; the nature of uses can change over time, so that in some cases the
original use may now be less compatible with the building than an alternative.
However as pointed out by the planning consultant acting on behalf of the owners of
the Hall it is also important to balance the economic viability of possible uses against
the effect on any changes they entail in the special architectural and historic interest
of the building or area in question. In principle the aim should be to identify the
optimum viable use that is compatible with the fabric, interior and setting of the
historic building, which may not be the most profitable use if that, would entail more
destructive alterations than other viable uses.
As stated in the Inspector's report, the barn is a curtilage building, and as such is
only listed through its association with the Hall. As such it is important that the
external appearance of the building is preserved together with its setting. The
Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that the
barns have limited intrinsic architectural value and given that the proposal would
retain the essential exterior character of the barns has no objection in principle to this
scheme. English Heritage state that the Council must consider the appropriateness
of a holiday-let type of occupation. However, in a letter to the planning consultant
acting on behalf of owner of the neighbouring property, which has been copied to the
Local Planning Authority they state English Heritage has long accepted the principle
of a residential use and their advice to the Council on both applications is based on
the view that they do not feel the impact upon the setting of the Hall or Stables of that
use would be unacceptable.
In terms of the Inspector's decision, the issues identified under character,
appearance and setting of listed buildings, have been addressed, with the submitted
drawings showing more details, including sections through the building. In terms of
the physical alterations the unacceptable works identified in the report have been
remedied to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Members previously
agreed to those remedial works. The only outstanding issue is the herringbone
paving to an exterior area.
With regard to the identification of other viable uses for the building it is considered
that it would be difficult to insist on the applicant undertaking a marketing exercise to
explore other possible uses. However as stated in the letter from the planning
consultant acting on behalf of the applicant, given the proximity of neighbouring
residential properties including the Coach House and Cranmer Hall commercial uses
such as storage, if there was a demand, could in fact be more detrimental to the
amenities of neighbouring dwellings in terms of noise and vehicular movement than
the use for holiday accommodation.
It is therefore considered that there would be insufficient grounds to justify refusal on
the basis that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no other viable
uses, particularly as the use of the building for holiday accommodation would comply
with Development Plan policy and the fact that the building is not listed in its own
right. In terms of the physical scheme of conversion externally there would be no
substantive alterations, whilst the barn itself would retain is overall form and setting
within the complex.
Development Control Committee (West)
64
22 May 2008
As far as the issue of the possible presence of bats of is concerned the Council's
Landscape Officer has been asked to investigate if there are bats present with the
barn and attached outbuilding and her comments are currently awaited.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as amended would comply with
Development Plan policy and the guidance contained in PPG15.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no further objections from
outstanding consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
16.
SCULTHORPE - 20070399 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation; Cranmer Hall Creake Road Cranmer for Robbie
Wright Builders
Target Date :04 May 2007
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Alteration to Listed Building)
See also 20070398 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Historic Parks and Gardens (Ungraded)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20000082 - (Alteration to Listed Building) - Conversion to residential unit
Refused, 16 Feb 2001
Appeal Dismissed, 16 Feb 2001
20020120 - (Alteration to Listed Building) - Installation of replacement guttering
Approved, 12 Apr 2002
THE APPLICATION
This listed building application seeks alterations to the barn and attached outbuilding
to facilitate their conversion to two units of holiday accommodation.
Amended plans have been received which show minor fenestrational changes to the
main barn and the insertion of new window frames in the existing openings, whilst the
existing sash window in the north east elevation would be obscure glazed. In addition
it is proposed to subdivide the interior of the main barn with the insertion of stud
partition walls to create a master bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor with two
bedrooms and bathrooms on the upper floor. The single-storey mono pitched building
which adjoins the main barn to the west, would be subdivided internally with partition
walls to create a three bedroom unit. Externally this would involve the infilling of the
existing full height openings with a mix of fully glazed screens and patio doors.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original plans - no objection.
Further comments awaited.
Development Control Committee (West)
65
22 May 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter has been received from the owners of Cranmer Hall (letter attached as
Appendix 5).
