OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 24 APRIL 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BACONSTHORPE - 20060360 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings and one
single-storey dwelling; land at The Street for C J C Lee (Saxthorpe) Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :25 Apr 2006
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19990451 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of semi-detached dwellings
Refused, 07 Jun 1999
19991309 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling
Approved, 09 Dec 1999
20001020 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of three dwellings
Refused, 06 Nov 2001
20021233 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of three pairs of semi-detached
dwellings
Refused, 30 Sep 2002
20050384 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of four two-storey dwellings and
one single-storey dwelling
Refused, 22 Apr 2005
20051501 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of three two-storey dwellings
and one single-storey dwelling
Withdrawn, 04 Jan 2006
THE APPLICATION
Erection of four dwellings on 0.15ha site currently comprising domestic garden and
vacant plot fronting The Street. Only siting and means of access are under
consideration at this stage but the submitted drawing includes indicative details
indicating a mix of two-storey and single-storey buildings in a traditional style and in a
courtyard arrangement. Prior to consideration of the application at the May 2006
meeting the drawing had been amended in respect of adjoining property boundaries
and window-to-window distances relative to the existing properties in Long Lane.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
24 April 2008
In 2007 amended drawings were submitted based upon a new survey, envisaging
changes to the layout but the indicative elevations remain unchanged. The proposed
access has been moved approximately 1m further to the east together with amended
visibility splays and the proposed demolition of a part flint boundary wall to the side of
the former chapel to the east. Most recently a further copy of a 1:200 scale site plan
has been submitted incorporating red and blue lines indicating the extent of land
within the applicant's ownership.
REASON FOR RERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments reported at the May 2006 meeting:
Objects. The Parish Council is still concerned about the density of the proposed
dwellings in such a small area.
Subsequent comments with regard to the amended drawings (summarised):1. Still concerned that the site is too small for the proposed development.
2. The previous Parish Council did not investigate the measurements despite local
objections in this respect. The current Parish Council has measured the site and
finds the applicants survey inaccurate. The proposed development does not fit onto
the site.
3. The village no longer has any amenities and further development of this type
should be considered very carefully as to what value it will bring to the village.
4. The owners of the property to the west of the proposed access have reiterated
their opposition to the development and are unwilling to release any of their land to
facilitate the provision of the necessary visibility splay.
5. Request copy of measurements made on site and supplied to the agent that
resulted in the latest layout as well as measurements supplied to the agent of the
perimeter.
6. Have the owners of the chapel agreed to the demolition of the front boundary wall
on the party boundary?
REPRESENTATIONS
Representations reported at the May 2006 meeting:Eleven letters of objection from the occupiers of six adjoining and nearby residential
properties (summarised):1. Request site meeting.
2. Plans are unclear as to the effect of the proposed visibility splay on the stability of
the back/retaining wall to the east.
3. Overdevelopment of the site.
4. Loss of conifer hedge on east boundary.
5. Where is the mains sewer connection?
6. Dangerous vehicular access in narrow section of The Street. Additional traffic
cannot be accommodated safely on surrounding roads.
7. Planning application for the development of a nearby site was refused in the early
1990's on grounds of access and overdevelopment. Similar considerations can be
applied here.
8. 'Urban' density out of keeping.
9. Concerns regarding surface water run off particularly in the light of the proposed
site coverage (buildings and driveway/parking areas). There is also a well within the
site.
10. Query accuracy of site plan.
11. Development would create a poor environment for future occupiers of the
proposed dwellings with inadequate amenity space.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
24 April 2008
12. Needless destruction of substantial double garage/storage shed currently serving
property in Long Lane.
13. Remaining garden for properties in Long Lane would be of insufficient size to turn
a vehicle or for the reasonable needs of the occupiers.
14. Plan does not take into account the existing bank on the south boundary.
15. Proposed dwellings should be designed to recycle resources and save energy.
Houses should face south to ensure maximum exposure to sunlight.
16. Overshadowing.
17. Impractical parking/turning arrangement for vehicles within the site.
18. Destruction of historical open space and natural habitat for wildlife.
19. Proposals cannot enhance the historical character of the village. Proposals do
not reflect the established pattern of cottages with large gardens.
20. Earlier proposals for similar development elsewhere in the village have been
refused planning permission.
21. Proposals would breach human rights of surrounding residents.
22. Dispute position of southern site boundary which appears to incorporate third
party land.
23. Demolition of wall at site frontage would detract from setting of former chapel
adjoining the site.
24. Proposed courtyard development would be better suited to town environment.
25. Houses would not meet the needs of local people and would probably become
'second' homes.
26. Plans are not specific as to proposed boundary treatments.
27. Local Planning Authority should refuse to accept this repeat application.
28. Continuing question over the possible need for third party agreement in order to
achieve the stated visibility splay to the east.
29. Current proposals do not overcome previous objections on Conservation Area
grounds nor highway safety grounds.
30. Detract from setting of the adjacent historic cottage.
31. Detract from character/appearance of Conservation Area.
32. Noise disturbance/pollution particularly arising from vehicle movement within the
site.
33. Application plan misrepresents the site size and visibility available at the site
entrance (as have previous proposals). Similarly the road width at the site entrance.
34. Planning process appears to be weighted in favour of the applicant at the
expense of objectors.
35. Proposed visibility splay to west area entail the repositioning of a telegraph pole.
36. Cannot accept that County Council (Highways) are fully aware of the situation
that exists at the proposed access.
37. Proposed visibility splay across the frontage of Gernon House will leave that
property with an unusable turning area.
38. No indication of arrangement for refuse storage.
39. Inadequate provision for emergency vehicles/oil delivery vehicles.
40. Little if any thought has been given to the setting of the adjacent former chapel.
41. Demolished building on road frontage should be rebuilt.
42. Plan inaccuracies must be addressed at outline stage.
43. Some parking will not work and could give rise to dangers to residents.
44. Infringement of human rights.
45. Council should refuse to entertain a further repeat application. Current application
does not resolve previous objections.
Further representations received in response to the latest amended drawings;
Letters and e-mails of objection received from six adjoining and nearby residents
(summarised):1. Amended drawings difficult to understand.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
24 April 2008
2. Proposed development will not fit onto the site without encroachment onto
neighbouring properties. The submitted drawings lack any stated dimensions to
prove otherwise.
3. Out of keeping with village. The existing character of development is essentially
linear. This visually cramped proposal would detract from the appearance/character
of the Conservation Area.
4. The proposed off-street parking arrangement for the former chapel appears unworkable.
5. Have the owners of the former chapel given consent for the demolition of their
boundary wall?
6. The proposed off-street parking arrangements within the proposed development
are cramped with sub-standard parking bays and no thought given to the needs of
disabled residents.
7. The reduction in size of the garden to 2 Long Lane will leave that property with
insufficient space to turn a vehicle resulting in a potentially dangerous reversing
manoeuvre onto Long Lane.
8. The proposed access/driveway would be inadequate/unsafe for use by
emergency/refuse collection/oil delivery vehicles.
9. Where are rubbish bins to be positioned?
10. Dangerous access. There are no road markings, street lighting or parking
restrictions in the vicinity. The road at this point is of insufficient width for two vehicles
to pass and the formation of a further access at this location will prejudice highway
safety particularly after dark.
11. Has any thought been given to possible problems of surface water run off?
12. Applicant states that a foul sewage connection is available. However, the existing
system is running at full capacity.
13. The village lacks sufficient amenities to meet the needs of further residents.
14. A long established garden/wildlife habitat will be destroyed.
15. Urban development will detract from the amenities of surrounding residents and
the rural character of the surrounding area.
16. A reduction in the number of proposed dwellings would be more acceptable.
17. An unpopular overdevelopment would not ease the process of integration of new
residents into village life.
18. Proposals are unlikely to satisfy any genuine housing need merely serving to
increase property prices.
19. Proposed dwellings are too close to neighbouring properties.
20. Any modification to the retaining wall to the east of the former chapel (in order to
achieve the visibility splay) could undermine the stability of the roadside bank.
21. Noise disturbance, loss of light and reduced privacy to neighbouring properties.
22. The submitted plans do not give a true impression of the extent of the curtilage of
the existing property to the west of the proposed access. If any of the bank is to be
removed to facilitate the proposed visibility splay this would have repercussions on
the continued existence of the frontage parking/turning facility of this property (as
required by the original planning permission for the house).
23. Proposals would infringe upon the human rights of adjoining residents (Human
Rights Act - Articles 1 and 8).
24. The latest proposals should be the subject of a new planning application. The
changes are significant.
25. The plans lack sufficient detail to enable proper consideration of the proposals.
26. Amended plans do not show the location of all neighbouring properties.
27. Insufficient detail to assess impact of the development on the Conservation Area.
28. Applicant's re-survey appears flawed.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
24 April 2008
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) - Comments as
reported at the May 2006 meeting:
This application has been considered in relation to its location within the
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area and within the designated residential area identified
in the Local Plan.
The plans now incorporate advice given during pre-application discussions. The
layout has been successfully amended to reflect the incremental development of
surrounding properties in the village and access issues have been resolved.
The application is recommended for approval.
Additional comments regarding the latest amended drawings:
The Wesleyan chapel is a notable building within the Conservation Area. The
attractive front elevation onto The Street is currently masked by brick walling and
timber picket fencing containing a parking area.
