OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 25 JUNE 2009
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
Development Control Action Plan: Practice Note on Pre- and Post-Decision
Amendments to Planning Applications
Questioning of Public Speakers
This report seeks endorsement from the Development Control Committees on a
Practice Note on pre- and post-decision amendments to planning applications and
an amendment to public speaking arrangements at Committee for a trial period to
enable questions to be asked of public speakers.
Pre- and Post-Decision Amendments
Members will be aware that following the intervention of Overview and Scrutiny
Committee a Development Control Action Plan was adopted by the Council in
December 2008. One matter remains outstanding from the Action Plan. This
involves the adoption of a Practice Note incorporating a number of principles in order
to reduce the number of applications deferred at Committee meetings. These
include concentration of negotiations and amendment at pre-application stage, full
consideration of input for consultees and the local community, as required by the
Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement, and adherence to a strict
timetable for the receipt of amended plans in the event of an amendment being
allowed within the timescale for an application.
As a result of this a draft Practice Note was prepared and was the subject of
discussion with the Planning Agents Group at its meeting in January 2008 and with
Members at the Planning Refresher Training day in March. A copy of the Practice
Notice is attached at Appendix 1. No substantive comments were made either by
agents or by Members and it is therefore for the Development Control Committees to
decide whether or not they wish to adopt it.
Members will see that the key elements of the Practice Note involve the adoption by
Officers of a “triage” system distinguishing between applications for which the policy
basis is clear and can be determined accordingly and those where it is considered
that negotiation could deliver a significant result. For the first category applications
will be determined as quickly as possible without negotiation, whilst for the second
category two principles will be applied both by Officers and by Committees, these
being:1. Major changes will only be considered if they are determined being in the wider
public interest, there is a high prospect of negotiation succeeding and significant
benefits would be secured for the community which would be lost if an early
refusal were given.
2. For minor amendments there must be agreement from the applicants that a strict
timetable is adhered to, having regard to re-consultation processes and that if the
amendments are not received within the prescribed timescale then the application
will be determined without waiting for them.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
25 June 2009
The Practice Note also refreshes long-established practice concerning post-decision
amendments and sets out criteria which should be met and adds a note concerning
listed building consent.
Through the adoption of this Practice Note it is hoped that more consistent practice
will be adopted and that the recent progress concerning performance will be
maintained in accordance with the wishes of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and
the Council as a whole.
Questioning of Public Speakers at Committee
The Council’s public speaking arrangements have been in place for several years
now and appear generally to be working well. Occasionally, however, applications
are delayed because it is necessary to seek clarification from applicants or other
parties since the public speaking rules do not allow for any sort of dialogue with
public speakers and the matter has to be deferred to a subsequent meeting.
This process could be speeded up on some occasions if Members were able to ask
questions of public speakers and elicit a response which may enable an application
to be determined immediately.
In order to enable proper supervision of the process it is suggested that this should
always be done through the Committee Chair and should be limited to questions
which in the Chair’s opinion will assist the Committee in reaching a prompt decision.
It is also suggested that this be operated for a trial period of, say, three months for
the two Committees in order to see whether there are any significant benefits from
this change and also whether there are any practical or operational difficulties which
would need to be addressed. In order to enable adequate publicity to be given for
this change it is suggested that the trial commences from September 2009.
RECOMMENDATIONS:That the Committee (i) adopts the Practice Note on pre- and post-decision
amendments to planning applications with effect from 1 July 2009 and (ii)
agrees to allow strictly controlled questioning of public speakers at meetings
for a trial period of three months with effect from 1 September 2009.
Source: (Steve Oxenham, Extn 6135 - File Reference: Amendments 1)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
This report outlines the need to establish judging panel for this year’s Graham Allen
Award for Conservation and Design and to agree the proposed dates for the judging
and presentation of the awards.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design the Award was inaugurated in
1982 as a memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk
District Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the
scheme considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment
within the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of
historic properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make
innovative use of traditional building forms and detailing.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
25 June 2009
It is necessary for a panel of Members to be established to consider, evaluate and
judge submissions under the award scheme, and make awards accordingly.