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Original
comments: The fundamental difference between the current application and that
refused on appeal in 2001 is that the application is now for 'holiday use'. The
proposed alterations to the main barn which dates from the 18th Century, take
account of the existing opening as well as some previous ones. The overall impacts
of the external alterations are neutral and it is possible to 'read' the building's former
use as a barn. All existing openings and re-created ones should follow the sizes of
existing or previous as much as possible. The appeal decision paid substantial
regard to the interior character and spatial layout. As with the previous scheme
significant changes to the interior are proposed, which are inevitable when a
conversion of this nature is proposed. The submitted plans show a full height sitting
room which means that it would still be possible to appreciate the overall building
volume to some degree. PPG 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and the
Council's own approved planning policies seek to balance the impact of change on
historic buildings and their long term economic viability. In this particular case the
internal changes are considered acceptable in the context of the generally successful
retention of external appearance and especially in the context of the 'associated'
listed status of the barns. The true value of the main barn lies in its historic
connections with Cranmer Hall and the adjacent Coach House. The barns are not
listed in their own right due to their limited intrinsic architectural value. Given that the
proposal would retain the essential exterior character of the barns I therefore have no
objection in principle to this scheme.
Further comments awaited on amended plans.
English Heritage - Original comments: By the conversion of the listed Coach House
and subdivision of the farm yard the setting of Cranmer Hall adjacent to its service
building has been dramatically altered. The creation of a distinct boundary between
the Hall and the barns has also altered their relationship. As the barn has vehicular
access that does not affect the Hall or Coach House and the proposed external
alterations to the building are minimal this development would not greatly affect that
already altered setting. Whilst it would be preferable for the barn to continue in a
functional relationship to the Hall, the change of use of the other buildings and the
separation of ownership have removed that possibility. The Council must consider
how appropriate a holiday let type of occupation is for the site, but in terms of its
impact on the setting of the Hall there is little difference, or an actual improvement by
way of the frequency of use and clamour for ancillary structures.
Following the re-consultation of English Heritage in the light of the letter from the
planning consultant, a copy of a letter sent to the planning consult by English
Heritage has been received by the Local Planning Authority which states "English
Heritage has long accepted the principle of a residential use and our advice to the
Council on both applications is based on the view that we do not feel the impact upon
the setting of the Hall or Stables of that use would be unacceptable". "We have
previously accepted the design in terms of the impact on the setting of the Hall and
Stables and that remains our advice" "North Norfolk District Council may wish to
secure further details from the applicant about marketing for a commercial use and
assess the information against the relevant Local Plan policies, but that is a matter
for the Authority".
Development Control Committee (West)
66
22 May 2008
Comments on amended plans: Nothing to add to previous advice.
Garden History Society - Original comments: No comments.
Comments on amended plans: No comment.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to an advisory note.
Norfolk Gardens Trust - Original comments: No objection to the conversion as the
alterations would not damage the historic landscape however car parking south of
the complex into the former formal landscape should not be permitted and that car
parking should be contained within the buildings, between the barn and the Coach
House.
Comments on amended plans: No further comments to add.
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 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).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the character and setting of the curtilage buildings.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to visit
the site.
The barn is not listed in its own right but is a curtilage building to Cranmer Hall, a
Grade II* listed building and as such it assumes the status of a listed building. As
such, Policies 36 and 37 of the Local Plan are pertinent. Policy 36 states that where it
is demonstrated that the present use of a listed building cannot secure its survival,
sympathetic consideration will be given to development proposals for its change of
use that will preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the building and
safeguard its sitting. Policy 37 requires that alterations and extensions are not
detrimental to the character of the Listed Building.
Development Control Committee (West)
67
22 May 2008
The advice contained in PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment suggests
that the best use for a building will often be the use for which it was originally
designed and continuation or reinstatement of that use should certainly be the first
option when the future of a building is considered. However, it also states that for the
great majority of buildings this must mean economically viable uses if they are to
survive, and new, and even continuing, uses will often necessitate a degree of
adaptation. In addition not all original uses will now be viable or even necessarily
appropriate; the nature of uses can change over time, so that in some cases the
original use may now be less compatible with the building than an alternative.
However as pointed out by the planning consultant acting on behalf of the owners of
the Hall it is also important to balance the economic viability of possible uses against
the effect on any changes they entail in the special architectural and historic interest
of the building or area in question. In principle the aim should be to identify the
optimum viable use that is compatible with the fabric, interior and setting of the
historic building, which may not be the most profitable use if that, would entail more
destructive alterations than other viable uses.
