OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 23 JULY 2009
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
High Kelling – 20081193 – Extension of Care Home to Provide Four, TwoPerson and Eight One-Person Single-Storey Units; Pineheath Nursing Home,
Cromer Road
Re-confirmation of decision to approve the application following receipt of further
clarification from the applicant.
Background
This application was deferred at the last meeting to enable the further comments of
High Kelling Parish Council to be taken into account.
Committee may recall that this application was last considered on 5 February 2009
when it was resolved to approve the application subject to clarifying that the use of
the extensions would be ancillary to the use of the nursing home, that the applicant
would be prepared to restrict access to the main western access and subject to the
imposition of a Section 106 Obligation to ensure that the units are not occupied
independently.
The applicant’s agent has confirmed that:
1. The proposed units would be ancillary to the use of the site as a nursing home.
2. That the applicant is prepared to sign a Section 106 Obligation to ensure that the
units are not occupied independently.
3. The applicant would accept the imposition of conditions limiting access to the
main western access only.
Updates
At the time of writing the report the further comments of High Kelling Parish Council
were awaited following reconsultation.
One additional letter of objection has been received. Summary of comments:
1. Very similar to previous proposal that was refused.
2. Pineheath is not a nursing home, it is a care home.
3. The site is in the Countryside and the proposed use is unacceptable in this
location.
4. Holt is 2 miles away and not 1 mile away as stated.
5. The proposal will increase vehicle movements on the already busy A148.
6. What is the link between the existing care home and the proposed development?
7. What would happen if the care home closed down?
8. The proposal would set a dangerous precedent.
Key Issues
The key issue in this case is whether the information provided by the applicant’s
agent is sufficient to allow permission to be granted.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
23 July 2009
Appraisal
When considering the application on 5 February 2009, the Committee raised a
number of questions to be answered prior to the issuing of planning permission, in
particular regarding the existing nursing home and how the intended new units would
relate.
With regard to the ownership/management and type of establishment and services
offered by Pineheath Nursing Home, whilst this information is not directly relevant to
the determination of the application, according to information held by the Care Quality
Commission on its public site, Pineheath Nursing Home is privately owned by
Diamond Care (UK) Limited. The home is registered as being a Care Home and the
services it provides are “Care home with nursing” with a total capacity of 42 places.
As such, the extension to provide additional units would remain compatible with the
overall use of the site
Given that the applicant’s agent has provided the above assurances regarding the
use of the site, the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Re-confirm decision to approve subject to the making of a Section 106
Obligation to ensure that the new units remain ancillary to the existing care
home and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
restricting vehicular access to the main western access.
(Source: Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 – File Reference 20081193)
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.
BRISTON - 20090530 - Construction of revised parking area and access road;
plots 73 to 77 Jewel Close for Lomax Homes Ltd
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :23 Jul 2009
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19941558 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of 8 bungalows and
122 houses
Approved, 04 May 1995
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission for the re-siting of 10 car parking spaces to the rear of Nos.73-77
Jewel Close with access off Bridge Close.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
23 July 2009
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wyatt having regard to the following planning issues:
Impact of the proposed development on the residential amenities of the residents of
Bridge Close and highway safety issues.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds that the road is too narrow and would lead to difficulty in
parking for residents, visitors and delivery vehicles.
Also have concerns that this application is linked to a possible amended scheme for
the remainder of the site with access off Grove Road which would lead to a loss of
public amenity land for existing residents.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):
1. Due to the curvature and narrow width of Bridge Close the proposed access would
create congestion and a severe hazard to road users, with visibility being restricted.
2. The proposed access would be directly opposite the driveways to both 85 and 86
Bridge Close which would exacerbate the problems the owners already have
reversing out onto the road due to restricted site lines.
3. Vehicles parked on the driveways of Nos.85 and 86 Bridge Close park up to the
edge of the pavement, thus reducing visibility around the curvature of the bend.
4. The dwellings have no provision for visitor parking with the result that any visitors
would have to park in Bridge Close.
5. The extra volume of traffic could be a danger to a number of young children who
live in Bridge Close and play outside.
6. The revised layout would result in the loss of part of the green area.
7. A driveway to the frontage of Nos.82 to 84 Bridge Close would result in additional
noise nuisance to those properties.
8. Would increase congestion in Bridge Close and would result in even more
difficulties for dust carts, delivery lorries and Emergency vehicles.
9. Lack of visitor parking for residents of Bridge Close means that visitors have to
park on the carriageway causing problems for pedestrians and road users alike.
10. Bridge Close was not designed for the additional vehicular use now intended.
11. Revised layout would result in the loss of green space and potential damage to
local biodiversity.
12. Would reduce the garden areas of Nos.73 to 77 Jewel Close to largely sunless
areas.
In addition a petition signed by the residents of eight properties in Bridge Close has
been received who oppose the access drive off Bridge Close.
CONSULTATIONS
Melton Constable Parish Council – Objects to the application due to unsatisfactory
access arrangements off Bridge Close and the revised layout would limit the size of
the rear gardens of the properties.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Environment Agency (Waste Regulation) - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
23 July 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the residential amenities of local residents.
2. Highway safety.
3. Loss of green area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary for Briston/Melton Constable
which is defined as a Service Village in an area primarily in residential use, where in
principle the development as proposed would be acceptable subject to compliance
with relevant Development Plan policies.
In 1994, as part of a much larger scheme for 8 bungalows and 122 houses, planning
permission was granted for the erection of 9 two-storey dwellings in two staggered
terraces, plots 69 -77, adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. The car parking
for these dwellings was to be accessed off the northern end of a cul-de-sac to Jewel
Close through an archway forming part of Plot 72.
However, because of possible revisions to the layout of the remainder of the site, the
developer does not intend to construct the cul-de-sac off Jewel Close, or the
dwellings to Plots 69-72. As a result the intention is to provide car parking for Plots
73 -77 to the north of the rear gardens of those dwellings with an access drive off
Bridge Close, to the east.