Membership has historically been drawn equally from the East and West Committees
with the addition of a Chairman (who may be a member of either Committee) agreed
between them. Membership has generally comprised nine Members, the relevant
Portfolio Member, and a permanent representative from the Allen family. It is
proposed that this structure be repeated again with Graham Allen’s son, Mr Edward
Allen, once again agreeing to be the permanent member. The closing date for entries
is 30 June 2009.
It is suggested that the panel convenes on 31 July 2009 at the Council Offices to
consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will commence with a
short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by a tour of those
short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the Council Chamber
on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with Members voting on the
entries. The awards will then be presented at a ceremony in October – suggested
date 15 October 2009 after the West Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:1.
That Members nominate a total of nine Councillors from West and East
Development Control Committees to form a judging panel for the
Graham Allen Award, one of whom will be elected Chairman.
2.
That the dates for judging of entries and presentation of the awards be
accepted.
(Source: Chris Young, Extn: 6138 – File Reference: GA Award)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
FAKENHAM CONSERVATION AREA: Character Appraisal and Management
Proposals
Agreement is sought for the draft Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Proposals for Fakenham to be approved for public consultation.
1. Introduction
North Norfolk has 81 Conservation Areas and over 2,200 Listed Buildings. Without
doubt the District’s built heritage and natural environment contributes considerably to
the quality of life for people living and working in the District as well as those visiting
it. However many of the District’s Conservation Areas were designated in the 1970s
and 1980s and are long overdue for review. This is important for several reasons:
(a) An up to date Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan provides the
backcloth, together with the planning policies contained in the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework, to good decision-making, particularly in respect of
applications for development.
(b) All Local Planning Authorities should always ensure that not only are the
character and setting of Conservation Areas maintained but they are also enhanced.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
25 June 2009
(c) The preparation of Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans can
offer a real and practical opportunity for communities to engage in the future
management of their local environment.
(d) The Council’s Corporate Plan Changing Gear 2008-11 identifies the preparation
of character appraisals as a key target, with the aim now of completing 30%
coverage of the district’s 81 Conservation Areas by March 2011. Indeed this work is
seen as integral and central to the Council’s corporate aim of protecting and
enhancing the natural environment and built heritage of North Norfolk.
Fakenham is one of the District’s outstanding Conservation Areas, where there has
been substantial public and private investment in terms of historic building repair and
public realm enhancement. As such it is a priority for consideration and review
2. Statutory Background
Conservation Areas are designated under the provision of Section 69 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A Conservation Area is defined
as ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of
which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’.
Section 71 of the same Act requires local planning authorities to formulate and
publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of these conservation
areas. Section 72 also specifies that, in making a decision on an application for
development within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
The appraisal document now being considered conforms to English Heritage
guidance as set out in Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals (February 2006)
and Guidance on the Management of Conservation Areas (February 2006).
Additional Government guidance regarding the management of historic buildings and
Conservation Areas is set out within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and
the Historic Environment (PPG15). Government advice on archaeology is set out in
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology (PPG16).
2.2 Purposes
The purpose of the Conservation Area Appraisal is to:
•
Define the special interest of the Conservation Area and identify the issues
which threaten the special qualities of the conservation area (Part 1: Character
Appraisal).
•
Identify revised policy or practical projects which can safeguard and enhance the
character of the Conservation Area (Part 2: Management Proposals).
Note: Copies of the draft Fakenham Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan are available for inspection in the Members’ Room.
3. Assessment of the Fakenham Conservation Area
The format of this Conservation Area Appraisal includes the planning policy context;
a summary and assessment of special interest including location and setting; historic
development and archaeology; layout and plan form; architectural and townscape
character; spatial analysis and key views; character analysis, including the qualities
of buildings; prevailing uses and the contribution of green spaces and suggested
boundary changes. However; it should be noted that no character appraisal can ever
be completely comprehensive and the omission of any particular building, feature or
space should not be taken to imply that it is of no interest.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
25 June 2009
The centre of Fakenham was designated a Conservation Area by North Norfolk
District Council in February 1975. It covers the historic core of the town, and is
centred on the Market Place and the Market Square. Early settlement seems to have
focused round the church and Market Place. Development was initially linear. There
were two main axes: the first ran north-south, comprising Oak Street and Tunn
Street; the second, slightly later to develop, was centred around Norwich Street, on
the east side of Market Place. Throughout the 19th century houses gradually filled in
the spaces between the roads, creating the dense townscape that can still be seen
today. The name Fakenham is of Saxon origin, and is thought to mean ‘homestead of
Facca’, although it has been interpreted as ‘fair place by the river’. Today Fakenham
is an attractive Market Town which still attracts large numbers of people to its weekly
market and auctions.