There is a significant history to this site which is relevant to the consideration of the
current application and is described in detail on application reference 20070398
above.
As stated in the Inspector's report, the barn is a curtilage building, and as such is
only listed through its association with the Hall. As such it is important that the
appearance of the building is preserved together with its setting. The Council's
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that the barns have
limited intrinsic architectural value and given that the proposal would retain the
essential exterior character of the barns has no objection in principle to this scheme.
English Heritage state that the Council must consider the appropriateness of a
holiday-let type of occupation. However in a letter to the planning consultant acting
on behalf of owner of the neighbouring property, which has been copied to the Local
Planning Authority they state English Heritage has long accepted the principle of a
residential use and their advice to the Council on both applications is based on the
view that they do not feel the impact upon the setting of the Hall or Stables of that
use would be unacceptable.
In terms of the Inspector's decision, the issues identified under character,
appearance and setting of listed buildings, have been addressed with the submitted
drawings showing more details, including sections through the building. In terms of
the physical alterations the unacceptable works identified in the report have been
remedied to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Externally there would be no substantive alterations, whilst the barn itself would
retain is overall form and setting within the complex.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as amended would comply with
Development Plan Policies 36 and 37 and the guidance contained in PPG15 in that
the alterations would not be detrimental to the character of the listed building and that
the change of use would preserve the special architectural or historic character of the
building and would also safeguard its setting within the complex of other buildings.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to no further objections from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
68
22 May 2008
17.
SHERINGHAM - 20080526 - Demolition of public house and erection of four
three-storey terraced dwellings; Sherry 'N' Ham 18 Beech Avenue for Homan
Property Investments
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :26 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19831582 - Extension and change of use to licensed bar
Approved, 06 Feb 1984
20060929 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from A4 (public house) to a
mixed use of A4 (public house) and A5 (take-away)
Temporarily Approved, 21 Aug 2006
20070562 - (Full Planning Permission) - Continued use as A4 (public house) and A5
(take-away)
Approved, 25 May 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a terrace of four three-storey properties to replace the existing public
house. The development would have a footprint of approximately 165sq.m, a height
to eaves of 5m and a height to ridge of approximately 9m. The plans indicated
balconies front and back for each of the four units at second floor level. Parking for at
least one vehicle per dwelling is proposed. Garden depths of 10m are proposed for
each unit.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Nelson having regard to the following planning issues:
Overdevelopment and impact on amenity.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to three-storey dwellings being out of keeping with the surrounding area
affecting the ethos of the estate and severe overlooking onto Cypress Grove.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twelve letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:1. Totally out of keeping with adjacent housing.
2. Would have significant impact on the amenity of adjacent properties.
3. Why is there a need for three-storeys?
4. The rear windows would severely overlook my bungalow at the rear of the site.
5. There are no other three-storey properties in Beech Avenue.
6. Will set a very dangerous precedent for others to demolish and replace in the area.
7. Extra houses will add extra pressure for car parking spaces and only one space
per dwelling will not be enough.
8. This is just town cramming.
9. Represents overdevelopment of the site.
10. The proposal will result in the loss of a public amenity.
11. The pub could be run much better to make a profit and has been successful in
the past - better management required.
Development Control Committee (West)
69
22 May 2008
12. Opening times have been changed to be less convenient for when customers
want to use the pub which may explain why the pub is losing money.
13. It is along way to walk into town to use other public houses/restaurants.
14. Dirt, dust and noise from demolition and construction would be quite unbearable.
15. Sheringham District Preservation Society objects because the proposal would be
out of keeping with the character of the other properties in the area and would
constitute over development of the site.
Applicants' Design and Access Statement attached at Appendix 6.
CONSULTATIONS
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.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk 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 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of residential development.
2. Loss of the public house/restaurant.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
4. Impact on character of the area.
5. Highway safety.
Development Control Committee (West)
70
22 May 2008
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the residential area of Sheringham within which there is no
objection to the principle of residential development, subject to satisfactory
compliance with other relevant Local Plan policies.