As far as the impact on the residents of Bridge Close is concerned, the closest
properties to the access would be Nos.82-84, immediately to the north, which are
orientated north-south and which would have their front gardens, which are some 6m
in depth, abutting the access where it joins the adopted highway. However given that
the frontage of these dwellings would be no closer to the access drive than their
current relationship to Bridge Close and also the fact that the driveway would only
serve five dwellings, which equates to ten vehicle parking spaces, it is considered
that this relationship is acceptable and would not create undue noise or disturbance
to the residents of those properties. The scheme as proposed would comply with the
basic amenity criteria as defined by the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
23 July 2009
Bridge Close currently serves 22 dwellings and associated car parking areas and the
road curves at the point where it meets the proposed new access. In terms of the
increased traffic movement in Bridge Close and the concerns of local residents
regarding highway safety, it is accepted that the carriageway is fairly narrow, at 4.5m
wide, and that the access would be onto the outside of the bend. However, given that
Bridge Close only serves a total of 22 dwellings, and therefore has low volumes of
traffic and vehicle speeds, coupled with the fact that the Highway Authority has not
objected to the proposal, it is not considered that there would be sufficient grounds to
justly refusal of the application on highway safety grounds.
A further area of concern is the loss of a part of the green area. When planning
permission was granted in 1994 the area to the east and south of number 73-77
Jewel Close was designated as one of five Local Area of Play (LAP) spread across
the development, which together with a Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP)
provided for 0.253 hectares of play space, in accordance with the approved layout
drawing. The scheme as proposed would result in the access drive cutting across the
northern most section of LAP 2, which has an area of 1000sq.m and would result in a
loss of 90sq.m of green space. Given that this loss equates to only a small
percentage of the total play space within the development it is not considered that
this would result in a significant loss of usable play space.
In summary the scheme as proposed would not have a significantly adverse impact
on the amenities of neighbouring properties or highway safety and would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval, subject to no objection from outstanding consultees and
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
CORPUSTY - 20090467 - Erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings and
wind turbine and construction of roads, terraces and soil bund; Woodfruits
Locks Farm Road for Woodfruits
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :15 Jul 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20090398 below.
CONSTRAINTS
County Wildlife Site
Countryside Policy Area
NATS Zone (Wind Turbines)
County Rd Used As Footpath
Contaminated Land
Contaminated Land Buffer
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20090398 - (Full Planning Permission) - Siting of timber dwelling for supervisor of
agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry unit (also on this agenda)
Development Control Committee (West)
5
23 July 2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings, wind turbine, construction of
roads, terraces and soil bund.
Details of all the structures are included in the applicants' supporting statement
contained in Appendix 1 and include as follows:
* Office and pack room
* Mushroom production building
* 2 x workshops
* Storage area
* Dutch barn
* Compost toilet
* Potting shed
* Greenhouse
* Wind turbine
* Residential dwelling (not subject to this permission - see 20090398)
* Power structure in form of a buried generator
The structures include a static caravan, 2 x recycled lorry bodies, 2 x containers and
a refrigerated lorry body. These, along with the other proposed structures, would be
clad in softwood featheredge boarding and have either steel sheet or felt roofs, on a
timber frame.
Currently on site there is a static caravan (office and pack room), a timber clad lorry
body (workshop) and a further recycled lorry body in the storage area.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from local residents. One letter includes
an attached petition of 19 signatures objecting to the proposal. The points of
objection raised are as follows:
1. Site is outside development boundary.
2. If permission granted would set a precedent for others.
3. Fails to justify the need to provide residential accommodation on land classed as
agricultural.
4. Widespread opposition locally.
5. Would provide no economic or social benefit to the local community
6. The applicant would appear to have chosen a lifestyle which has little to do with
practicality and is now asking the Planning Authority to help fulfil a dream.
7. Land is countryside where no residential buildings are permitted.
8. No financially viable business plan accompanying the application.
9. If permission is granted in this case it will make a mockery of the existing planning
laws and open the door for many others to follow suit.
10. Access is via a restricted byway on which motor vehicles are prohibited.
11. The applicant has not produced any evidence to show that he has a legal
easement over such a restricted byway for vehicular access.
12. The public road at end of byway is very narrow and provides no vision splays. It
is not believed that the applicant has legal title to the land which would be required to
provide such vision splays.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
23 July 2009
13. Inaccuracies on application form.
14. Financial soundness questionable.
15. Increase in traffic movements, deliveries to site.
16. Profit margin projections grossly inaccurate, no allowance for income tax or
National Insurance, no allowance for Council Tax.
17. Some 9% of projected income is from contract work and green woodwork which
has nothing to with the growing of mushrooms.
18. Cannot understand why NNDC did not take action with regard to applicant living
illegally on the site but instead invited this totally inappropriate planning application.
19. Concerns over erection of bunds and changes to landscape.
One letter of support has been received from a local resident.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Due to the nature of
the site and the combined issues of planning applications 20090398 and 20090467,
both applications will be addressed under this single consultation.
The site lies to the north-west of Corpusty village on the southern edge of the river
valley (River Bure), between a former railway cutting and Locks Farm Lane. The
topography of the land is gently sloping down into the river valley, and has a northerly
aspect. A railway cutting and a former pit associated with the railway are located on
the site and introduce some minor man-made levels into the landscape, although
these former industrial areas have become naturalised due to the length of time of inoperation. There is a slight depression in the field area to the east of the site, running
in an east-west direction, but the overall aspect is one of a valley side.
The former railway cutting, delineating the northern boundary, is designated as a
County Wildlife Site, and is noted for its woodland habitat and associated plant
assemblages and a fairly species-rich re-colonised grassland.
The site lies within the Small River Valleys Landscape Character Type as defined by
the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment. The site demonstrates some of
the main character features of the Type such as land-use and woodland cover. The
land-use on valley sides tends to be predominantly arable, with medium to large
sized fields, with areas of pasture and rough grazing on the valley floor, woodland
cover is also fairly extensive. The overall character of the small river valleys is that of
a rural, wooded, enclosed, pastoral landscape.
One of the main justifications for the application put forward by the applicants is that
the site is an ideal site for their proposed purposes; however a large degree of land
re-profiling is required or has already been done to get the site into an ‘ideal’ state.
For example a terrace has been created in the former pit (for a poly tunnel, raised
beds, and a greenhouse), excavation has been carried out to form the ‘yard’ area
and a soil bund created from the spoil to form a screen for the yard, in addition a
significant proportion of the land needs remodelling to create the south facing
terraces. In their supporting statement the applicant states that the “creation of a
level and south facing production area is a primary requirement”, yet the site is on a
north facing river valley.
The proposal will result in the creation of a new access leading from the track onto
the south of the site, and a network of roadways throughout. It is proposed to take
the existing hardcore from the former railway track bed, crush it and use it as a subbase for the roadways, with a layer of sand and gravel as a surface dressing
(sourced from the creation of the terracing). This will dramatically alter the
appearance of the site, which was formally an agricultural field bordered by some
mature trees and a coniferous copse, effectively subdividing the site into different
compartments and eroding the character of the landscape.