Removal of this walling, including a small section of flint wall adjoining the main
house would simplify this elevation and reveal the distinctive window and door
openings. The section of flint wall is clearly older and more attractive than the brick
section, but it is not a significant part of the main building. The removal of the whole
wall would not affect the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, indeed
its removal could be said to enhance the area, allowing the distinctive elevation of the
Wesleyan Chapel to be more visible in the street scene.
If the wall is to be removed in order to provide visibility splays for the proposed
development the redesign of the space in front of the Chapel should be carefully
considered so that surface materials and setting are appropriate.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Comments as
reported at the May 2006 meeting:
No objection subject to implementation of landscaping scheme indicating
hedges/trees to east boundary.
County Council (Highways) - Comments as reported at the May 2006 meeting:
No objection. Impose standard conditions re access gradient/arrangement, visibility
splays to provision/retention of on-site parking/turning area.
Further comments: Further to the recent site visit with Officers to assess the highway
issues raised in the recently received objectors' letter, I confirm the traffic direction
visibility splays measured at the above site visit (approximately 60m from the
required 2m setback) are considered acceptable by the Highway Authority in relation
to the likely 85 percentile vehicular speed on this section of The Street.
This view is based upon the recommendations of Places Street and Movements
(DETR September 1998) which states on page 58 that where vehicle speeds can be
shown to be contained to 30mph the respective 'Y' distance (in this case
approximately 60m) can be amended (from Table B recommendation of 90m) to
60m.
Unfortunately no speed survey data is available for The Street, however the above
assessment of likely vehicular speeds has been made upon recent observation at a
number of visits made to this particular site and other sites in the vicinity.
It is acknowledged that the visibility splay of 2.4m x 70m shown on the submitted site
plan is not correctly drawn to the nearside carriageway edge but, nevertheless,
acceptable visibility sightlines (to the correct point) are achievable should the
improvements shown be implemented.
The Highway Authority response to this application has been made with
consideration of the scale of development (four dwellings), the visibility improvements
suggested, previous permissions on the site (1990/1309) (which suggested no
visibility improvements whatsoever) and provision of off-street parking for the
adjacent Chapel.
Additionally, considering the existing scale of residential development served from
the Street, the proposal is not felt to warrant consideration as a material or significant
increase in vehicular use of the surrounding highway network.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
24 April 2008
Any objection by the Highway Authority on grounds of highway safety is still therefore
believed to be unsustainable at this location.
The only further comment I would wish to make on a point of detail is that an
alternative and more practical layout for the parking provision on the site should be
requested. The proposed layout resulting in parking bay widths to the south of the
site that are slightly below that recommended (2.4m required per bay, with end bays
being 2.9m wide).
Further comments awaited in respect of the latest amended proposals.
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):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 63: Tandem Residential Development (not permitted unless there is no
significant detrimental effect on amenity and character of surrounding area).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
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 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 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. Form and character of village and Conservation Area.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
3. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the meeting on 25 May 2006 to allow further
discussion with County Highways regarding the impact of the proposed
access/visibility splays on the existing parking arrangement for the neighbouring
property to the west (Gernon House) and the expiry of a notification certificate on the
owners of that property. The application had previously been deferred at the April
meeting to enable Members to visit the site.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
24 April 2008
This site is identified in the Local Plan as residential land within the selected small
village. It is also within the designated Conservation Area. Accordingly the proposed
development should enhance the village and preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Areas in order to satisfy Local Plan Policies 4 and
42.
Five previous applications to develop this tandem site have been submitted since
1999 but have been either refused or withdrawn owing to concerns regarding
highway safety and impact upon the appearance and character of the Conservation
Area. Permission was granted in 1999 for a single dwelling on the The Street.
The current proposals would result in a density of approximately 27 dwellings per
hectare. Although this figure would fall slightly below the optimum density previously
suggested within PPG3 it is not considered that the site would comfortably
accommodate a higher density, given the Local Plan requirement for the
development to enhance the character of the village and preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
It is accepted that the development of this open site would have an impact on
surrounding residents, particularly the tenants of the two properties fronting Long
Lane who stand to lose the larger part of their present garden. However, the site is
capable of accommodating four dwellings in accordance with the Local Plan basic
amenity criteria and it is not considered that a refusal of planning permission based
upon the impact on surrounding properties would be justified. Furthermore it is
considered that a development based upon the siting and access arrangements as
now proposed would preserve the appearance and character of the Conservation
Area in accordance with Local Plan Policy 42. It should be borne in mind that the
current application if approved would only establish the position of the buildings on
the site. The precise appearance of the buildings and the position of all doors and
windows would be considered in detail at reserved matters stage.
The latest drawings show a reduced site area. In broad terms the main part of the
site has been shown to be between approximately 1.5 and 2m smaller in the two
main dimensions than shown on the original drawings. This has been incorporated
into the redesign of the proposed development by reducing the vehicle turning area
within the site. However garden sizes and the distances between proposed and
existing buildings would enable the submission of a detailed scheme in compliance
with the Local Plan basic amenity criteria throughout.
Following the consideration of the application in 2006 the owners of Gernon House
(adjacent) wrote stating their opposition to any of their land being incorporated into
the development, a view which they have recently reiterated. The latest modification
to the proposed access has potentially removed the need for the visibility splay this
side to encroach onto the neighbouring property. However, this depends upon the
extent of the public highway and at the time of writing confirmation of this point was
awaited from County Council (Highways). Given the continuing opposition to the
development from he adjoining landowner it is clear that the visibility splay can not be
guaranteed to the west of the access unless it can be provided wholly within the
public highway.
The comments from the Parish Council and local residents regarding the accuracy of
the submitted plans have been discussed with the applicant's agent. The agent is
satisfied that the current drawings accurately depict the extent of the site and has
asked for the application to be determined on this basis.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
24 April 2008
The response from County Council (Highways) in respect of the revised drawing and
the extent of public highway is currently awaited. Subject to this response it is
considered that the proposals comply with Development Plan policies and can be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval, subject to confirmation from County Council (Highways)
that the visibility splay falls within the public highway and the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
2.
BINHAM - 20080476 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission 990534 to
allow retention of modern agricultural barns until prior to the first occupation
of the holiday units; Old Barn Farm Binham Road Wighton for S C and G M
Savory and Sons
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :21 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19980602 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of farm buildings to provide eight
holiday units and communal recreation facilities
Approved, 03 Sep 1998
19990534 - (Full Planning Permission) - Removal of conditions 5 and 8 on planning
permission ref: 980602 to allow occupation of holiday units without removing the
modern agricultural buildings to the rear of the site and providing the communal open
space and parking layout previously approved
Approved, 18 Apr 2000
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to vary condition 4 of application 19990534 to allow retention of modern
agricultural buildings at the rear of the site until prior to the first occupation of the
holiday units approved at Old Barn Farm.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant company includes a Member of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
24 April 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 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 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 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 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 the development.
2. Impact on wider landscape.
3. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
APPRAISAL
Application 19980602 established the principle of converting the redundant farm
buildings at Old Farm Barn to form eight holiday units and communal recreation
facilities. A further permission 19990534 varied conditions of the earlier permission
and included condition 4 as follows:The modern agricultural buildings to the north of the approved parking area (and as
shown to be removed on previous planning reference 01/980602/PF) shall be
removed from the site by no later than 31 December 2007, to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority prior to that date.
Reason: To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area.
The modern barns have yet to be removed and application 20080476 therefore
seeks to vary condition 4 to extend the time by which the barns have to be removed
from site, now proposed to be until prior to the first occupation of any of the holiday
units.
The redundant farm buildings, including the modern steel portal frame modern barns
lie within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Whilst they are partially screened
from view from Binham Road, they are nonetheless visible from Long Lane to the
north and it is still considered that their removal would be beneficial to the visual
amenities of the area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
It is not considered that the delay in removal of the modern barns would have any
deleterious impact on the wider amenities of the area or the amenity of adjacent
residential properties or businesses. However, once the main barns are converted
from holiday use, retention of the buildings would be likely to be harmful to the visual
amenity of the occupiers of those holiday units.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
24 April 2008
As the applicant is proposing to remove the modern barns prior to the first occupation
of the holiday units, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact.
Subject to no objection from Environmental Health, it is considered that the proposal
would comply with adopted Local Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from Environmental
Health and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
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 back-filled 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
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact upon adjoining and nearby residents.
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 overall 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
24 April 2008
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: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.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
24 April 2008
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 relative to neighbouring properties are properly considered by the Council’s
Environmental Control Officer.
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 upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residents.
3. Health and safety issues.
APPRAISAL
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)
12
24 April 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, do 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 is 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
4.
BLAKENEY - 20080118 - Retention of dwelling incorporating revised design
details; Lost Plot Coronation Lane for Ms B Ward Jones
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :19 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20060904 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Approved, 03 Aug 2006
Development Control Committee (West)
13
24 April 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the retention of a dwelling under construction which incorporates tower, roof,
dormer window and fenestrational changes which do not accord with the plans
approved under 20060904.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Application considered at a previous meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object very strongly to this planning application. Firstly this is a clear breach of the
original planning application submission, as there was no glazed area on the original
application. As a result of this amendment, where the work has already taken place,
this now results in neighbouring properties being overlooked, and their privacy
invaded, thus their human rights. The tower was originally to house a wind turbine,
which has subsequently been withdrawn, hence we feel that the tower should also
have been withdrawn. Objected to this application at the outset, for similar reasons,
this being out of character in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Retrospective
planning applications are not the answer, and feel that the Enforcement Officer
should be more proactive in such situations.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The glazed area around the top of the tower is not as approved.