Until the mid 20th century Fakenham’s townscape included the former Miller’s print
works and the town was somewhat unusual in retaining such an industrial use to that
time. Fakenham’s market town role was also more to the fore when it hosted its own
cattle market.
The Conservation Area boundary incorporates the oldest parts of Fakenham
including the Georgian and Regency town. The Conservation Area is linear in form
running north-south in direction. The northern part ends at the junction between
Wells Road and Highfield Road. The eastern most boundary is located at the
roundabout at the end of Norwich Street. The southern end of the Conservation Area
follows the line of the Hempton road and finishes at the entrance to Riverside Lodge.
The western boundary follows the line of development inside the flood plain. Oak
Street (north) Hall Staithe (east) and Norwich Street (west) form the main axes and
principal routes through the town.
In respect of the boundary of the Conservation Area it is suggested that it is presently
too restricted and that some of the grounds of the Fakenham High School should be
included. This will ensure the protection of trees and setting at an important entrance
to the town.
Many of the District’s Conservation Areas have been seriously damaged over the
years by the gradual erosion of character and appearance caused by the ‘permitted
development’ rights which accrue to all householders and Fakenham is no different.
Indeed, there is the potential for this situation to be exacerbated owing to the
relaxation of planning regulations at the end of 2008. It is important that this matter
be addressed, so that the character of Fakenham is safeguarded.
2.1 Key characteristics
The key characteristics of the Fakenham Conservation Area are as follows:
•
•
•
•
The Conservation Area is linear, following the north-south course of the original
main road through Fakenham, and to a lesser extent, the roads leading away
from the Market Place to the east. It includes the commercial centre of the town.
Fakenham’s growth has been restricted by the River Wensum and wetlands to
the south and west.
Due to substantial later 20th century development, the Conservation Area is now
a small part of the town; it is sited in the south-western corner of the present
town.
Agriculture and agricultural markets were historically the main source of
Fakenham’s income. Their importance is reflected by the large buildings around
the Market Place and Square and the large mill to the south.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
25 June 2009
•
•
•
•
•
Few buildings are earlier than the Georgian period. Most early buildings were
lost during town fires.
Moderate levels of traffic within the centre of the Conservation Area because of
the by-pass.
Small independent shops.
A sharp division between the streets and open fields on the western side.
A high quality and award winning ‘public realm’ enhancement scheme in the
Market Square and Market Place.
2.2 Key issues
• Need to review the Conservation Area boundary.
• Poor modern shop fronts and signage.
• Pressures of modern development e.g. car parks, superstores, with a risk of
devaluation of the historic environment.
• Lack of landscaping for town centre car parks.
• Indifferent quality of road surfaces/street furniture outside the centre.
• Permitted development resulting in the loss of architectural detail.
• Need to improve the quality of design for new developments.
• Need to adopt a list of Buildings of Local Interest.
• Need to re-invest in ‘public realm’ enhancement works (circa 1998-2001)- which
are now needing maintenance and repair.
3. Conclusion
Despite the development pressures of the last four decades Fakenham has managed
to retain a unique ‘sense of place’ with its exceptional townscape quality. The Town
Centre Enhancement Programme (1998-2001) helped to breathe new life into the
town centre but further work is needed to stop the erosion of architectural character
and to ensure that the work undertaken under the programme is not wasted.
Fakenham’s unique development pattern, particularly in the centre of the town,
combined with its interesting and varied architecture, makes its Conservation Area of
special quality. Fakenham is a town which sits at the centre of a rich rural hinterland,
supplying essential services and is an important access to retail and business
opportunities.
Fakenham and its Conservation Area have seen substantial economic and social
change since 1974, but its inherent ‘market town’ atmosphere remains. Actions are
needed now to:(a) Arrest the gradual erosion of character.
(b) Identify opportunities for improvement.
(c) Re-connect the residents of Fakenham with their built heritage.