In their statement, the applicants state that the development is “designed to be of low
visual impact”. However the creation of terracing will permanently alter what is
Development Control Committee (West)
7
23 July 2009
currently a very well defined river valley. I acknowledge that the various buildings and
structures will have limited impact on the landscape, due to their locations within the
trees and existing woodland, but the terracing and the wind turbine will have a
significant impact. The wind turbine will be very visible, due the height required to
gain adequate wind speed above the trees and the hill behind. I disagree with the
applicants' suggestion that the terracing will have minimal visual impact even with the
proposed planting mitigation.
With regard to the terracing, I would question the effectiveness and viability of the
operation. The land is predominantly sands and gravels from glacial outwash which
neither lends itself to creating terraces nor high agricultural productivity with low
input. I would suggest that the terraces would require the addition of some form of
topsoil or organic matter in order to be productive; however there is no mention of
how the applicants propose to maintain high yields in the supporting statement. In
addition, due to the free draining nature of sandy soils, a large amount of water will
be required to irrigate the crops during the drier months. From the information
supplied I do not believe that there is an adequate supply of water to achieve this.
Elements of the site lend themselves to the production of the mushroom side of the
business, but I believe too many changes are required to the landscape to facilitate
some of the other crops proposed.
The terracing and the wind turbine would be contrary to Policies EN2 and EN 4 of the
Core Strategy, in that development proposals are expected to retain existing
important landscaping and natural features and include landscaping enhancement
schemes that are compatible with the Landscape Character Assessment. The reprofiling of the landform will permanently alter a natural valley side. The development
does not make efficient use of land and does not respect the character, landscape
and biodiversity of the surrounding area.
I have further concerns about the effect the development will have on the biodiversity
of the former railway County Wildlife Site. The applicants indicate that they wish to
remove the hardcore from the track bed and infill with sand and/or gravel. Also they
propose to excavate down to the bottom level of the cutting to form the bottom level
of the terracing, thus requiring the removal of some of the side of the cutting,
irrevocably destroying the bank side vegetation of the site. Linear corridors are
extremely important for wildlife, particularly post industrial landscapes such as
railways, hence the County Wildlife Site designation. In my opinion the proposed
operations will damage the ecological features of the County Wildlife Site. Policy EN
9 of the Core Strategy states that development proposals that would cause a direct
or indirect adverse effect to designated sites will not be permitted unless the benefits
of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the
wider network of natural habitats, and prevention, mitigation and compensation
measures are provided. Although the applicants state that the development will result
in biodiversity enhancements there is no evidence to support this or suggest that
these enhancements will be greater than the negative impacts.
With regard to the timber dwelling, I do not believe there will be a large landscape
impact for the proposed structure or negative impact on biodiversity (although
increased light levels from the unit may have an impact on the foraging activities of
nocturnal animals), however I do not consider it appropriate to introduce a dwelling
into this particular location for the longer term. A permanent structure would have a
greater impact on the landscape and urbanise this relatively rural part of the
countryside.
To conclude Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape):
Object to application on the basis that it is contrary to Policies EN 2, EN 4 and EN 9
of the Core Strategy.
Should application be approved, would wish to be re-consulted to provide adequate
conditions for landscaping and biodiversity.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
23 July 2009
County Council (Highways) - This site was recently the subjection of proposal
20090398 for the siting of a dwelling for supervisor accommodation, which was
viewed positively in relation to traffic generation from the site. Therefore, there are no
highway objections to this proposal for the associated structures and ground works.
Environmental Health - Initial comments. Details of the Biomass boiler are requested
including manufacturer, size/energy rating. This in connection with air quality/smoke
issues and also any permitting requirements. Further comments will be provided as
soon as possible.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - County Wildlife Site 1070, which is a dismantled railway, is
immediately adjacent to the site. It is not clear how the CWS will be affected by the
proposal and we have no objection in principle to this proposal on condition that there
is no damage to the CWS. However, it would be good to get some clarification
regarding impacts on the CWS before a planning decision is made.
Issues needing clarification include:
1. Whether material will be removed from the CWS, as it is not clear whether the
track from which material will be removed that is referred to in the proposal is the
dismantled railway track (CWS) or the track from the road.
2. Whether any mature trees that may contain protected species are likely to be
affected by noise or lighting during operation of the farming enterprise. It appears that
there will only be indoor lighting but it would be good for this to be confirmed.
3. Whether trees adjacent to the wind turbine are likely to contain bar roosts, which
may be affected by the operation of the turbine.
We are happy to discuss any of these issues with the applicant if that would be
helpful.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
9
23 July 2009
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in countryside location.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site following a recent site visit.
This application runs in conjunction with application reference 20090398 for a
dwelling in relation to the proposed agricultural/horticultural and agro forestry
business. This application is for all the structures/buildings, roads, terracing and the
wind turbine which the applicant requires to develop the business.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area, where development will be
limited to that which requires a rural location. Agriculture and forestry uses are
included under this policy and therefore, the principle of the proposal is considered to
be acceptable in this location.
The Committee will note from the applicant’s supporting statement in Appendix 1
that a number of structures are proposed across the site, some of which are already
there. These structures include a mushroom production building and primarily
storage for tools, materials, packaging, the products for sale and dry store for the
biomass for the boiler.
However, these structures would be either constructed or clad in timber and
weatherboarding, which would screen the lorry bodies, containers, static caravan and
refrigerated lorry body. Furthermore, given the location of those proposed structures
behind the mature trees in the centre of the site, and in the storage area behind the
bund and their minimal height of approximately 3m it is considered that they would be
fairly well screened on the site and would blend in with the surroundings. The potting
shed, polytunnel and greenhouse would be located on a terrace which is at a
significantly lower level than the rest of the site. It is not therefore considered that
these structures would be in a prominent location in the landscape. The proposed
temporary timber dwelling for consideration under application 20090398 would
appear to be the tallest building on the site at approximately 5m in height. However,
given the location of this structure it is considered that it would have minimal visual
impact on the wider landscape.
With regard to the construction of the roads, terracing and the erection of the wind
turbine the Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager, who whilst having no objection in principle to the
structures/buildings proposed on the site including the dwelling, objects to the roads,
terracing and wind turbine. It is considered that this part of the proposal would not
make efficient use of land and would not respect the character, landscape or
biodiversity of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies EN 2 and EN 4 of the Core
Strategy. Further concerns have been raised regarding the effect of the development
upon the biodiversity of the former railway County Wildlife Site. It is considered that
the proposal would be contrary to Policy EN 9 of the Core Strategy as there is no
evidence to support the applicant's statement that the development will result in
biodiversity enhancements or that these enhancements will be greater than the
negative impacts.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
23 July 2009
Therefore, whilst the proposed structures/buildings and proposed dwelling are
considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan policy, there
is an objection to the proposed roads, terracing and erection of wind turbine which
are not considered to comply with Development Plan policies for the reasons
explained in the comments of the Landscape Officer.