2. Neighbouring properties would be overlooked resulting in a loss of privacy and
causing considerable devaluation.
3. The tower has not technical value and was originally proposed as a ventilation
tower.
4. The height of the tower is in excess of that originally proposed.
5. The property is totally out of keeping in the area.
6. The size of the dormer has been increased in width.
7. Loss of light to neighbouring property.
8. Adverse impact on value of nearby properties.
The Design and Access Statement prepared by the applicant's agent, which provides
reason for the design changes is attached as Appendix 1.
A letter has been received from the applicant's agent which states "that the potential
overlooking was examined in detail at the time of the original application in 2006, and
that there has been no significant material change since then. Whilst there has been
an increase in the width of the glazing to the top landing on the north and south
elevations the actual clear area of glazing is reduced due to the size of the framing
and the field of vision remains the same as approved, namely 360º. The house is at
the lowest point of the site and the second floor landing is approximately 30m away
from the bedroom window of Thatched Cottage which is on an elevated site to the
south. To obscure the field of view we have looked at timber panels to match the
cladding and overlaid over the windows either on the end units or on the inner units,
(indicated on a drawing enclosed). Both of these options serve to increase the scale
of the building by emphasising the vertical emphasis. The original intention was to
create layers of horizontal emphasis to help the house blend into the landscape.
Alternatively if the perception of overlooking is the overriding imperative the extra
width could be blacked out by using black opaque sheets applied to the glazing, also
shown on the enclosed plan). This would perpetuate the "floating" roof and recessive
glazing and offer a cleaner more articulated appearance. Any of the above options
Development Control Committee (West)
14
24 April 2008
would effectively reduce visibility to a level significantly below the approved level. It is
unfortunate to have reached this position and we apologise for the extra work it has
created but we do believe that the changes as built do comply with the spirit of the
house approved by Members.
A further letter has been received from the applicant's agent which explains why the
single glazed louvres as originally proposed were not considered to be acceptable,
however they arrived at the current series of casement windows and also offers a
design solution which they consider would reduce the area of vision from the
windows. (See copy of letter attached at Appendix 1).
In addition to the letters of objection summarised above a letter has also been
received from a local resident which raises a number of additional concerns. (See
copy of letter attached at Appendix 1.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance 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 EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of revised design details.
2. Impact on Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
24 April 2008
APPRAISAL
At the meeting of the Development Control Committee (West) on 27 March 2008 the
Head of Planning and Building Control was given delegated authority to approve the
application, subject to negotiation of louvred glazing within the existing casements
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include a condition to
prevent raising of the floor level within the tower. The applicant has been unable to
agree the required amendment.
The application was deferred at the meeting on 28 February 2008 in order to allow
the Committee to visit the site.
On 3 August 2006 permission was granted for the erection of a two-storey dwelling
subject to the retention of the hedgerows on the western and southern boundary of
the site at a minimum height of 2m.
Following the commencement of the development a letter was received from the
neighbour to the north-west concerned that the tower was not being built in
accordance with the approved plans and that it was likely to have an adverse impact
on the enjoyment of his property due to overlooking.
Having visited the site, it was clear that there were discrepancies between the
approved plans and what has been built and as such the owner was invited to make
a fresh planning application seeking to regularise the situation.
As far as the tower is concerned, whilst its height remains unaltered at 7.7m, instead
of consisting of two tiers, with the top viewing gallery on the north and south
elevations being narrower in width than the main tower, these elevations have been
increased in width by 800mm, so that they correspond with the dimensions of the
main tower below. The effect is that, when viewed from the north and south, instead
of the viewing gallery appearing to be a smaller element the tower has the same
dimensions for its full height. In addition, instead of horizontal louvred glazing at the
gallery level, each elevation of the tower consists of six individual square panes of
glass within a timber frame, which due to the increased width of the gallery to the
north and south elevations has also increased the amount of glazing.
The other main change is to the form of the main roof where although the pitch and
overall height remain unaltered, instead of the eaves being constructed with internal
box gutters, which has the effect of narrowing the appearance of the western gable
end, the eaves have been lowered by approximately 400mm and the roof allowed to
oversail, terminating in an external gutter, thereby giving the impression of a wider
gable width. In addition, rather than a plain verge to the gable end, barge boards
have been introduced and fascia boards to the eaves which tend to accentuate the
gable. Furthermore, fenestrational changes to the western gable end through a
reduction in the amount of glazing have resulted in a loss of verticality to the gable.
Similarly, due to the changes in the construction of the roof, the dormer window to
the southern elevation appears more pronounced, which is accentuated by the three
light casement windows. In addition, the horizontal position of the dormer on the roof
has altered slightly with it now being 1.5m further to the west.
The net effect of these changes is that cumulatively it is considered that the design
changes are a retrograde step and have diluted the original quality of the scheme.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
24 April 2008
The site lies within the Conservation Area and in such areas where preservation or
enhancement of the character or appearance is a policy requirement, high standards
of design should be expected.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties is concerned, the property most
affected by the alteration, in particular to the tower, is Amber Cottage to the north,
where visually the apparent mass of the tower has been increased at high level,
which has also resulted in additional high level glazing to this elevation.
However, whilst there is an increased perception of being overlooked, the sill level of
the windows to the viewing gallery remains as originally approved at 1.55m above
floor level and is such that for a normal height person when standing on the floor it
would be virtually impossible to look down into any of the surrounding gardens, with
all views being confined to rooftops and views of the harbour and marshes.
As stated in the latest letter from the applicant's agent at Appendix 1 it was
considered that the single glazed louvres as originally proposed were unacceptable
both structurally and in terms of the requirements of this Council's Building Control
section. However they do accept that in originally allowing louvred glazing there
would have been a degree of overlapping of the glass, which they suggested based
on three horizontal louvres would have resulted in 2 No. 25mm horizontal bands
around the tower. Whilst the agent has indicated that there would be both practical
and aesthetic problems with replacing the existing glazing with either single or double
glazed louvres in assuming that the Committee require the reintroduction of the
louvres to limit the perception of overlooking by reducing the area of vision an
alternative solution is being suggested. This would involve the introduction of 2 No.
25mm deep horizontal glazing beads fixing to the outside of the glass, painted black,
which would replicate the overlap of the louvres and would reduce the field of vision
and give a slight shadow line.
Whilst such a solution would reduce the area of glass which could be seen through
and would maintain the tower’s horizontal tiers, the fact remains that the tower is
approximately 800mm wider on the north and south elevation than originally
approved, which has increased the perception of being overlooked. It is therefore
suggested, in addition to the introduction of the 25mm wide glazing beads, that two of
the sheets of glass on both the north and south elevation are also obscure glazed to
a degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5.
Notwithstanding the concerns raised by representations that the proposal had not
been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, subject to the above
amendments being received, it is considered that the proposal would comply with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to the applicant agreeing the glazing
beads and obscure glazing to the north and south elevations of the tower and
subject to no new grounds of objection if the need for re-advertisement and
consultation should arise and the imposition of appropriate conditions,
including a condition to prevent raising of the floor level within the tower.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
24 April 2008
5.
FIELD DALLING - 20080450 - Erection of two-storey extension, conservatory
and detached garage; 90 Holt Road for Mr M Brown
Target Date :13 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19791894 - Erection of new house
Approved, 30 Nov 1979
19800332 - (Full Planning Permission) - Front door and porch
Approved, 21 Mar 1980
19882463 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Detached dwelling
Approved, 31 Oct 1988
19891102 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Detached two-storey dwelling
with garage
Approved, 31 Aug 1989
20071634 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey side extension, rear
conservatory and detached garage
Withdrawn, 07 Dec 2007
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of two-storey side/rear extension including conservatory and
detached single garage. The extension would increase the width of the property from
8m to 16m. The rear two-storey element would be approximately 5.4m wide and
6.2m deep forming an L-shape. The eaves height and ridges heights would remain
the same as the existing property at the front (4.2m and 7m respectively). The rear
element would have a height to eaves of 5m and a height to ridge of 7m.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle for the following reasons:
The size of the proposed extension and compliance with Local Plan Policy 64.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received from a neighbour, concerned regarding possible impact on existing
septic tank outflows.
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)
18
24 April 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 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 64: Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside (specifies design criteria.
Extensions should be subordinate to original dwelling).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the extensions would comply with Local Plan Policy 64.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area where extensions to existing
dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
other relevant Local Plan Policies including Policies 13 and 64.
In respect of the issue of scale of the proposed extensions, the key consideration in
this instance is whether they would be subordinate to the original dwelling in terms of
visual effect and floorspace. The existing property has a footprint of 68sq.m and a
volume of approximately 367cu.m. The extended dwelling would have a footprint of
166sq.m and a volume of 902cu.m representing an increase in the floor area of
144% and an increase in volume of 146% compared with the existing property. Given
that the floor space would more than double as a result of the extensions, along with
the volume of the original building, the proposal would not comply with Policy 64.
However, the position of the dwelling on site would lessen the visual impact of the
extensions, particularly those to the rear. Furthermore, it sits within a group of
existing properties and the effect of the development on the wider landscape would
be limited and on balance it is considered acceptable.
It is considered that the proposed extensions would have no significant impact on the
amenity of adjacent neighbours.
It is considered that the proposal would not conflict with the objectives of adopted
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
24 April 2008
6.