The Sherry 'n' Ham sits adjacent to two commercial premises, a hairdressers and a
stores and newsagent. Unlike proposals to convert local shops outside town centres,
there is no specific saved Local Plan Policy to seek retention of public houses
elsewhere in towns. As such, whilst the comments of local residents regarding the
loss of a local facility are noted, there is no substantive reason to refuse permission
to redevelop the site based purely on a loss of the public house/restaurant itself
under the current saved North Norfolk Local Plan. Policy CT3 of the new Local
Development Framework (LDF) includes public houses within the policy to seek
retention of local facilities and services and this would require the applicant to comply
with certain tests. The Committee has previously been advised that the weight to be
afforded to the LDF in the making of a development control determinations is
insufficient at this stage to be relied upon in the refusal of an application.
The public house is two-storied and there is currently a degree of overlooking from
the first floor rear windows toward the rear gardens of properties on Cypress
Crescent and Lime Grove. In respect of the submitted plans, which indicate an
increase in the number of windows at first floor level and the introduction of four
windows at second floor level, it is considered that the most affected property would
be No.5 Cypress Crescent, with other adjacent properties also subject to increased
overlooking potential.
The scale of the property, particularly the gable-width and resultant height would also
appear out of character with the prevailing grain of development in the area, in
particular the dormer windows front and rear. There are no other similar precedents
within the immediate area for dormer windows and most roofslopes remain unaltered.
The site slopes down from east to west and the adjacent hairdressers has been
extended two-storey at the front. However, notwithstanding this fact, it is considered
that the original plans would be out of scale and character and would be likely to
materially increase the overlooking potential, particularly at the rear of the site.
In respect of design and external appearance, the applicant has been informed of the
concerns about the form and character of the proposal and overlooking implications.
In respect of parking provision, each dwelling would have a single car parking space.
This provision would meet the minimum requirements for dwellings with more than
two bedrooms situated elsewhere within towns. However, the views of County
Council (Highways) are still awaited and Committee will be updated orally.
RECOMMENDATION:Committee will be updated orally.
Development Control Committee (West)
71
22 May 2008
18.
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20080473 - Erection of two-storey linked dwelling and
single-storey rear extensions (including to existing dwelling); 3 Blowlands
Lane for Mr and Mrs A Smith and Mr I Ash
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :20 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20031067 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of garage and erection of twostorey dwelling
Approved, 17 Sep 2003
THE APPLICATION
Erection of two-storey dwelling to side of semi-detached house and single-storey
extension to rear of existing house linking with new dwelling. Externally the
development would be finished in a mix of red brick, painted render and red clay
pantile to match the existing house. The proposals envisage the provision of two
parking spaces for the existing and proposed dwellings in the respective front
gardens.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the size/scale of the
proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object. The proposed development would be grossly out of character with the
surrounding ex-local authority and Council owned properties and is an
overdevelopment of this small site. The Council felt that the making of a closed
terrace was not in keeping with the area and detracted from the preservation area
which closely borders this development.
CONSULTATIONS
Sheringham Town Council - Objection on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site
and out of keeping with surrounding properties.
County Council (Highways) - After inspecting the site and submitted plans it is clear
that there is restricted visibility from the access onto Blowlands Lane. I also note that
due to the lack of on-site turning space vehicles would not be able to enter and exit
the site in a forward gear. However I believe that there is sufficient scope within the
frontage of the properties to provide a shared turning arrangement within the site and
that a sufficient parallel visibility splay could then also be provided.
Therefore I would request that a suitably amended plan showing on-site parking and
a shared turning arrangement and a secured 2m parallel visibility band across the
site frontage be submitted.
Environmental Health - Append standard note regarding the possibility that the site
could be contaminated due to its history.
Development Control Committee (West)
72
22 May 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).
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 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. Visual impact in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
2. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Selected Small Village boundary on land designated as
residential in the Local Plan. Accordingly the erection of a dwelling is acceptable
under current policy subject to enhancement of the form and character of the village.
Furthermore the site benefits from a current planning permission for the erection of a
dwelling (application reference 20031067) which remains capable of implementation.
The current proposals differ from the approved scheme in two respects. Firstly, a first
floor is now proposed above the approved single-storey projection at the rear
providing a third bedroom for the new dwelling. Secondly, a single-storey element is
now proposed linking the existing and proposed properties at the rear. This would
provide a small study/bedroom for the proposed dwelling and a new kitchen/dining
room for the existing dwelling. Although linked at the rear the proposed dwelling
would still appear detached from the street owing to the retention of the metre gap as
previously approved between the main buildings.