Whilst the receipt of comments from some outstanding consultees are still awaited,
the proposal as submitted is considered to be unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to refuse on the grounds that the proposed terracing, road
construction and wind turbine would have a significant detrimental impact
upon the landscape character of the area, and that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate satisfactorily that the proposal would result in biodiversity
enhancements for the area of County Wildlife Site, together with any additional
reasons raised by outstanding consultees.
4.
CORPUSTY - 20090398 - Siting of timber dwelling for supervisor of
agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry unit; land at Locks Farm Road for Mr A
Den Engelse
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Jun 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20090467 above.
CONSTRAINTS
County Wildlife Site
Countryside Policy Area
County Road Used As Footpath
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20090467 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings
and wind turbine and construction of roads, terraces and soil bund (also on this
agenda).
THE APPLICATION
Is for the siting of a timber dwelling for supervisor of agricultural/horticultural/agroforestry unit.
The proposed structure would measure approximately 6m x 7m and 5m in height.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
23 July 2009
REPRESENTATIONS
Seven letters of objection have been received from local residents. One letter
includes an attached petition of 19 signatures objecting to the proposal. The points of
objection raised are as follows:
1. Site is outside development boundary.
2. Has been living on site for several months.
3. If permission granted would set a precedent for others.
4. Would encourage rural sprawl.
5. There are empty homes for sale and rent in the village which are close enough for
the owner/occupier/supervisor to live in.
6. Proposal contrary to rules that most others abide to.
7. Many previous similar applications in village refused.
8. Successful applications have had restrictions lifted.
9. Fails to justify the need to provide residential accommodation on land classed as
agricultural.
10. Widespread opposition locally.
11. Would provide no economic or social benefit to the local community.
12. The applicant would appear to have chosen a lifestyle which has little to do with
practicality and is now asking the Planning Authority to help fulfil a dream.
13. Land is countryside where no residential buildings are permitted.
14. No financially viable business plan accompanying the application.
15. If permission is granted in this case it will make a mockery of the existing
planning laws and open the door for many others to follow suit.
16. Access is via a restricted byway on which motor vehicles are prohibited.
17. The applicant has not produced any evidence to show that he has a legal
easement over such a restricted byway for vehicular access.
18. The public road at end of byway is very narrow and provides no vision splays. It
is not believed that the applicant has legal title to the land which would be required to
provide such vision splays.
19. Inaccuracies on application form.
20. Financial soundness questionable.
21. Increase in traffic movements, deliveries to site.
22. Profit margin projections grossly inaccurate, no allowance for income tax or
National Insurance, no allowance for Council Tax.
23. Some 9% of projected income is from contract work and green woodwork which
has nothing to with the growing of mushrooms.
24. Cannot understand why NNDC did not take action with regard to applicant living
illegally on the site but instead invited this totally inappropriate planning application.
One letter of support has been received from a local resident.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – See comments for
20090467 above.
Conclusions in relation to the timber dwelling:
With regard to the timber dwelling, I do not believe there will be a large landscape
impact for the proposed structure or negative impact on biodiversity (although
increased light levels from the unit may have an impact on the foraging activities of
nocturnal animals), however I do not consider it appropriate to introduce a dwelling
into this particular location for the longer term. A permanent structure would have a
greater impact on the landscape and urbanise this relatively rural part of the
countryside.
No objection to the application on the grounds of landscape and biodiversity impact,
subject to the removal of Permitted Development rights and a temporary permission
for the dwelling.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
23 July 2009
County Council (Highways) - The siting of proposed dwelling for supervisor
accommodation has the propensity to reduce the number of vehicle movements into
the site by reducing journeys from the site to a home address, which would be
viewed positively. Therefore, there are no highway objections subject to the dwelling
being covered by an agricultural occupancy restriction.
County Rights of Way Officer - Awaiting comments.
Economic And Tourism Development Manager - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - No objection to this application in relation to the adjacent
County Wildlife Site.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - 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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
13
23 July 2009
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Functional and financial tests.
3. Landscape impact.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with the site following a recent visit.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where development will be
limited to that which requires a rural location. Agriculture and forestry uses are
included under this policy, but it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that a
dwelling in association with the proposed agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry
business complies with the functional and financial requirements covered by Policy
HO 5 of the Core Strategy and Annex A of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural
Areas regarding Agricultural, Forestry and other Occupational Dwellings in the
Countryside.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of Annexe A
Rural Areas 'A functional test is necessary to
proper functioning of the enterprise for one or
most times. Such a requirement might arise,
hand day and night:
in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in
establish whether it is essential for the
more workers to be readily available at
for example, if workers need to be on
(i) in case of animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short notice
(ii) to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crops
or products, for example, by frost damager or the failure of automatic systems'.
In the applicant's supporting statement four functional requirements are given as to
why it would be essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for a worker to
be readily available on site at most times. They are in relation to mushroom
production, charcoal production, horticulture and security.
With regard to charcoal production it would appear that the wood to be burnt for
charcoal will be purchased by the applicant from elsewhere and brought onto the
site. Whilst the applicant's supporting statement explains that a significant number of
trees have been planted on the site since 2007 and that further planting is proposed
for a productive woodland area including trees for charcoal production this will clearly
take some time to become established and ready for use. It is therefore considered
that the charcoal production is not locationally restricted, particularly if wood is being
brought on to the site and could, in theory, take place elsewhere. It is therefore
considered that charcoal production at this time is not a significant functional
justification that warrants the need for a dwelling in this location.
Horticulture described in the applicant's supporting statement as husbandry tasks
including seed germination and propagation of salad crops, potting, planting, pruning
weeding, irrigating, pest control, loading and unloading of stock, deliveries and
harvesting are also not considered to be a significant functional justification that
warrants the need for a dwelling in this location.
Furthermore, security grounds alone are not considered to be sufficient to justify a
new dwelling in this location.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
23 July 2009
However, with mushroom production requiring a combination of changes in the
cropping environment as carbon dioxide levels, temperature and humidity levels are
monitored and adjusted, as well as the requirement to monitor power and heat
systems it is considered that this part of the proposal could fulfil a functional need on
the site.