HIGH KELLING - 20080359 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace; land at 60 Pineheath Road for Mr S R TelferSmith
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :02 May 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of a single-storey dwelling with accommodation in the roof
space. All matters are reserved apart from siting and means of access.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on form and character of the surrounding area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that this is overdevelopment of the site and would class it as
infill. There are concerns over existing trees, and it is felt that the gable end may be
closer than 2m to the neighbouring property which would be against our draft village
design guidelines which are currently out for public consultation, also it is understood
that the immediate neighbour has voiced concerns and will be writing accordingly.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection raising the following points:1. Many large trees already felled, more will need to be removed changing the overall
appearance of the area.
2. Contrary to Parish Council's Village Plan which allows one building per plot.
3. Would set a precedent.
4. This type of infill would completely change character of High Kelling.
5. Only 2m boundary with No.64.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
24 April 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 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Selected Small Village.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Trees.
4. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of the Selected Small Village of
High Kelling where residential development is considered to be acceptable in
principle for individual or small groups of dwellings where they would enhance the
character of the village (Policy 4).
The site is located to the rear of No.60 Pineheath Road, and would be accessed off a
driveway running along the western boundary. There is a hedge on the western
boundary and a number of large Pine trees to the west in the front garden of the
neighbouring dwelling of No.64 Pineheath Road. Nos.64 and 66 are both set back
into the rear of their plots in a similar siting to that proposed for the dwelling for
consideration. It is not therefore considered that the siting of the proposed dwelling to
the rear of the site would have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the
immediate area.
Subject to the appropriate positioning of windows at the reserved matters stage it is
considered that the siting of the proposed dwelling would comply with the basic
amenity criteria. As the dwelling would be single-storey the existing boundary
treatments to the north west would partially screen any potential views across to the
neighbouring dwelling, and subject to the submission of acceptable boundary
treatments to the south and east boundaries it is not considered that the proposal
would have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of
neighbouring properties.
The dwelling at No.60 has a conservatory to the south west elevation and a garage
to the north east corner. However, the sub-division of the site would still provide
adequate amenity space for the existing dwelling. There are two first floor windows in
the northern elevation of the existing dwelling but these would appear to be to
bathrooms since they are obscure glazed. Therefore, it is not considered that the
existing dwelling would overlook the proposed dwelling.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
24 April 2008
There are a number of conifers on the northern boundary of the site which would be
retained. There is evidence on the site that some trees have already been removed.
However, these trees were not protected and the District Council had no control over
their removal. There remain a number of smaller trees and shrubs on the site, some
of which would need to be removed in order for the development to proceed. It is not
considered that their removal would have a significant detrimental impact on the
character of the area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, at the time of
writing this report the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's comments
were awaited.
The access drive is shown to be approximately 4m in width and car parking for two
cars and a turning area are provided on the site. Access arrangements for the
existing dwelling would remain. At the time of writing this report comments from the
Highway Authority were awaited.
It is therefore considered that, subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager and the Highway Authority, the proposal would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and the Highway Authority and
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
HOLT - 20080138 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2 Woodfield Road
for Mr C N Tai
Target Date :24 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Miss T Lincoln
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single-storey rear extension measuring approximately 12m x
4m x 4.4m (to the ridge) to this detached bungalow. An existing small lean-to
conservatory would be demolished to make way for the rear extension which would
be of brick and tile construction to match the existing dwelling.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker having regard to the following planning issue:
North Norfolk Design Guide standards.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection raising the following issue:Approval of this application would set a precedent for large extension causing a loss
of green and garden space.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
24 April 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No 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 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Scale of the extension and remaining garden area.
APPRAISAL
The application relates to a detached bungalow within the residential policy area
where extensions to dwellings are acceptable in principle provided they are
acceptable in design and setting.
The proposal is considered appropriate in height, bulk and scale and is of appropriate
matching materials to the existing dwelling. With regard to the loss of rear garden
space, given the small plot sizes of the surrounding properties and in particular that
of the adjacent dwelling to the south-west, a refusal on the grounds of a reduced
garden depth would be difficult to substantiate. The current garden, with a depth of
8.5m, falls short of the advised minimum garden depth of 10m. The proposal would
retain a rear garden depth of 5m. This is considered sufficient in this instance given
that there would be no impact on the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling to the
south-west due to sufficient boundary screening and a blank end elevation of the
neighbouring property.
Accordingly, it is considered that whilst the proposal does not fully comply with all
criteria of the Development Plan policy, there is no significant conflict.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
24 April 2008
8.
HOLT - 20080201 - Erection of dwelling and detached cart lodge; Jenis Barn
Thornage Road for Mr S Chapman
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :02 Apr 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
E3032 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of dwelling
Approved, 14 Aug 1962
20061070 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused, 22 Aug 2006
20070490 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused, 30 May 2007
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a one-and-a-half-storey "barn style" dwelling and a detached
cart lodge style garage on land to the north of Jenis barn.
Apart from access and layout all matters are reserved for subsequent approval.
The maximum size of the dwelling would be approximately 14m x 10m. The height to
the wall plate at the front of the property would be approximately 3.3m. The dwelling
would share and use the same vehicular access as Jenis Barn.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
REPRESENTATIONS
A petition with 116 signatures has been received in support of the application.
A copy of the applicant's Design and Access Statement is contained in Appendix 2
as it contains the applicant's supporting statement providing details on the applicant's
personal background, the family history regarding the plot of land, a description of the
proposal and its proposed use and a conclusion.
A letter has been received from Norman Lamb MP enclosing a copy of further
representations from the applicant regarding this application which is attached at
Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - As with the earlier applications on this site (20070490
and 20061070) the application does not provide details of visibility splays to be
provided from the site access (Candlestick Lane) onto the Thornage Road (B1110).
Development Control Committee (West)
24
24 April 2008
As the Thornage Road is subject to a 60 mph speed limit at this point the visibility
requirement from the access is 215m x 2.4m x 215m (Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges DoT).
Therefore, should this application be acceptable in planning terms, the applicant
should be requested to submit a site frontage survey indicating the above visibility
splays to allow favourable Highway comment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Whilst it
could be argued that the proposed dwelling would not enhance the openness of the
surrounding landscape, it would be more difficult to sustain an objection purely based
upon its impact within the expansive Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
A dwelling of appropriate design constructed in sympathetic materials would have a
neutral impact upon the appearance and character of the heritage designation.
This said, running the access alongside the side of the road seems less than ideal in
layout terms. A more natural end result could be achieved if it were to run along the
back of the plot inside the hedge line.
In offering these comments, it is appreciated that there may well be an overarching
policy objection to the proposal. Therefore, any requests for conditions would be
premature at this stage.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The site of the
proposed development lies within the Area of High Landscape Value, designated
Countryside and within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. It is a particularly
visually sensitive area and any new development would have a detrimental impact on
the open characteristic of the land and Conservation Area.
There are clear policies relating to development in the Countryside. The Landscape
section of Conservation, Design and Landscape object to the application due to
unacceptable intrusion into the countryside, we request that careful consideration is
made when determining the application to ensure that it does not go against
Development Plan Policy.
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 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 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Development Control Committee (West)
25
24 April 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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of proposal in Countryside policy area.
2. Highway safety.
3. Impact upon Area of High Landscape Value.
4. Impact upon the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to visit
the site.
The Committee may recall considering planning application reference 20070490 in
May of last year for the erection of a single-storey dwelling on the site which was
refused on the following grounds:The applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for the erection of a
dwelling in the proposed location and due to the location of the site with the Area of
High Landscape Value it is considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the open and rural character of the area. The proposed
development would therefore constitute the erection of a dwelling on land designated
as Countryside in the North Norfolk Local Plan where there is a general presumption
against residential development.
The proposal would be prejudicial to the District Council's Development Strategy,
which is designed to impose severe restraint upon new residential development in
the countryside in order to direct housing growth to specific and sustainable
locations.
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate visibility can be
achieved at the site entrance for the benefit of drivers of vehicles leaving the site.
Accordingly, the proposal as submitted is contrary to the objectives of Local Plan
Policy 147.
Prior to the submission of that application, planning permission reference 20061070
for the erection of a single-storey dwelling was refused under delegated powers on
the same grounds as above.
The current application is for a one-and-a-half-storey 'barn style' dwelling and cart
lodge style garage. However, the site is located within the Countryside policy area
(Policy 5) as designated in the Local Plan where there is a general presumption
against development.
Whilst Policy 53 of the Local Plan regarding the District Council's Housing Strategy is
not a 'saved' policy it does not alter the fact the erection of a dwelling in the
countryside is not a development permitted in the Countryside policy area. It is
therefore considered that no significant change has occurred since the refusal of the
previous application (20070490) nor has the applicant submitted any additional
supporting information in terms of justifying the erection of a dwelling in the
Countryside policy area.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
24 April 2008
The Committee will note the Highway Authority's comments that if the application
were to be approved a site frontage survey would be required in order to establish
the full extent of the visibility from the site as the proposal, as submitted has severely
restricted visibility and is not considered acceptable in highway safety terms, contrary
to Policy 147 of the Local Plan.
Furthermore, it is considered that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient
justification to warrant a clear departure from policy for the construction of a new
dwelling in the Countryside policy area. Consequently, the proposal is not considered
acceptable and does not accord with Development Plan policy.
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 5: The Countryside
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas
Policy 147: New Accesses
The applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for the erection of a
dwelling in the proposed location and due to the location of the site with the Area of
High Landscape Value it is considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the open and rural character of the area. The proposed
development would therefore constitute the erection of a dwelling on land designated
as Countryside in the North Norfolk Local Plan where there is a general presumption
against residential development.