Development Control Committee (West)
73
22 May 2008
Notwithstanding the increased volume of the development relative to the approved
scheme, the garden depth would remain unchanged. At 10.5m this still complies with
the relevant basic amenity criterion in the Design Guide.
The impact of the current proposals within the wider area would be little different from
the approved scheme. It is not considered that there would be any harm to the
appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty given the infill nature of the
development within an established developed frontage.
The applicant's agent has been asked to consider the comments of County Council
Highways. However, it should be noted that the off-street parking arrangements
currently proposed are identical to those approved under the previous application.
The proposal would not conflict with Development Plan policy and is recommended
for approval, subject to satisfactory resolution of the issues raised by County Council
Highways.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to resolution of the issues raised by County
Council Highways and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
19.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - 20080252 - Erection of first floor side extension and singlestorey extension with sun-deck above; The Cottage Church Close West Runton
for Mr and Mrs Hudson
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080102 - Extension and conversion of outhouse to provide
habitable accommodation; 30a High Street for Mr and Mrs Alvarez
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080103 - Extension and conversion of outbuilding to provide
habitable accommodation; 30a High Street for Mr and Mrs Alvarez
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080192 - Installation of replacement windows; 1 The Friary
Mariners Hill for Mrs D Cooke
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080350 - Erection of greenhouse; Highfield House 5 Wiveton
Road for Mr and Mrs A J Langley
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080369 - Installation of two replacement windows to front
elevation; 112 High Street for Mrs A Haskins
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080430 - Retention of extractor unit; White Horse Hotel 4 High
Street for Hi-Brow Leisure LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
74
22 May 2008
BLAKENEY - 20080431 - Installation of extractor unit; White Horse Hotel 4 High
Street for Hi-Brow Leisure LLP
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BODHAM - 20080382 - Conversion of barns to eight units of holiday
accommodation; Pond Farm New Road for Mr J E Mack
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20071504 - Stationing of a mobile building for ancillary security
purposes; North Norfolk Vehicle Solutions Marriott Way Melton Constable for
North Norfolk Vehicle Solutions
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20080347 - Display of illuminated/non-illuminated advertisements;
The Stracey Inn West End for Mrs L Dowling
(Illuminated Advertisement)
BRISTON - 20080402 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land adjacent to West
End Lodge West End for Mr T Holmes
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20080429 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Meadow View
Holt Road for Mr and Mrs G Poole
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080276 - Erection of single-storey extension, pitched
roof to replace flat roof and detached garage; The Croft Holt Road for Mrs Bull
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080353 - Alterations to facilitate conversion to three
dwellings; Sunbeams High Street for Mr A Taylor and Mrs S Taylor Meeds
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CORPUSTY - 20080303 - Retention of 3.3m high reed boundary fence; Ivy Farm
Irmingland Road for Mr A S Barnett
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20080385 - Erection of rear conservatory; The Cottage Norwich
Road for Mr and Mrs M Kidd
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - 20080414 - Demolition of single-storey extension and
erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling; 32 Langham Road for Norfolk
Archaeological Trust
(Outline Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - 20080363 - Refurbishment of conservatory; Gable End
Dilldash Lane for Mr B Collins
(Alteration to Listed Building)
GREAT SNORING - 20080364 - Installation of replacement windows; Owl
Cottage Dilldash Lane for Mr B Collins
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (West)
75
22 May 2008
GUNTHORPE - 20080354 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Mysons
Field Dalling Road Bale for Mr W J Randall
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - 20080390 - Continued siting of mobile home; Paxfield Farm
Raynham Road for Mr J S Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20071679 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage;
Pineheath Lodge 64 Pineheath Road for Mr P Henriksen
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20080336 - Erection of extension to provide additional ward
accommodation; Kelling Hospital Cromer Road for Eastern Support Services
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080265 - Erection of two dwellings; land adjacent 57 The
Street for Mr and Mrs Parker
(Outline Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080333 - Erection of conservatory and construction of
pitched roof to flat roofed extension; The Old Gatehouse 128 The Street for Mr
M Myhill
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080399 - Change of use of building from agriculture to
light industrial; Village Farm Barn The Street for Mr I Peart
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080461 - Erection of three dwellings; 3 Melton Road for Mr
N Beckett
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080139 - Alterations to agricultural building to provide B1 (office);