The applicant has advised in the supporting statement prepared by his agricultural
consultants that, due to the size of the enterprise, a fully automated heating and
irrigation system can not be justified, therefore someone needs to be on hand to
ensure the systems are working correctly. However, the applicant has not yet clearly
indicted how the crops will be monitored from the dwelling at night when the applicant
is asleep and how they will be alerted if the system fails.
There are no existing dwellings on the site that could fulfil the functional need, and
the applicant has advised that there are no available dwellings within sight and sound
of the unit. The issue as to whether it would be possible to maintain the site remotely
using an alarm system has not been addressed.
In terms of financial viability the figures provided in the supporting statement are only
based on projections over three years, but do indicate an increasing profit. Policy
HO5 does state that in relation to newly created enterprises where there has been
insufficient time to demonstrate financial soundness permission may be granted for a
temporary dwelling in the form of a caravan or wooden structure which can easily be
dismantled and removed from the site.
In terms of landscape impact the Committee will note that the Landscape Officer has
no objection to a temporary dwelling on the site. It is considered that the proposed
timber structure for the dwelling is modest in size and scale. It is considered that the
proposed location of the temporary dwelling is well screened by existing mature trees
on the site. The trees and hedgerows to the road boundaries will provide additional
screening in the wider landscape. The external materials are considered to be
appropriate in this location. For these reasons it is considered that the proposed
temporary dwelling would have limited visual impact.
Regarding the mushroom production aspect of the proposal that there could be a
functional need for a worker to live on site to monitor production if an acceptable
application for the remainder of the development had been submitted and it the issue
of a remote alarmed system had been addressed. It is considered that a temporary,
three year permission in accordance with guidance contained in PPS 7, would have
been appropriate in this case, but it would be for the applicant to demonstrate that
the enterprise is financially sound at the end of the three year period. However, in
view of the recommendation to refuse application 20090467, which sought to
establish the principle of the agricultural enterprise, it is not considered that a
dwelling would be necessary on this site until such time as the agricultural operations
have been approved/established in lawful planning terms.
With regard to Rights of Way the County Council has been consulted and at the time
of writing this report a response was awaited.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to refuse on the basis that the proposed erection of an
agricultural dwelling in this location cannot be justified given that the
agricultural enterprise to which it relates has not been approved/established in
lawful planning terms and therefore there can be no functional justification to
site a dwelling in this location, together with other reasons for refusal as may
be raised by outstanding consultees.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
23 July 2009
5.
FAKENHAM - 20090364 - Erection of four three-storey dwellings; 25 Nelson
Road for Nelson Grove Development Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 Jun 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070382 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
eight dwellings
Approved, 04 Jul 2007
20080904 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of 4 semi-detached
dwellings
Approved, 18 Nov 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of four, three-storey dwellings to the rear of 25 Nelson Road.
Outline permission for eight dwellings was granted in 2007 agreeing the access and
layout of the development. Reserved matters for four dwellings to the front of the site
were approved in 2008. This proposal seeks an amended siting for the dwellings on
plots 7 and 8 which are proposed to be detached rather than a pair of semis as
indicated at the outline stage. Plots 5 and 6 are included at the applicants' request.
Amended plans have been received regarding a number of alterations to the scheme
including reduction in the gable widths of Plots 5 and 6, the redesign of the garage to
plot 7 and a revised parking and turning layout.
The materials proposed would generally match those of the dwellings at the front of
the site which are currently under construction.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the letters of
objection received.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection from nearby residential dwellings on the following grounds
(summarised):
1. Overlooking from plots 5 and 6 to the garden of the dwelling to the west (1 Hayes
Lane).
2. Dwellings proposed are too big and out of scale for their situation.
3. Overbearing impact on The Coach House to the south west.
4. Roof materials should be red pantiles rather than grey.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
23 July 2009
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection given the amended plans received satisfactorily amending the design of the
garage to plot 7.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
a condition ensuring protection of the four TPO'd trees on the site.
County Council (Highways) - No objection given the amended plans received
sufficiently amending the design and layout of the parking and turning areas.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Awaiting comments.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - The application complies with Policy EN 6, subject to the
imposition of the Code for Sustainable Homes condition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
2. Design.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Fakenham where new
residential development is considered to be acceptable providing it accords with
other relevant policies contained in the Core Strategy. The rear gardens to plots 7
and 8 are outside the development boundary.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
23 July 2009
The principle of numbers and siting was agreed at the outline stage under application
20070382. An indicative street scene was also submitted at that time.
In respect of residential amenity, concern from neighbours to the west has been
raised regarding loss of privacy to their garden particularly from the second floor
gable windows in the roofslope of plots 5 and 6. However, given the screening in the
form of trees and hedging along the western boundary and the positioning of the
proposed dwellings facing the end section of the neighbours’ garden, away from the
dwelling it is not considered that the development would significantly impinge on the
amenities of the neighbouring dwelling to the west. Furthermore given the distance to
the adjacent gardens to the east and sufficient screening, again no significant
adverse impact on their amenities would result.
In terms of impact on The Coach House, the general siting of the dwellings has
already been agreed at the outline stage. Whilst the proposed dwellings would be
taller than The Coach House, they would be set slightly back from it and orientated to
ensure that no direct window to window overlooking occurs. In addition no second
floor views would be achieved from the rear elevation as only rooflights are proposed
on the rear roof slope, which would be above eye level. Furthermore no significant
adverse loss of light to The Coach House would result given the siting of the
dwellings to the north east of the building. Overall therefore the dwellings on plots 7
and 8 are not considered to affect significantly the amenities of the neighbouring
dwelling to the south west.
In terms of design of the dwellings on plots 7 and 8, whilst the east and west facing
elevations have fairly large gable widths, they are largely screened from the
Conservation Area by the existing boundary screening and adjacent dwellings and
are orientated so that they are not highly visible to the street scene. The design and
proportions of the more prominent front elevation are considered appropriate. As
such, the dwellings on plots 7 and 8 are considered to have no significant adverse
visual impact on the character or appearance of the street scene or Conservation
Area.
Plots 5 and 6 are more prominent within the development particularly on entering the
site. Amended plans indicating a reduction in width of the gables of this pair of semis
would create dwellings of a more vertical proportion with narrower gables, resulting in
an acceptable bulk and height suitable for the development and having no adverse
visual impact in the street scene.
In respect of the materials proposed, it has been indicated that these are to match
those of the dwellings currently being constructed at the front of the site which
include grey pantiles. Further details in respect of the precise details of these
materials to be approved would be conditioned. Given the variation in dwelling styles
and types along the street, with a mix of red and grey roofing and that the dwellings
form part of the existing development, it is considered that the proposed grey roofing
materials would not have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance or
character of the area.