The proposal would be prejudicial to the District Council's Development Strategy,
which is designed to impose severe restraint upon new residential development in
the countryside in order to direct housing growth to specific and sustainable
locations.
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate visibility can be
achieved at the site entrance for the benefit of drivers of vehicles leaving the site.
Accordingly, the proposal as submitted is contrary to the objectives of Local Plan
Policy 147.
9.
HOLT - 20080345 - Retention of pergola; Railway Tavern Public House 2 Station
Road for Mr and Mrs R Russell
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :30 Apr 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Development Control Committee (West)
27
24 April 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application for the retention of a timber pergola to the rear of the
public house.
The pergola is open on all sides, albeit for some panels of trellis work. There is no
roof enclosing the structure.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor High having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on neighbouring properties.
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received raising the following points:1. Proposal is illegally built smoking area.
2. Noise disturbance, such as shouting, abusive language, drunken behaviour.
3. Pollution.
4. Not possible to have windows open at own property.
5. Impact upon privacy and amenities.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - 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 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 39: Development near Listed Buildings (attention needed to protect character
and setting).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 79: Core Retail Areas (limits use of ground floor premises to Class A1, A2 or
A3 uses - shops, offices or food/drink outlets).
Policy 81: Historic Character of Town Centres (encourages shopping and other
appropriate uses subject to compatibility with historic character and fabric).
Development Control Committee (West)
28
24 April 2008
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 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 Conservation Area and setting of listed building.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The pergola is located to the rear of the public house which is a Grade II listed
building. Whilst it is possible, if looking directly into the car park of the public house
from Station Road, to see part of the pergola it is not considered to be located in a
prominent position in the street scene.
The pergola does not appear to be attached to the Grade II listed building and does
not therefore require listed building consent. The rear of the public house is a car
parking area with a tarmac and gravel surface which is screened to all boundaries by
a brick and flint wall approximately 2m in height.
Due to its secluded position it is not considered that the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact upon the setting of the listed building. It would also
preserve the character of the Conservation Area.
To the east of the public house there is a residential property fronting Station Road
and what appear to be offices. Both of these properties have windows facing the site
at a distance of approximately 3m. However, subject to no objections from the
Environmental Protection Team it is not considered that the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact upon the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of the
neighbouring properties.
The pergola is therefore considered to be acceptable and accord with Development
Plan policy, subject to no objections from Environmental Health and the Town
Council.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from Environmental
Health and the Town Council, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
HOLT - 20080413 - Erection of seven dwellings; Orchard Piece 8 Kelling Road
for Character Homes Limited
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :06 Jun 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Tree Preservation Order
Development Control Committee (West)
29
24 April 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20020504 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of four detached bungalows and
garages
Approved, 01 Nov 2002
20070512 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey dwelling with attached
garage
Approved, 10 May 2007
20071319 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of dwelling and outbuilding
and erection of eight dwellings
Refused, 24 Jan 2008
20071528 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of four detached single-storey
dwellings
Approved, 06 Feb 2008
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of seven dwellings on a site area of approximately 0.58ha.
Means of access and siting are for consideration at this stage. The submitted layout
and massing plans indicate four two-storey houses and three one-and-a-half-storey
dwellings. Houses would have a maximum ridge height of 8.5m (eaves 5m high)
whilst two of the one-and-a-half-storey dwellings would have a maximum ridge height
of 6.75m (eaves 3.75m high) with the other having a maximum ridge height of 6.5m
(eaves 2.5m high)
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control given the recent previous
application determined by Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
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 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Development Control Committee (West)
30
24 April 2008
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location.
2. Highway safety.
3. Impact on the character and appearance of the area.
4. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.
5. Landscape.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the development boundary of Holt and, as such, there would be
no objection to the principle of residential development on this site subject to
compliance with other relevant Local Plan policies.
The principal consideration is whether seven dwellings can be satisfactorily
accommodated on the site without compromising either the amenity of surrounding
properties or highway safety.
Members will recall that an earlier application for eight dwellings was refused in
December 2007 on grounds of overdevelopment, concerns about loss of amenity for
surrounding residents and concerns about impact on trees around the site. Since the
decision was made, a number of trees on site were made the subject of a Tree
Preservation Order on 28 February 2008.
At the time of writing the views of County Council (Highways) and the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager (regarding impact on trees) were awaited.
In respect of density, seven dwellings on a site area of approximately 0.58ha equates
to roughly 12 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this is well below the densities advised in
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, the development constraints of the site and
the fact that the site is surrounded by residential development would justify a lower
density.
In respect of compliance with the basic amenity criteria, whilst exact window
positions are unknown at this stage the majority of properties would comply with
anticipated window-to-window distances. Where compliance at first floor is not
achievable (Plots 2, 3 and 4) the applicant has indicated that no first floor windows
would be inserted into those properties in sensitive directions.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
24 April 2008
Subject to no objections from County Council (Highways) or the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager and, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, particularly in relation to building heights, windows and materials, it is
considered that the proposal would comply with relevant adopted Local Development
Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections from County Council
(Highways) or the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and, subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those relating to building
heights, windows, materials and removal of permitted development rights.
11.
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)
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
32
24 April 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning history
of the site.
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 3)
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.
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 3) 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.
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
Development Control Committee (West)
33
24 April 2008
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.
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 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.
Further comments awaited on amended plans.
Garden History Society - Original comments: No comments.
Further comments awaited on amended plans.
Development Control Committee (West)
34
24 April 2008
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 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).
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
35
24 April 2008
APPRAISAL
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 situated 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
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 3).
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
Development Control Committee (West)
36
24 April 2008
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 other 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
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
Development Control Committee (West)
37
24 April 2008
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.
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. 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
38
24 April 2008
In terms of the advice contained in PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment,
this 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 users it
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.
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.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as amended would comply with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no further objections from
outstanding consultees and the imposition of the following conditions:
2) 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.
3) Each unit hereby permitted shall be used for holiday accommodation purposes
only and shall not be used as the sole or main residence of its occupiers.
4) 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 alterations to either of the holiday units
hereby permitted shall be undertaken and no building, structure or means of
enclosure within the curtilage of either of the holiday units shall be erected unless
planning permission has first been granted by the Local Planning Authority.
REASONS:2) 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.
3) For the avoidance of doubt and because the units are 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.
4) To safeguard the architectural character and setting of the building and to accord
with Policy 29 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan regarding conversion of
buildings in the countryside.
Development Control Committee (West)
39
24 April 2008
12.
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
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning history
of the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original plans - no objection.
Further comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter has been received from the owners of Cranmer Hall (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
Development Control Committee (West)
40
24 April 2008
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".
Comments on amended plans: Nothing to add to previous advice.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
41
24 April 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 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 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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
42
24 April 2008
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.
In terms of the advice contained in PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment,
this 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 users it
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.
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 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.
13.
STODY - 20080411 - Erection of two-storey front and rear extensions; The Old
Inn Brinton Road for Mr J Thomas
Target Date :09 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19970900 - (Full Planning Permission) - Alteration and extension
Approved, 04 Aug 1997
20010637 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extension and change of use
from agricultural land to residential
Approved, 06 Jul 2001
20011156 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of detached double garage and
store and formation of new vehicular access
Approved, 05 Oct 2001
20041218 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of conservatory
Approved, 06 Aug 2004
Development Control Committee (West)
43
24 April 2008
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of two-storey front and rear extensions combined with a
number of internal alterations including converting an existing store/garage to studio.
The two-storey extensions would form a cross-wing to the main original part of the
house. The front element would be 5.45sq.m with a height to eaves of approximately
4.9m and a height to ridge of approximately 7.5m. The rear extension would be
5.55m wide and 6.79m deep with a height to eaves of approximately 4.7m and a
height to ridge of approximately 7.5m.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle for the following planning reason:
Compliance with Policy 64.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object - Whilst no objection in principle have reservations over the size of the front
extension and concern over disturbance to the old and attractive frontage.
REPRESENTATIONS
Design and Access Statement from applicant attached as Appendix 5.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
Environmental Health - No comment or objections.
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 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 64: Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside (specifies design criteria.
Extensions should be subordinate to original dwelling).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Development Control Committee (West)
44
24 April 2008
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether extensions would comply with Policy 64.
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area where extensions to dwellings are
considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other relevant
policies, including Policies 13, 64 and 42.
Whilst it is considered that the proposed extensions would have no impact on the
amenity of adjacent neighbours, consideration has to be given to the impact on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and whether the scale of
development, in conjunction with earlier extensions and alterations, would still enable
compliance with Local Plan Policy 64 concerning extensions to dwellings in the
countryside.
It is evident that the building has been extended and adapted throughout its life. The
oldest standing element dates from around 1688. Since 1948, there have been a
variety of alterations and extensions, including a number within the last ten years.
In respect of the issue of scale the existing property has a footprint of approximately
190sq.m and a volume of approximately 940cu.m. The proposed extensions would
have a footprint of 68sq.m with a volume approximately 411cu.m representing an
increase of 37% in the floor area and 44% increase in volume of the existing building.
However, the property has already been extended/altered with the roof raised on the
eastern part thus adding approximately 120cu.m to the volume. Taking this into
account, the percentage increase in volume would be some 65%.
Notwithstanding the issue of volume and floor space, the principal issue concerns the
form and impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst
the front extension would be quite dominant and could arguably detract from the
appearance of the existing building, subject to the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager having no objections to the proposal, there could be no
substantive objection to the proposed extensions, which would otherwise comply with
adopted Local Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objection from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
45
24 April 2008
14.