(d) Engage with all sectors of the community.
(e) Provide additional support for the Local Development Framework policies through
the adoption of an up to date Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.
(f) Provide a possible basis for future bids and programmes.
4. Timetable for public consultation and formal adoption
It is envisaged that a four week public consultation period will take place during the
Autumn of this year. This will include an exhibition and meeting for the public. The
document will be placed on the Council’s Website and comments invited. It is
anticipated that an amended document will be brought to Committee for final
adoption in the Winter.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
25 June 2009
5. Recommendations
(1) That the Draft Character Appraisal and Management Plan incorporating
proposed boundary changes and Article 4(2) directions outlined in the body of
this report be approved for public consultation purposes.
(2) That following consultation, the amended Fakenham Conservation Area
Character Appraisal and Management Proposals be brought back before
Committee for final adoption.
6. Budgetary Implications
There are no immediate budgetary implications at this stage. However adoption of
some of the Management Proposals may have financial implications and these will
be assessed as part of the adoption report to be prepared for the Committee
following public consultation. In particular there will be a need for continuing
investment in restoration and repair of the built heritage and the public realm in order
to safeguard the investment previously made.
(Source: Philip Godwin, Extn 6131 and Paul Rhymes, Extn 6367- File Reference:
Fakenham Conservation Area)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
4.
SHERINGHAM – Tree Preservation Order (Sheringham) 2009 No.2 Hadley
Morley Road North
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at the above site
subject to a modification to change the description from Cedar to Monterey Cypress.
Background
The Order was served in response to a constraints check from an arboricultural
contractor who said he would cut the tree down in the next few days and if the
Council wanted to protect the tree it would need to serve a TPO. The Landscape
Officer had visited the site and assessed the tree’s amenity value. The Officer
discussed management options with the property owners and made it clear to them
that if they attempted to fell the tree the Council would serve a TPO to protect it.
The Order was served on 23 February 2009.
Representations
Support for the Order:Alexandra Road residents have expressed their approval of the TPO and the tree
has been put forward as a “favourite tree” to Sheringham in Bloom by a member of
the public.
Objections to the Order:Four letters of objection to the Order have been received, one from the owners of the
property and three from neighbours (Appendix 2).
The main objections are:
1. The tree is too large for a domestic garden and dominates the skyline.
2. The ground beneath the tree remains dry and watering is expensive.
3. The tree is not a habitat for nesting birds only Pigeons, Collared Doves and
Magpies which are pest species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
25 June 2009
4. The droppings from the birds cause significant mess that could be a health
hazard.
5. If the tree were to fall the property could suffer damage.
6. The tree casts shadow in several gardens.
7. The tree cannot be appreciated from adjacent streets.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
a) The impact of the tree on the gardens regarding size, shadow and cover can be
addressed through appropriate management. An application for work to the tree
from the owners via an arborist has been approved so this work can be carried out.
The agreed work would considerably thin the canopy of the tree and remove the
lower branches away from the gardens.
b) All nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act and the Act
does not now include pest species. The birds mentioned in the objections can only
be controlled via a General Licence issued by Natural England. Droppings from birds
are not a consideration when making or confirming a TPO.
c) The arborist who inspected the tree for the application to carry out work raised no
concerns over the tree’s safety or risk to property from major failure.
The Landscape Officer carried out a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders
(TEMPO) to assess the amenity value of the tree. This nationally recognised system
scored the tree as “definitely merits a TPO”. This is supported in one sense by one
of the objectors who states that the tree dominates the skyline.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the tree makes a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and therefore has high amenity
value.
In the meantime the owner’s proposed work to the tree has been given consent
by the Council, thereby reducing the impact on the gardens and addressing the
objections raised.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
25 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION:That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed with a modification to change
the description from Cedar to Monterey Cypress.
Source: (Simon Case, Extn 6142 - File Reference: TPO No.785 June Cttee)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
5.
High Kelling – 20081193 – Extension of Care Home to Provide Four, TwoPerson and Eight One-Person Single-Storey Units; Pineheath Nursing Home,
Cromer Road
Re-confirmation of decision to approve the application following receipt of further
clarification from the applicant.