The layout of the dwellings permitted at outline stage resulted in the rear gardens of
plots 7 and 8 lying outside the development boundary. The proposed layout of these
plots is similar to that previously approved and still therefore requires the removal of
permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings to ensure that control
over the open character of the countryside is retained.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
23 July 2009
No details in respect of the proposed landscaping scheme have been submitted and
so details in this respect would be required via condition.
In summary, the principle of the number and layout of the dwellings on the site has
already been accepted with the granting of the outline permission (20070382), the
design and scale of the dwellings are considered to have no significantly detrimental
impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or on the character or appearance
of the street scene or wider area.
The development would therefore conform with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to appropriate conditions.
6.
SALTHOUSE - 20090434 - Erection of two-storey front extension, single- storey
side extension and dormer window; The Patch Coast Road for Mr Colman
Target Date :17 Jul 2009
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside Policy Area
Tidal Flood Zone
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two-storey, fully glazed, timber framed extension to the front
elevation of the dwelling which would provide for an extended drawing room at
ground floor and a master bedroom to the first floor. In addition a single-storey
hipped roofed lean-to extension is proposed to the eastern elevation which would
create an entrance lobby with cloakroom, whilst at second floor level it is intended to
introduce a dormer window to the rear elevation which would serve an additional
bathroom.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Visual impact of the front extension on the Conservation Area and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object, principally on the ground of light pollution from the proposed glass extension
which is also not in keeping with surrounding properties.
Salthouse residents (and visitors) treasure their dark skies at night, the Council has
previously adopted the CPRE 'Dark Skies' policy. The Council believes that this
development in the form proposed would produce significant light pollution affecting
both the village and the adjacent marshes with their various international
conservation designations. The Council would prefer brick/flint construction and
traditional windows in keeping with existing properties and with the character of the
village.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
23 July 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse Policy EN 10:
Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design.
2. Impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Flood risk.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area, Conservation Area and also
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where Policies EN 1, EN2, EN 4, EN 8 and
EN9 are applicable.
The existing dwelling is situated on rising ground to the south side of the coast road
A149, and is set back some 60m from the edge of the carriageway with the front
boundary of the site, which is set behind a wide grass verge being formed by a flint
wall some 1.5m in height. In addition there area a number of trees and other
vegetation to the western boundary of the site, whilst to the east, a mix of dwellings
which are set close to and abut the highway, mask views of the property.
The dwelling itself is square in plan and is of a hipped roofed construction with a
projecting wing to the west which is terminated in a double pile gable end, and small
gable to the left had side of the front elevation. To the east is a two-storey cat-slide
roof projection with the whole building being predominantly of flint on red brick plinth
under a clay pantile roof.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
23 July 2009
The most contentious element of the scheme is considered to be the two-storey
extension to the front elevation of the dwelling, which would be 5.2m in width by 3m
in depth with a gable facing the coast road and would be 15sq.m in plan. It would be
constructed of oak in filled with full height glazing to ground and first floor, under a
clay pantile roof.
Whilst this element would result in a new intervention to the building it is considered
that it would remain subordinate to the overall appearance of the building, and at the
same time lifting what is a somewhat bland front elevation. In addition the use of
natural oak to the frame would result in a visually lightweight structure which when
viewed against the flintwork of the rest of the dwelling would give the extension a
recessive appearance.
It is therefore considered that whilst the extension is innovative in its design and
appearance its overall scale and massing would be in keeping with the rest of the
dwelling and that it would preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area. Given
that the dwelling is set some distance back from the Coast Road and the nature of
prevailing development close to the highway, together with trees and other
vegetation in the vicinity of the site, is not considered that the front extension would
have a significant impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In respect of
the issue of light pollution raised by the Parish Council, due to the position of the
dwelling it is not considered that the front extension would contribute significantly to
light pollution in the area and that this would be insufficient grounds to justify refusal
of the application.
In respect of the side extension this would be subservient and hardly visible from the
highway. The other element to the scheme is the dormer window to the rear, whilst
although fairly large measuring 2.6m in width by 1.7m tall under a hipped pantile roof,
due to the rising ground behind the house together with the rear boundary wall to the
property would not be visible from any vantage point.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties is concerned, the front extension
would have first floor glazing both to the east and west elevations. However given the
location of the properties to either side it is not considered that in either case this
would give rise to issues of privacy or direct overlooking. Similarly the dormer to the
rear elevation would not result in overlooking issues.
On the issue of flood risk although the access to the site is within the Flood Risk
Zone 3 area the dwelling is set some 35m further back and as such there are no
flood risk implications.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
23 July 2009
7.
SHERINGHAM - 20081228 - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's Shop to rear 22 Station Road for
Museum Cottages
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :14 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070155 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of museum into six residential
dwellings
Approved, 03 Apr 2007
20070989 - (Full Planning Permission) - Alterations to building to provide bin store
Approved, 20 Jul 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to convert a building, formerly in A1 retail use, into a one-bed dwelling. The
works would involve substantial alteration, including raising the eaves height by
approximately 0.5m and amending the pitch to provide a room in the roof. The
dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 31sq.m.
Amended plans have been received deleting windows in the northern elevation,
relocating a bin storage area and amending the design of first floor windows in the
southern elevation.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the last meeting to allow Committee to visit the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Original Plans - Objection on grounds of overdevelopment and impact on a
substantial adjacent tree. Bin area is not in the applicant's ownership and is part of a
private road. The property is the bin storage area for Museum Cottages and there is
no amenity space.
Amended Plans - Objection on grounds of taking away amenity facility to the five
cottages. Reiterate strongly the previous objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received (Two from the same address).
Summary of comments:
1. There are ownership issues that prevent the amenity space at the front of the
building being enclosed (right of way).
2. The building has never been a barbers shop, it started as a garage/workshop and
most recently as the museum gift shop.
3. Raising the eaves height would block sunlight to my garden.
4. The timber cladding would intrude onto my property and also onto a shared right of
way.
5. Windows would look directly into my garden resulting in loss of privacy.
6. The proposal would be likely to affect a large tree, which is in my garden.
7. No effort has been made to let or sell the retail unit.
The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Implications Assessment in support of
the proposal with regard to the potential impact on an adjacent Tree of Heaven.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
23 July 2009
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions regarding protection of the adjacent tree.
County Council (Highways) - No highway objection as there would be no adverse
highway impacts as a result of the proposed development.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
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).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
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 residential development in this location.