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20080492 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling;
land at The Green The Street for John Ashton's Children's Settlement
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :22 May 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20030593 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey extension and
conservatory
Refused, 12 May 2003
20030974 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey extension and
conservatory
Approved, 20 Nov 2003
20051834 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of public house to two dwellings
and erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Refused, 11 Apr 2006
20071615 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of former public house to two
dwellings, demolition of outbuildings and erection of two-storey dwelling
Undetermined
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a detached two-storey two bedroom property to the rear of the former
Red Lion pubic house. The dwelling would be 6.7m wide with a maximum depth of
6.2m. The dwelling would have a height to eaves of 4.5m and a height to ridge of
6.7m. Entrance to the detached property would be on the eastern side with a rear
amenity area to the west surrounded by a new 1.25m high brick and flint wall.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning issues:
Compliance with Local Plan Policy 87 and to ensure that Usher's Barn is operational
as a public house prior to the first occupation of the proposed dwelling.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
See applicant's Design and Access Statement at Appendix 6.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
46
24 April 2008
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
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).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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/compliance with Local Plan Policy 87 - Country Pubs.
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
3. Impact on the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. Residential amenity.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
Given that the site of the proposed detached dwelling lies within the development
boundary of Upper Sheringham, the principle of residential development is
acceptable subject to enhancement of the character of the village.
Upper Sheringham lies entirely within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) within which the prime planning consideration is the conservation and
enhancement of the beauty of the area. Given the fact that the proposal would be
viewed against the backdrop of existing development, it is not considered that the
proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the AONB.
Subject to conditions relating to finish and detailing, the proposals are considered to
comply with the requirements of Local Plan Policy 42, in preserving the appearance
of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
47
24 April 2008
Members will recall that an earlier application on this site, including conversion of the
former Red Lion to two dwellings, was considered by Committee on 31 January 2008
where it was resolved to approve the application subject to appropriate conditions
and subject to a Section 106 Agreement to:1. Ensure that no works are commenced on the conversion of the public house to two
dwellings until a contract for Usher's Barn is let;
2. To prevent occupation of the detached dwelling at the rear until a contract for
Usher's Barn is let; and
3. To prevent occupation of the two units in the former public house until the works to
Usher's Barn have been substantially completed in accordance with planning
permission 20070735 and the replacement public house and ancillary development is
in operation.
The current application is for the same detached dwelling which formed part of that
application. Therefore it has already been agreed by Committee that the siting,
design, external appearance and relationship with adjacent development are
acceptable. The application would enable the plot to be developed independently of
the conversion of the public house.
The Section 106 Agreement was required because it was considered that, in the
worst case scenario and without proper safeguards, Upper Sheringham could be left
without a public house. The applicants have planning permission to convert nearby
Usher's Barn in the village to a public house.
It is considered that, subject to no objections from outstanding consultees, the
imposition of appropriate conditions and subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the
proposed detached dwelling would comply with adopted Local Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve,
subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager or County Council (Highways) and subject to a Section 106
Agreement to prevent occupation of the detached dwelling at the rear until a
contract for Usher's Barn has been let and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
15.
WALSINGHAM - 20080050 - Change of use and conversion from
hostel/cafe/chapel to C2 (religious retreat), including construction of covered
walkway, new shop front, residential flat, additional dormer windows, bell cotte
and fenestrational changes; 47, 47a and 49 High Street for Mr P Hoye
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :06 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20080051 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Residential
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade II*
Development Control Committee (West)
48
24 April 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20042083 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of detached dwelling
Approved, 04 Feb 2005
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use and conversion from hostel/cafe/chapel to C1 (Religious
Retreat), including construction of covered walkway, new shop front, additional
dormer windows, bell cotte and fenestrational changes, subsequently amended to
include a flat.
Amended plans have been received regarding fenestrational details, internal
alterations, access ramps, mantelpiece details and external lighting. Car parking
proposed on site, reduced from seven spaces to four.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the last Committee meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments: The above application was circulated to Councillors for their
comments. The outcome is that Parish Councillors would wish there to be a site
meeting by your Conservation Officer and planning team, with the opportunity for
some of Walsingham Parish Councillors to attend. They are not objecting to the
proposal per se, but as this is a very important building, they would like the following
comments to be taken into careful consideration:1. This is a major re-development of a medieval timber framed house with Georgian
facade, which should be given serious consideration and careful monitoring. The
layout of the building is very complicated with very narrow passages, which is rather
dismissed in the Section 3.1 'this means that there are numerous changes in level
with the building. Generally these will be overcome by temporary ramps'.
2. No.49 The Martyr's House, has a superb example of Wattle and Daub, including
scallop shells in the daub which is currently preserved under glass, this must not be
lost. Some excellent wooden beams/rafters, particularly where the Georgian facade
has been put up in front of the original building. Any work inside No.49 must be
monitored so that no medieval or Georgian original work is destroyed. The
Conservation Officer must be involved in the work, there is no mention of this in the
report compiled by the architect.
3. Where are the plans for the second floor? A few months ago plans were approved
to amend the lunette window in the pediment, but no plans have been submitted for
the rooms on the second floor. Is anything being done to the rooms on the second
floor?
4. Garden. It is a good idea to include parking spaces in the garden however will the
entry onto Coker's Hill be dangerous? Is the wall which they will have to take down to
enlarge the entrance listed?
5. Originally, Almonry Lane which runs up the side of No.47 was one of the linking
roads through to what is now Coker's hill, like Swan Entry. If the garden is opened up
for car parking would it be possible to reinstate footpath access right through from
Coker's Hill to the High Street?
6. In Section 4.1 of the report, I am sorry to read that 'two new wrought iron gates will
prevent direct access and the existing passage in the chapel range will be closed to
prevent unauthorised access'. The chapel has always been open for public access, it
seems a retrograde step that the lovely chapel which is dedicated to the Martyr's will
cease to be available to pilgrims and visitors, particularly as it appears that the
chapel in the cellar within No.49 has been taken away.
Development Control Committee (West)
49
24 April 2008
Comments on amended proposals: No objection but no internal inspection was
made. A careful watch should be made to ensure existing features are preserved and
in case any other features come to light during the works.
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter has been received from the applicant following the Highway Authority's
objection to the proposed new access off Coker's Hill and seven car parking spaces.
The applicant has asked whether some modification of the proposed car parking
would be acceptable to the Highway Authority in view of an earlier planning
permission for one dwelling, a new vehicular access, and car parking and turning
arrangements approved under reference 20042083, being on the same site as the
proposed seven parking spaces.
The applicant has asked at the very least for car parking and an access in this
location for his own family's cars equivalent to that proposed in the earlier planning
application which was approved, as the building will be used as a family home as
well as a retreat so family parking seems entirely reasonable.
The applicant advises that car movements for the retreat will be limited as people
who come to stay will not treat it as a base for further local journeys but will come for
several days or weeks and remain in the centre during that time. Car parking on site
will also be easier for the elderly or disabled rather than parking in the public car park
some way away. A full copy of the letter can be found in Appendix 7.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
proposal reflects lengthy discussions from two site visits and whilst the proposal is
acceptable in principle, there are a number of details that require clarification and
amending to render this scheme successful. These include fenestrational details
regarding glazing arrangements, window casements, retaining and replicating
catslide dormers, as well as the acceptability of the formation of new door openings
and changes to form en-suites in first floor. Further details are also required
regarding details for access ramp on No.47, new mantelpiece details in room G06 to
be agreed prior to installation, details of external lighting submitted. Subject to the
receipt of acceptable amended details conditions are required regarding the lowering
of the chapel floor, explanatory work and that under no circumstances shall the 16th
Century timber frame of No.49 be disturbed or damaged. A full copy of the
Conservation and Design comments can be found in Appendix 7.
Awaiting comments on amended plans.
County Council (Highways) - There is no highway objection to the proposal subject to
the following comments:
The proposal includes the locating of seven parking spaces to the rear of the
property, to be accessed from Coker's Hill. The proposed access would be at the
location of the existing wooden gated entrance. If a vehicular access were to be
created at this point, due to the presence of the brick and flint wall, the visibility would
not be sufficient to ensure highway safety. I, therefore, believe that Coker's Hill is not
suitable for an additional access to this site, to accommodate the new access and the
increase in traffic. There is a nearby public car park and on-street parking available,
so I believe that these facilities should continue to be used for this site.
If the proposed vehicle parking spaces were to be removed from the application,
there would be no objection to the rest of the planning application. I would also
advise that the permitted development rights be removed to ensure that no such
vehicular access could be implemented without specific planning permission.
Development Control Committee (West)
50
24 April 2008
Additional comments regarding car parking as follows:I am aware that planning permission has been granted for a residential plot at this
site (20042083) with parking for two vehicles. If the applicant were to propose a
reduced level of parking from the initial seven spaces proposed, I can confirm I would
be prepared to reconsider my advice.
Awaiting comments on amended plans.
Environmental Health - No objections raised, but require conditions in relation to the
submission of details for any ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, mechanical
extraction, waste disposal prior to the first use of the development and details of any
external lighting prior to installation.
Building Control Manager - New bedroom walls and floors will need to meet sound
insulation provisions. Means of escape to be checked when Building Regulations
application submitted.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 36: Change of Use of Listed Buildings (acceptable where existing uses cannot
secure buildings survival and where special character will be safeguarded).
Policy 37: Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings (prevents proposals which
would be detrimental to character).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 122: Hotels (permitted within defined settlements subject to size, design and
amenity considerations).