Background
Committee may recall that the above application was last considered on 5 February
2009 when it was resolved to approve the application subject to clarifying that the
use of the extensions would be ancillary to the use of the nursing home, that the
applicant would be prepared to restrict access to the main eastern access and
subject to the imposition of a Section 106 Obligation to ensure that the units are not
occupied independently.
The applicant’s agent has now confirmed that:
1. The proposed units would be ancillary to the use of the site as a nursing home.
2. That the applicant is prepared to sign a Section 106 Obligation to ensure that the
units are not occupied independently.
3. The applicant would accept the imposition of conditions limiting access to the
main eastern access only.
Key Issues
The key issue in this case is whether the information provided by the applicant’s
agent is sufficient to allow permission to be granted.
Appraisal
When last considering the application, the Committee raised a number of questions
to be answered prior to the issuing of planning permission, in particular regarding the
existing nursing home and how the intended new units would relate.
With regard to the ownership/management and type of establishment and services
offered by Pineheath Nursing Home, whilst this information is not directly relevant to
the determination of the application, according to information held by the Care
Quality Commission on its public site, Pineheath Nursing Home is privately owned by
Diamond Care (UK) Limited. The home is registered as being a Care Home and the
services it provides are “Care home with nursing” with a total capacity of 42 places.
As such, the extension to provide additional units would remain compatible with the
overall use of the site
Given that the applicant’s agent has provided the above assurances regarding the
use of the site, the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan Policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
25 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION:Re-confirm decision to approve subject to the making of a Section 106
Obligation to ensure that the new units remain ancillary to the existing care
home and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
restricting vehicular access to the main western access.
(Source: Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 – File Reference 20081193)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as
Condition No.1, unless otherwise stated.
6.
FAKENHAM - 20090468 - Erection of four dwellings; rear of 37, 39 and 41
Sculthorpe Road for Mr and Mrs Jackson, Mr and Mrs Konash and Mr and Mrs
Barnes
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :08 Jul 2009
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20021489 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused, 21 Nov 2002
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of four dwellings within the rear garden area of Nos. 37, 39 and 41
Sculthorpe Road, having a total site area including the access of some 0.29ha.
Only the principle of development is being sought, with all matters reserved for later
consideration.
An amended indicative layout shows four dwellings running east to west across the
site, parallel to properties fronting Sculthorpe Road, and set some 70m back from the
edge of the carriageway. The proposed access would be between No.37 and 39
Sculthorpe Road and consist of a hard-surfaced roadway having a width of 5.5m for
the first 15m into the site. The plan also indicates that the maximum ridge height of
the dwellings would be 7.75m with an eaves height of 3m.
The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application suggests the
development would provide a mix of dwelling types varying in size with one dwelling
being a two bedroom house of less than 70sq.m and the others likely to be three
bedroom units. Each property would have its own private rear garden with one
dwelling having a double garage plus turning area and the other properties a single
garage plus parking and turning area.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
25 June 2009
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the extent of
concern from local residents regarding the principle of development, highway safety
and drainage.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to this excessive backland development on the grounds of disturbance to
neighbours, the road is narrow and the width is reduced still further by on-street
parking and the road is used as a 'rat run'. The development will cause further severe
problems on the over-stretched sewage and drainage systems and all the driveways
should be permeable.
REPRESENTATIONS
Fifteen letters of objection received from local residents raising the following
concerns, (summarised):
1. Would be out of character with other development in the area.
2. Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
3. Would affect tranquillity of area.
4. Destruction of wildlife habitat.
5. Would have an adverse impact on trees within the site which are the subject of a
Tree Preservation Order.
6. Tree Preservation Order will be overturned.
7. Development would affect the green corridor between Sculthorpe Road and Hayes
Lane.
8. Increased traffic both direct and indirect, in an area where narrow roads and onstreet parking is a serious issue.
9. Would have a direct impact on highway safety in the area.
10. Could be access issues for emergency vehicles.
11. Existing drainage system unable to cope during heavy rainfall.
12. Could result in flooding problems and would inevitably place the existing drainage
system under additional pressure.