2. Impact on neighbours' amenities.
3. Impact on form and character of the Conservation Area.
4. Impact on trees.
5. Highway safety.
6. Waste disposal.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting to enable Committee to visit the site.
The site is located within the town centre and primary shopping area of Sheringham
within which the principle of a residential dwelling is considered acceptable under
Policy SS 5, provided that the proposal would not result in the loss of shops or other
main town centre uses and subject to satisfactory compliance with adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy policies.
In this instance, whilst the building may have been used as a shop in the past, this
use has long ceased and permission has already been granted for non-retail use.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
23 July 2009
Application 20070989 permitted use of the building as a bin store for the adjacent
Museum Cottages, which also have planning permission to be converted into six
one-bed dwellings with no amenity space (20070155). Whilst the permission to
convert Museum Cottages to dwellings has been implemented, the proposal to
convert the 'Barbers shop' has not been implemented to date.
The site is located to the rear of No.22 Station Road and the amended plan indicates
that the only windows serving the proposed dwelling would be in the southern and
western elevations. It is the southern elevation only where first floor windows are
proposed and, whilst the windows would look towards the rear garden of Nos.28-30
Station Road which is currently open to public view, the applicant has modified the
larger window to limit the potential for overlooking. On balance, given that the
proposed windows in the first floor would be secondary windows and the limited
number of windows in adjoining properties would achieve compliance with the basic
amenity criteria, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly
detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of the adjoining properties.
The existing building is barely visible from Station Road, hidden as it is by the flat
roof extension relating to the electrical shop at 22 Station Road. The building has
been significantly altered and its current condition could not be said to contribute
positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal
would significantly alter the form and character of the existing building, most notably
in respect of height, the introduction of additional windows and the proposed recladding of the building in timber. However, subject to appropriate detailing and
choice of external materials, it is considered that the proposal would enhance the
appearance of the building and preserve the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
Within the garden of a neighbouring property to the north of the site is a Tree of
Heaven, whose canopy spreads out above the application building. Raising the roof
and/or the potential need to re-build the structure and provide new footings could
pose a threat to the longevity of the tree, which is protected by virtue of its location in
the Conservation Area. However, the applicant has submitted an Arboricultural
Method Statement and the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager considers
that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would not to
pose a threat to the longevity of the tree and would be acceptable.
In respect of parking provision, Policy CT 6 requires an average of 1.5 vehicle
parking spaces for a 1-bed property, although in designated town centres the
standard may be reduced if justified by improved accessibility and/or to enhance a
Conservation Area. The applicant is not proposing to provide any parking. Clearly the
site is very well located in terms of access to shops and services and rail and bus
services are situated within 500m of the site. The Highway Authority has confirmed
that there are no highway safety implications and that they would have no objection.
Given the small size of the property and the views of the Highway Authority, it is not
considered that refusal on highway safety grounds could be substantiated.
In respect of Environmental Health considerations relating to refuse storage and
collection, this proposal has to be considered in combination with extant permissions
relating to Museum Cottages. It is, as yet, unclear as to how and where occupiers of
Museum Cottages are storing their waste and this is subject of a separate
investigation. However, Environmental Health has raised no objection to the
applicants' proposed bin location.
Development Control Committee (West)
24
23 July 2009
In summary, the principle of a dwelling in this location is acceptable, there would be
no significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and
subject to the use of appropriate external materials, the proposal would enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There are no significant
concerns regarding the impact on the adjacent tree and, there are no highway safety
implications. As such, the proposal would comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
SHERINGHAM - 20090533 - Change of use from dwelling to bed and breakfast
establishment and erection of retaining wall to provide five parking spaces
(renewal of planning permission: 20040949); The Heights 1 Vicarage Road for
Mr and Mrs Moss
Target Date :23 Jul 2009
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20040949 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from dwelling to bed and
breakfast establishment and erection of retaining wall to provide five parking spaces
Approved, 27 Jul 2004
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the renewal of planning permission 20040949. It proposes the use of five
bedrooms within the semi-detached eight-bedroom house for commercial bed and
breakfast letting and the formation of a parking area for five vehicles on the site
frontage involving the removal of an earth bank and the construction of a brick faced
retaining wall of maximum height 3.5m.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
One of the applicants is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from a local resident (summarised):
1. Poor visibility at the junction of Holt Road.
2. Concern that cars will park along the road.
3. Potential noise issues.
4. Potential overlooking from the patio area to neighbouring dwelling.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to standard access and on site
parking conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
23 July 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the use in a residential area.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Visual impact within the street scene.
4. Parking provision.
APPRAISAL
The application seeks the renewal of permission 20040949 for the use of the dwelling
for commercial bed and breakfast purposes and for the formation of a retaining wall
and the provision of an additional five car parking spaces. The proposal is
unchanged and could be implemented under the previous permission until the end of
July 2009.
The site is located within the residential policy area of Sheringham where the
introduction of this form of commercial activity, is considered to be acceptable
providing it accords with other relevant policies contained in the Core Strategy.
In terms of impact on neighbouring amenity, the proposed change of use would have
little additional impact compared with that of the current use as a dwelling. The patio
area referred to by the objector already exists for the residential use and in view of
the distance and boundary screening is not considered to give rise to adverse
overlooking.
In respect of the impact on the street scene, the proposed parking area with its brick
retaining wall would replace a planted bank and low retaining wall and would
considerably change the appearance of the property. It is not however considered,
given the mix of boundary treatments along the frontage of the dwellings, that the car
parking area would be significantly harmful to the street scene. The extant
permission included a condition requiring a landscaping scheme in respect of the
proposed parking area and retaining wall and for the facing brick to be used to be
approved. It is considered that these requirements would still be relevant to this
renewal and would therefore be re-imposed.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
23 July 2009
In respect of the parking provision, the Core Strategy Parking Standards require one
parking space per bedroom (guest or staff). The County Council has accepted the
provision of five spaces as reasonable on this quiet residential street, in connection
with the proposed five letting rooms. These would be provided in addition to the
garage and parking space in front which already exist for the use of the permanent
residents. Therefore, subject to conditions ensuring that the access and parking
facilities are constructed in accordance with Norfolk County Council's specifications,
the arrangements proposed are considered acceptable and to have no highway
safety implications.
The application is considered to comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to appropriate conditions including those requested by
County Council (Highways), approval of brick type, approval of a landscaping
scheme and a limit of not more than five rooms to be let at any one time.