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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee (West)
51
24 April 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of proposal in residential policy area.
2. Impact on Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings.
3. Impact on the Conservation Area.
4. Impact on the neighbouring properties.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last Committee meeting in order to establish how
many car parking spaces would have been required for the existing use as a
hostel/cafe/chapel, for clarification as to whether the second floor flat forms part of
the application and for any further comments from the Parish Council.
The site is located within the residential policy area of the Selected Small Village of
Walsingham where proposals that are classed as a C1 use are permitted provided
that they are appropriate to the settlement in terms of their overall design and size
and they have no significant detrimental effect on the surrounding area or on the
residential amenities of nearby occupiers, in accordance with Policy 122.
As the proposed development would utilise the existing buildings at 47, 47a and 49
High Street with some alterations it is considered that the proposal would accord with
Policy 122.
The Committee will note the comments from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager; subject to the plans being satisfactorily amended it is not
considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the
character of the listed buildings. Subject to this, the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area would be preserved. At the time of writing this report amended
plans had been received and comments were still awaited from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager.
It is considered that the external alterations proposed, subject to satisfactory
amendment, would improve the appearance of the listed buildings and would have
no greater impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring
properties than already exists.
The submitted plans show seven car parking spaces on the site accessed by a new
vehicular access off Coker's Hill. In accordance with the District Council's car parking
standards a minimum of 1.5 car parking spaces per bedroom is required for a C1 use
in a Selected Small Village. The development has ten en-suite bedrooms, a
caretaker's flat and a flat on the second floor for the owner. Therefore, approximately
nineteen car parking spaces would be required on the site.
The use of the second floor as a domestic flat requires permission and has been
included in an amended description for the development.
The Committee will note the original comments from the Highway Authority which
advised that the proposed vehicular access off Coker's Hill would not be suitable to
accommodate a new vehicular access nor an increase in traffic as the visibility would
not be sufficient to ensure highway safety. If the seven car parking spaces were
removed from the scheme then the Highway Authority would not raise an objection
due to the close proximity of the public car park and on street parking available
nearby. The agent was advised of these comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
52
24 April 2008
The absence of any car parking from the scheme would be contrary to Policy 153.
However, there is currently no car parking area on the site for the current uses, apart
from a small area directly to the rear of No.47a, which could accommodate
approximately two cars but has a restricted area for manoeuvring. Therefore, in view
of the Highway Authority's comments regarding the close proximity of the public car
park and on street parking and the advice given in PPG13 Transport, it is not
considered that the lack of parking provision on the site in this location would justify
refusal of this application.
Committee will note representations from the applicant have been received
requesting County Council (Highways) reconsider their objection in view of the extant
permission to erect a dwelling and access, as approved under application 20042083.
County Council (Highways) have responded confirming that, in view of the extant
permission, they would remove their objection subject to the applicant reducing the
number of spaces to an acceptable level. The amended plans show a reduction from
seven to four car parking spaces, which the Highway Authority has agreed is
acceptable.
In accordance with the Council's car parking standards, the existing use of
hostel/cafe and chapel would require a total of approximately twenty-four car parking
spaces. There are currently no car parking spaces for these uses. The proposed use
would require nineteen car parking spaces. The Highway Authority has accepted four
spaces. Therefore, there would be a shortfall of fifteen spaces, which is less than the
current shortfall of twenty-four. It is therefore considered that the proposed car
parking situation would be an improvement on the existing.
Subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager on
the amended plans and no objections following the re-advertisement of the
application it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable and would not
significantly depart from Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager on the amended plans and no
objections following the re-advertisement of the amended application and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
16.
WALSINGHAM - 20080051 - Demolition of single-storey extensions, internal
alterations and construction of covered walkway, additional dormer windows,
new shopfront and fenestrational changes; 47, 47a and 49 High Street for Mr P
Hoye
Target Date :06 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Alteration to Listed Building)
See also 20080050 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Listed Building Grade II Consultation Area
Residential
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade II*
Development Control Committee (West)
53
24 April 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20060824 - (Alteration to Listed Building) - Internal alterations, removal of external
door and installation of window
Approved, 19 Jul 2006
20071684 - (Alteration to Listed Building) - Installation of replacement pediment
window
Approved, 27 Feb 2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of single-storey extensions, internal alterations including
provision of flat and construction of covered walkway, additional dormer windows,
new shopfront and fenestrational changes.
Amended plans have been received regarding fenestrational details, internal
alterations, access ramps, mantelpiece details and external lighting.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the last Committee meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Parish Councillors would wish there to be a site meeting by your Conservation Officer
and planning team, with the opportunity for some of Walsingham Parish Councillors
to attend. They are not objecting to the proposal per se, but as this is a very
important building, they would like the following comments to be taken into careful
consideration:1. This is a major re-development of a medieval timber framed house with Georgian
facade, which should be given serious consideration and careful monitoring. The
layout of the building is very complicated with very narrow passages, which is rather
dismissed in the Section 3.1 'this means that there are numerous changes in level
with the building. Generally these will be overcome by temporary ramps'.
2. No.49 The Martyr's House, has a superb example of Wattle and Daub, including
scallop shells in the daub which is currently preserved under glass, this must not be
lost. Some excellent wooden beams/rafters, particularly where the Georgian facade
has been put up in front of the original building. Any work inside No.49 must be
monitored so that no medieval or Georgian original work is destroyed. The
Conservation Officer must be involved in the work, there is no mention of this in the
report compiled by the architect.
3. Where are the plans for the second floor? A few months ago plans were approved
to amend the lunette window in the pediment, but no plans have been submitted for
the rooms on the second floor. Is anything being done to the rooms on the second
floor?
4. Garden. It is a good idea to include parking spaces in the garden however will the
entry onto Coker's Hill be dangerous? Is the wall which they will have to take down to
enlarge the entrance listed?
5. Originally, Almonry Lane which runs up the side of No.47 was one of the linking
roads through to what is now Coker's Hill, like Swan Entry. If the garden is opened up
for car parking would it be possible to reinstate footpath access right through from
Coker's Hill to the High Street?
6. In Section 4.1 of the report, I am sorry to read that 'two new wrought iron gates will
prevent direct access and the existing passage in the chapel range will be closed to
prevent unauthorised access'. The chapel has always been open for public access, it
seems a retrograde step that the lovely chapel which is dedicated to the Martyr's will
cease to be available to pilgrims and visitors, particularly as it appears that the
chapel in the cellar within No.49 has been taken away.
Comments on amended plan: See 20080050 also on this agenda.
Development Control Committee (West)
54
24 April 2008
CONSULTATIONS
Ancient Monuments Society - Awaiting comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - The proposal
reflects lengthy discussions from two site visits and whilst the proposal is acceptable
in principle, there are a number of details that require clarification and amending to
render this scheme successful. These include fenestrational details regarding glazing
arrangements, window casements, retaining and replicating catslide dormers, as well
as the acceptability of the formation of new door openings and changes to form ensuites in first floor. Further details are also required regarding details for access ramp
on No.47, new mantelpiece details in room G06 to be agreed prior to installation,
details of external lighting submitted. Subject to the receipt of acceptable amended
details conditions are required regarding the lowering of the chapel floor, exploratory
work and that under no circumstances should the 16th Century timber frame of No.49
be disturbed or damaged. A full copy of the Conservation and Design comments can
be found in Appendix 7.
Awaiting comments on amended plans.
Council For British Archaeology - Awaiting comments.
English Heritage - Our specialist staff have considered the information received and
we do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. This application should be
determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis
of your specialist conservation advice.
Society Protection Ancient Buildings - Awaiting comments.
The Georgian Group - Awaiting comments.
The Victorian Society - Awaiting comments.
Twentieth Century Society - Awaiting comments.
Building Control Manager - New bedroom walls and floors will need to meet sound
insulation provisions. Means of escape to be checked when Building Regulations
application submitted.
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
55
24 April 2008
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 of the Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last Committee meeting in association with
application reference 20080050 above.
The application is for the demolition of single-storey extensions as well as internal
and external alterations to the Grade II (No.47 and 47a) and Grade II* (No.49) listed
buildings.
The Committee will note the comments from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager and those of English Heritage. Subject to the plans being
satisfactorily amended it was not considered that the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact on the character of the listed buildings. At the time of
writing this report further comments were awaited from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager regarding the amended plans.
If the Committee is minded to approve the application it will be necessary to refer the
application to the Government Office as No.49 is Grade II* listed. However, the
proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan
policy, subject to no objections from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager on the amended plans.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager on the amended plans, no objections from
outstanding consultees or the Government Office for the East of England, and
imposition of appropriate conditions.