Heath Farm Hempstead Road for Mr and Mrs C T Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080278 - Alterations to sub-divide shop into two units and erection of
door canopy; 22 High Street for Ms D Bottril
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080317 - Alterations to shop to facilitate conversion to two shop
units; 22 High Street for Ms D Botrill
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20080371 - Erection of side porch; 6 Kelling Road for Mr J Main
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080442 - Erection of garden shed; 42 Cley Road for Mr J Wharfe
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080446 - Erection of first floor side extension; 22 Grove Lane for Mr
and Mrs Portch
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
76
22 May 2008
HOLT - 20080470 - Erection of first floor extension to provide additional
bedrooms and tutor's flat; Britten House Cromer Road for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080498 - Change of use from residential to B1 (office); 5 Hales Court
for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - 20080339 - Continued siting of residential caravan; Squirrelwood
Farm Warren Road High Kelling for Mr T Fenner
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT - 20080400 - Erection of single-storey extension; Heron
Cottage Blakeney Road for Mr J Pegden
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - 20080521 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to
provide annexe with link extension; Church Farm House The Street for Mr B
Macarthur and Ms M Waller
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20080342 - Extension and conversion of cart shed to
provide additional living accommodation; 5 Green Farm Barns Thursford Road
for Canon D Pritchard
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20080358 - Erection of rear conservatory and siting of
garden shed; 18 Hares Close for Mr A A J Kingsbury
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20080415 - Conversion of outbuildings to provide bed and
breakfast accommodation ; Jex Farm Thursford Road for Mr S Harvey
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20080416 - Upgrading of outbuildings to provide bed and
breakfast accommodation; Jex Farm Thursford Road for Mr S Harvey
(Alteration to Listed Building)
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20071411 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to
three units of holiday accommodation; Greens Farm Hindolveston Road for Mr
and Mrs Harrold
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - 20080435 - Repositioning of main entrance and erection of porch;
Bramfield Barn The Street for Mr and Mrs P J Sharp
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - 20080404 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 5 The Drove
West Raynham for Mr and Mrs D Elfleet
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20071864 - Extension and conversion of outbuilding to provide
residential dwelling; The Coach House Fakenham Road Great Ryburgh for
Flordon Elley
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
77
22 May 2008
RYBURGH - 20080202 - Conversion of one dwelling into two dwellings; 11
Fakenham Road Great Ryburgh for Flordon Elley
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20080420 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Malthouse
Manor Station Road Great Ryburgh for Mr and Mrs N Donohue
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20080338 - Erection of single-storey side extension and front
entrance porch; Lodgehill House Coast Road for Mr and Mrs M Hughes
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20060707 - Formation of private pond/fishing lake; Roshpina
Fakenham Road for Mr C Haller
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080259 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
annexe; 18 New Road for Mr and Mrs G Reynolds
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080367 - Retention of smoking shelter; 95 Station Road for
Tyneside Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080409 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential; 10
Lifeboat Plain for Mr P Marriott
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080319 - Retention of smoking shelter; Sheringham Social
Club 2-4 Holway Road for Mr P Todd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080412 - Erection of double garage/workshop; The Old
Vicarage Vicarage Road for Mr D Draper
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080488 - Erection of rear conservatory; 5 Hadley Road for Mr
W V Coxon
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20080377 - Erection of side and rear extensions and detached
double garage; Little Mow Bungalow Guist Bottom Road for Mr and Mrs
Horsford
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20080395 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and detached
double garage; 10 Greenway for Mr and Mrs Tipple
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - 20080386 - Extension and conversion of garage to
provide games room with study above; Woodside House St Giles Road for Mr
G May
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
78
22 May 2008
TATTERSETT - 20080357 - Removal of condition 9 to allow the development to
go ahead without the need for an European protected species licence as part
of planning permission 20071651; Wicken Pond Farm Tattersett Road
Syderstone for Towns Folk Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20080419 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling; British
Red Cross Society Swan Entry for British Red Cross
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080284 - Removal of asbestos roofing sheets and
replacement with slates and lead; The Maltings Staithe Street for Wells-NextThe-Sea Community Association
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080310 - Change of use from one dwelling to two
flats; 23 Northfield Lane for Mr J Fergusson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080321 - Construction of dormer windows and