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BODHAM - 20090489 - Alterations to cart shed to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation; Manor Farm Manor House Road Lower Bodham for W
P Cubitt and Sons
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BRISTON - 20090407 - Conversion of dwelling to three self-contained flats;
Limetree 27 Reepham Road for Mr J Perelman
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20090431 - Erection of front extension to garage; Bramley House
Craymere Road for Mr B Froud
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20090459 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide annexe;
Copper Beeches, 63a Church Street for Mr and Mrs Chapman
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST AND WEST BECKHAM - 20090423 - Erection of one and a half storey side
extension; Pear Tree Cottage Back Lane West Beckham for Miss M Katte
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST AND WEST BECKHAM - 20090452 - Erection of single-storey side
extension; Hollydene Back Lane West Beckham for Mr D Thurtle
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090349 - Installation of replacement windows and secondary
double glazing; 17 Wells Road for Mrs K Strong
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FAKENHAM - 20090391 - Change of use of upstairs room from B1 (office) to D1
(cosmetic beauty treatment salon); 2a Oak Street for Miss H Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
27
23 July 2009
FAKENHAM - 20090365 - Erection of single-storey extension; Brooklyn House,
33 Norwich Road for Mr Roos
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090410 - Erection of detached outbuilding; 199 Norwich Road
for Mr D Rumbles
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090478 - Display of advertising banners; Central Cinema, 22
Market Place for Mr Stevens
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
GUNTHORPE - 20090429 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Rookery Farm
Bale Road for Mr N Worthington
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - 20090418 - Erection of attached garage and glazed front
extension; Forge Cottage Rudham Road for Mrs C Kingsley Lewis
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - 20090479 - Erection of two-storey extension to garage/annexe;
Hawksmere Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Hunt
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - 20090428 - Demolition of garage/workshop/car port and erection of
garage/workshop with attached annexe; Rose Cottage 2 Back Street for Dr J
Loades-Allmond
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - 20090451 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 7 Dereham Road
for Fisher Bullen
(Illuminated Advertisement)
HOLT - 20090461 - Erection of conservatories (plots 1 and 2); 59 Cromer Road
for Sheringham Development Co
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - 20090287 - Continued use of land for siting cattle sheds,
stable, steel containers, caravan and railway carriages; The Field The Street for
Mr K Pearson
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - 20090516 - Change of use of land to garden; Church Farm
Barns The Street for Mr and Mrs Hoad
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT - 20090426 - Removal of window and installation of door; The
Lodge Thornage Road for Mr P Mitchell
(Alteration to Listed Building)
RAYNHAM - 20090443 - Conversion of part of leisure centre to one unit of
holiday accommodation; Vere Lodge West Raynham Road South Raynham for
Wensum Development
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
28
23 July 2009
RYBURGH - 20090409 - Conversion of school to one residential dwelling; Great
Ryburgh All Saints C of E VA Primary School Station Road Great Ryburgh for
Mr T Kirby
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20090400 - Change of use of land from agricultural to residential
curtilage and erection of garage; Church Lane Cottage Cross Street for Mr and
Mrs R Bagley
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20090416 - Retention of stables, tackroom and feed store; land
at Glebe Farm Creake Road for Mrs D Burrill
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20090445 - Change of use of first floor from multi-arts centre to
A3 (restaurant); Beach Cafe The Promenade for Miss T O'Neill
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20090441 - Retention of modular activities building; 21 Holt
Road for Canaan Christian Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20090458 - Change of use from A4 (public house)/A5 hot food
take-away with ancillary residential accommodation above to one residential
dwelling; formerly Sherry N Ham, 18 Beech Avenue for Mr and Mrs M R Homan
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20090449 - Erection of extension to link garage to dwelling and
construction of first floor extension; 11 Fulmodeston Road for Mr Meredith
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20090469 - Demolition of garage and erection of one and a half
storey extension; Tinkers Cottage Fulmodeston Road for Mr and Ms Seaman
and Robertson
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - 20090353 - Retention of shed and caravan for storage and rest
room; Little Fen Farm Glen Farm Lane Metton for Mr D Garramone
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - 20090425 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey extension; Bridland
Cottage The Street for Mr and Mrs G Tester
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - 20090351 - Erection of timber building to provide serviced
holiday accommodation and replacement garage with studio above; Holly
Lodge 1 The Street for Mr Bolam
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - 20090466 - Erection of side conservatory; Wisteria Cottage, 3
Heath Lane for Mr and Mrs Yerby
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - 20090522 - Construction of revised parking area; Cottage Farm
Walsingham Road for Mr Rheinberg
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
29
23 July 2009
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090297 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
single- storey rear extension; 4 Beldorma Close for Alistair Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090438 - Construction of gable to replace hipped
roof installation of second floor door and balcony; 22 Glebe Road for Mr and
Mrs Dennis
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090444 - Erection of replacement garden room; The
Orchards Northfield Lane for Mrs Pickering
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090475 - Erection of dwelling; 21 Mill Road for Mr
and Mrs Palmer
(Outline Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090498 - Extension of parking area; Drop-In
Deployment Base Polka Road for Norfolk Constabulary
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - 20090549 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Mill Barn Farm Holt Road for Mr Clark
(Prior Notification)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - 20081325 - Change of use of garage from domestic to workshop; 29
Old Post Road for Mr M Finney
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20090411 - Alterations to loft and installation of solar panel
and rooflights; The Old Gatehouse 1/3 High Street for Mr F Meynell
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090230 - Erection of first floor extension to provide
owners' accommodation; Arch House 50 Mill Road for Mr Reynolds
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090231 - Alterations to facilitate erection of first
floor extension; Arch House 50 Mill Road for Mr Reynolds
(Alteration to Listed Building)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
SHERINGHAM - 20080836 - Demolition of bungalow and erection of three, one
and a half storey dwellings; 18 Hadley Road for Mr K Welch
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Control Committee (West)
30
23 July 2009
12.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None.
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
HINDRINGHAM - 20081166 - Erection of cottage style dwelling and garage; land
adjacent to 44-46 Wells Road for Mr and Mrs M Woodhouse
HOLT - 20081526 - Erection of building to provide serviced holiday
accommodation; land at Jenis Barn Thornage Road for Mr S Chapman
LANGHAM - 20081176 - Erection of dwelling and garage; land adjacent Stable
Court, Langham Hall Holt Road for Mr A Burlingham
SITE VISIT :- 07 Jul 2009
WARHAM - 20081276 - Erection two-storey dwelling; 79 The Street for Holkham
Estate
WARHAM - 20081310 - Erection of two dwellings; adjacent The Reading Room
The Street for Holkham Estate
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS
None.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
23 July 2009