17.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - 20071499 - Conversion of barns to seven units of holiday
accommodation; Pitt Farm The Street for A V Youngs (Farms) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20080075 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage; Long Planting Cromer Road West Runton for Mr and Mrs Hayns
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20080191 - Construction of swimming pool; Beeston Hall
School Cromer Road for Beeston Hall School Trust Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20080295 - Conversion of workshop to provide extended
annexe accommodation; Abbey Farmhouse Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs
Turner
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
56
24 April 2008
BEESTON REGIS - 20080296 - Internal alterations to kitchens, first floor and
attic, conversion of workshop to provide enlarged annexe and installation of
rooflights; Abbey Farmhouse Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs Turner
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BINHAM - 20080108 - Installation of replacement windows to front elevation; 2
Field Dalling Road for Ms A Griffith Jones
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BINHAM - 20080314 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural store;
Copse Farm Walsingham Road for Mr and Mrs H D Howell
(Prior Notification)
BLAKENEY - 20080028 - Formation of pedestrian access; The Playing Field
New Road for Blakeney Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080089 - Conversion to ground floor flat with A1 (retail) shop
above; 3 The Granary High Street for Mr and Mrs J Hartley
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080157 - Installation of emergency escape rooflight; The
Merchants House 86 High Street for Mr D D Marris
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080172 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 23 Kingsway
for Mr T Stanford and Ms P Watson-Farrar
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080217 - Alterations to annexe; 2 Westgate Street for Mr P
Nicholson-Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080257 - Construction of dwarf garden walls; The Merchants
House 86 High Street for Mr and Mrs D Marris
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080267 - Internal alterations to provide ground floor apartment
and first floor shop; 3 The Granary High Street for Mr and Mrs J Hartley
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080372 - Erection of garden walls; The Merchants House 86
High Street for Mr and Mrs D Marris
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20080116 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide ancillary
living accommodation; Chestnut Cottage Reepham Road for Mr N A Spruce
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20080183 - Erection of attached garage; Fairway 127 Hall Street for
Mr W P T Freer
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
57
24 April 2008
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080288 - Erection of orangery and re-instatement of
pitched roof to main dwelling; London House High Street for Mr and Mrs M
Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080289 - Demolition of conservatory and shed,
erection of orangery and re-instatement of pitched roof; London House High
Street for Mr and Mrs M Smith
(Alteration to Listed Building)
EAST AND WEST BECKHAM - 20080223 - Conversion of redundant agricultural
store to one unit of holiday accommodation; Highland Farm Osier Lane West
Beckham for Mr J E Mack
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST AND WEST BECKHAM - 20080231 - Conversion of agricultural building to
one unit of holiday accommodation; Field Barn Holt Road (A148) East
Beckham for East Beckham Produce Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - 20080186 - Erection of summerhouse; Wheelwright Cottage The
Green for Mr J T Rowe
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - 20080293 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; The Bungalow Blackhall Farm Chapel Hill for Mr B Slaughter
(Prior Notification)
FAKENHAM - 20080130 - Erection of attached single-storey annexe; 71 Wells
Road for Mr and Mrs N Curson
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080180 - Erection of side conservatory; 88 Wells Road for Mr T
R Goldspink
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080200 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 5 Greenway
Close for Mr and Mrs M Elfleet
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080239 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey rear extension; 9 Eckersley Drive for Mr D West
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080299 - Erection of smoking canopy; Henry IV Greenway Lane
for Greene King Brewing Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080275 - Change of use of first and second floor to two flats;
Newman’s Yard Norwich Street for Worstead Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20080306 - Erection of first floor side extension; 37 Norwich
Road for Mr R Whitby
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
58
24 April 2008
GRESHAM - 20080221 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; 3 Castle
Close for Mr and Mrs J Khalil
(Planning Permission; Reserved Matters)
HELHOUGHTON - 20080145 - Conversion and extension of outbuildings to
provide bed and breakfast accommodation; Wood Farmhouse Broomsthorpe
Road for Mr P Weston and Dr A Young
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HEMPSTEAD - 20080203 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions;
Yew Cottage The Street for Mr C Rammell and Ms C Carrick
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - 20080109 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 11 Dereham
Road for Mr R Parker
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
HINDRINGHAM - 20080190 - Erection of first floor side extension; Baytree
Cottage 17 Wells Road for Mr and Mrs P Mounfield
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - 20080232 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
replacement front porch; The Homestead Wells Road for Mr and Mrs Herman
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - 20080243 - Erection of first floor extension; Grove Farm The
Street for Mr and Mrs F W Sands
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080185 - Raising of roof to provide first floor accommodation,
conversion of outbuilding to living accommodation and erection of link
extension and car port; 28 Grove Lane for Mr and Mrs Murrell
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080213 - Erection of rear conservatory; 13 Peacock Lane for
Sheringham Development Company Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080253 - Installation of advertisement; 1-3 Bull Street for Mr P Salter
(Alteration to Listed Building)
LITTLE SNORING - 20071749 - Erection of agricultural storage building; land at
Kettlestone Road for Mr J Pointer
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20080158 - Installation of rooflight; Mystery Cottage Westwood
Lane Great Ryburgh for Mr R Higgs
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20071296 - Erection of replacement storage building; Bramble
Oaks Fakenham Road for Mrs R Allum
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20080148 - Removal of polytunnels and erection of
glasshouse; Dels Nursery Barsham Road for Mr M Borley
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
59
24 April 2008
SHERINGHAM - 20080080 - Alterations to roof to provide extended second
floor accommodation; 7 Beach Road for Mr and Mrs D Bassey
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080096 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 19 Cromer
Road for Mr and Mrs S Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080106 - Change of use from dwelling/guest house to
residential dwelling; 6b North Street for Mr D Phillips
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080168 - Change of use from D1 (education and training
centre) to single residential dwelling (Use Class C3); Units 1 and 2, 3 The
Boulevard for Mrs R Allard
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080260 - Installation of satellite dish; Roselawn 12 St
Nicholas Place for Mrs W Austin
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080214 - Erection of single-storey extension and extension
to garage; The Lodge Sheringham House Cremers Drift for Mr J Hewitt
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080224 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
1 Knowle Road for Mr M Bywater
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080246 - Erection of porch and side extension; 34 Morley
Road for Mr and Mrs Hindley
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20080196 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to replace
conservatory; Old Rectory Fulmodeston Road for Mr and Mrs A Douds
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - 20080211 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 1 The
Croft for Mr P Russell
(Full Planning Permission)
THURNING - 20080146 - Erection of single-storey extension; Bray’s Cottage
Hindolveston Road for Ms N Montgomery
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20080143 - Erection of replacement porch; Village Hall
Church Lane for Upper Sheringham Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20080160 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission
20010507 to permit flat to be occupied as a separate dwelling; 34 Mount
Pleasant for Mr S Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
60
24 April 2008
WALSINGHAM - 20080173 - Erection of first floor extension; Orchard Cottage
The Hill for Mr M Sell
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20080174 - Installation of green oak mullioned window; Friday
Cottage 7 Friday Market Place for Mr C King
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WALSINGHAM - 20080184 - Internal alterations; Southwell House 3 Egmere
Road for Mr T Fitzpatrick and Mr V Fitzpatrick
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WALSINGHAM - 20080219 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Pilgrim
Cottage 143 Back Lane for Mr M Kennedy and Ms D Jolly
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071438 - Internal and external alterations including
installation of replacement back door and rooflights and demolition of section
of boundary wall; Wisteria Cottage 29 Church Street for V & K Hegarty
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080123 - Alterations including construction of
dormer windows and replacement side extension; 26 Chapel Yard for Mr P
Arnold
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080126 - Erection of one and a half storey front
extension; 3 Honeymoon Row High Street for Mrs W Carr
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080131 - Erection of garden room/conservatory;
The Manse Clubbs Lane for Mr D Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080175 - Internal alterations and erection of side
extension; Laylands Freeman Street for Mr N Ahmed
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080230 - Continued use of recreation field as
temporary car park for forty-eight days per annum; Recreation Ground Beach
Road for Wells Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080262 - Erection of single-storey side extension
and dormer window; Laylands Freeman Street for Mr N Ahmed
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080311 - Conversion from one dwelling to two
dwellings; 12-14 High Street for Mr and Mrs S Wainwright
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080312 - Alterations to facilitate conversion to two
separate dwellings; 12-14 High Street for Mr and Mrs S Wainwright
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (West)
61
24 April 2008
WEYBOURNE - 20080144 - Erection of toilet block; Breck Farm Weybourne
Road for Mr and Mrs R Amies
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20080343 - Removal and replacement of damaged sails; The
Windmill Sheringham Road for Ms M Martin
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WIGHTON - 20080014 - Erection of potato store; Field Barn Farm Crabbe Road
for Ralph Harrison and Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20080244 - Erection of single-storey extension to cafe and shop;
Wiveton Hall Farm Marsh Lane for Mr D McCarthy
(Full Planning Permission)
18.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - 20080237 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Westview House 36
Church Street for Ms R Grand
(Outline Planning Permission)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - 20080153 - Erection of dwelling; Tarn-Hill Edgefield
Road for Mr M Pinsent
(Outline Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20070961 - Erection of two one-and-a-half-storey dwellings;
Eastgate Cottage Cross Street for Witnesham Ventures Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
19.
NEW APPEALS
HIGH KELLING - 20070983 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Cherry Garth
Cromer Road for Mr P M Plummer
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
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
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
20.
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
Development Control Committee (West)
62
24 April 2008
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
21.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BRISTON - 20071304 - Erection of dwelling; New Hall Farm Mill Road for Mrs N
Smith
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070910 - Change of use to single-storey dwelling;
The Store Post Office Lane for Mr A W Simmons
SITE VISIT :- 01 Apr 2008
FAKENHAM (SOUTH WARD) - 20070673 - Erection of three two-storey
dwellings; 24 Holt Road for Mr J Doughty
FAKENHAM (SOUTH WARD) - 20071585 - Display of internally illuminated
totem advertisement; former Rainbow Superstore Holt Road for Lidl UK Gmbh
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
RYBURGH (GREAT WARD) - 20071062 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and
garage; land south of 91 Fakenham Road for Mr M Davenport
SITE VISIT :- 01 Apr 2008
22.
APPEAL DECISIONS
None.
Development Control Committee (West)
63
24 April 2008