erection of replacement side extension and boundary wall; 26 Chapel Yard for
Mr P Arnold
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080370 - Change of use from residential to
residential/A1 (retail); 49 Staithe Street for Mrs K Garms
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080422 - Alterations to access including new gates;
The Well House Standard Road for Mr M J Snow
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080423 - Alterations to access including new gates;
The Well House Standard Road for Mr M J Snow
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WEYBOURNE - 20080434 - Erection of replacement garage/car port; Highfields
The Street for Mr C Osborne
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - 20080301 - Erection of one and a half storey replacement side
extensions and single-storey rear extensions, cladding of front elevation with
flint and brick, raising height of chimney; Bridge Cottages Bridge Road for Mr
and Mrs B Hopkins
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - 20080344 - Construction of anaerobic digestion plant and silage
bunkers; Copys Green Farm Copys Green for J F Temple and Son Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20080335 - Variation of condition 6 of planning permission
20061710 to remove requirement for planting of hedge and trees; Wiveton Hall
Marsh Lane for Mr D McCarthy
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
79
22 May 2008
20.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080352 - Conversion and extension of dwelling to
provide three dwellings; Sunbeams High Street for Mr A Taylor and Mrs S
Taylor-Meeds
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080273 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached double
garage; land adjacent 10 Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Builders Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080452 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Sts Stapletons Tyres
Station Road for Sts Stapletons Tyres Limited
(Illuminated Advertisement)
RYBURGH - 20080392 - Erection of two semi-detached two-storey dwellings;
132 Fakenham Road Great Ryburgh for Mr S Sayer
(Outline Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20080374 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land adjacent to 15
Sandy Hill Estate Bard Hill for Mr and Mrs Macknespiey
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20080401 - Erection of single-storey earth-sheltered dwelling;
land at Purdy Street for Mr B Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20080516 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Silver Trees 23
Wells Road for Mr D Foreman
(Outline Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080277 - Construction of dormer window; 4
Shrublands Polka Road for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
21.
NEW APPEALS
BODHAM - 01/013/DEV6/06/001 - Change of use of agricultural land for the
siting of caravan s for residential purposes.; land off Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING
BODHAM - 20080036 - Continued display of direction signs; Entrance to
Gypsies Lane, off Cromer Road for Crayford & Abbs Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
BRINTON - 20071113 - Erection of first floor extension and attached garage;
Grove House Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Taylor
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Control Committee (West)
80
22 May 2008
BRINTON - 20071572 - Alterations to first floor extension (lowering of parapet);
Grove House Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Taylor
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
FAKENHAM (NORTH WARD) - 20071369 - Erection of single-storey rear
extension; Field View Residential Home 43 Hayes Lane for Imperial Care
Homes
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
RAYNHAM - 20071725 - Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of
two-storey rear extension; 5 The Drove for Mr D Elfleet
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
22.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
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 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
SHERINGHAM (NORTH WARD) - 20030991 - Demolition of buildings, including
dwellings, and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car
parking, servicing and landscaping; land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores
Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
SHERINGHAM (NORTH WARD) - 20070217 - Demolition of buildings, including
dwellings, and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car
parking and servicing and provision of footpath link to Station Road; land at
Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY 01 Jul 2008
23.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BRISTON - 20071304 - Erection of dwelling; New Hall Farm Mill Road for Mrs N
Smith
FAKENHAM (SOUTH WARD) - 20070673 - Erection of three two-storey
dwellings; 24 Holt Road for Mr J Doughty
HIGH KELLING - 20070983 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Cherry Garth
Cromer Road for Mr P M Plummer
Development Control Committee (West)
81
22 May 2008
HINDOLVESTON - 20070789 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
Homely Acre 61 The Street for Mr and Mrs D Self
SITE VISIT :- 01 May 2008
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 LJ Palmer
24.
APPEAL DECISIONS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070910 - Change of use to single-storey dwelling;
The Store Post Office Lane for Mr A W Simmons
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
FAKENHAM (SOUTH WARD) - 20071585 - Display of internally illuminated
totem advertisement; former Rainbow Superstore Holt Road for Lidl UK Gmbh
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
RYBURGH (GREAT WARD) - 20071062 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and
garage; land south of 91 Fakenham Road for Mr M Davenport
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
82
22 May 2008