13. Electricity pole in the way of the entrance.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments.
Building Control Manager - No objection to amended plan.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The Tree Preservation
Order covers eight individual trees and a group of lime trees. Following discussion
with the Council's Tree Officer it has been agreed that one individual mature
Sycamore, a component of the TPO, can be removed subject to agreed replanting of
oaks and silver birches shown on the site plan which accompanied the Arboriculture
Implications Assessment and Tree Protection Plan. It has further been agreed that
the group of limes on the southern boundary can be reduced in area. The removal of
eight category C trees of low amenity value, which are not the subject to the TPO can
also take place.
In respect of the existing boundary hedgerow to the front with Sculthorpe Road this is
assessed as being in poor condition and its removal and replacement with a new
privet hedge set back from the highway together with the planting of two hornbeams
is considered acceptable. Therefore subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions there is no objection to this application.
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
25 June 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
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.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
3. Landscape implications.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Fakenham, a Principal
Settlement, where new residential development is considered to be acceptable
subject to compliance with other relevant policies contained in the Core Strategy.
The scheme as envisaged would not make the most efficient use of land as required
by Policy HO 7 in that it would only equate to approximately 10 dwellings per hectare,
rather than the minimum indicative density requirement of 40 dwellings per hectare
within a Principal Settlement. However, given that the character of the area consists
primarily of a loose knit form of development with detached and semi-detached
dwellings running parallel to the highway with a number of large rear gardens,
combined with the constraints imposed by trees subject of a Tree Preservation
Order, it is considered that the density proposed is appropriate in this case.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
25 June 2009
In terms of impact on neighbouring properties, given the relatively large plot sizes,
with each dwelling having a rear garden depth in the region of some 20m, it is not
considered that the development would result in any significant loss of privacy to
surrounding dwellings Therefore subject to careful consideration being given to the
position of the windows to the proposed dwellings at the reserved matters stage the
scheme as proposed would fulfil the requirement of amenity criteria contained in the
North Norfolk Design Guide.
In terms of landscape implications, the Council's Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers the proposed works to the trees covered by the TPO,
together with suggested replanting to be acceptable and has raised no objection.
As far as highway safety issues are concerned the Highway Authority had indicated
that in principle it had no objection to the scheme, but it has requested a more
detailed plan which clearly shows visibility splays at the entrance to the site of 25m x
2.4m x 25m. In respect of car parking provision within the site this would comply with
the parking standards identified in the Core Strategy.
In respect of drainage, the views of Anglian Water are awaited.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed is acceptable and would
accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
RYBURGH - 20090432 - Conversion and extension of former granary to form
nine affordable residential dwellings; The Granary Station Road Great Ryburgh
for Michael McNamara Associates
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :06 Jul 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Countryside Policy Area
Land Safeguarded For Sustainable Transport Purposes
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070637 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from office to four residential
units
Withdrawn, 31 May 2007
20071266 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from B1/B2
(business/general industrial) to A1/A3 (shop and store/restaurant)
Withdrawn, 12 Oct 2007
20080619 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from office/storage to ten
residential dwellings, one residential flat and A1 (post office/store)
Approved, 04 Jul 2008
Development Control Committee (West)
13
25 June 2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion and extension of former granary to form nine affordable
residential dwellings.
Seven of the units would have two bedrooms and two of the units would have three
bedrooms. Car parking for 15 vehicles would be provided to the north of the site.
Vehicular access would be achieved via the existing Maltings access off Station
Road to the west of the Granary building.
The proposed gardens to the dwellings would be located to the east of the building.
Pedestrian access would be also provided along the eastern boundary from Station
Road to the car park to the north.
The materials proposed for the extension would match those of the existing building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green having regard to the following planning issue:
Noise impact on the amenities of future residents.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
The agent has submitted details regarding a natural ventilation strategy which would
improve the air quality and thermal comfort in the building and reduce the need for
opening windows, A copy of the ventilation strategy can be found in full in Appendix
3.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
Strategic Housing - The previous application (20080619) was granted approval under
Policies 4 and 58, with considerable weight given to the re-use of an existing building
which was no longer viable to maintain as commercial premises. Planning application
20080619 would have delivered five affordable units. The applicant has since
engaged with Hastoe Housing Association and application 20090432 is now
proposing to provide all nine remaining units on this development as affordable
housing - this will be achievable with grant funding from the Homes and Communities
Agency for the additional affordable units.
This increase in 'general need' affordable units is fully supported by Strategic
Housing, since there are currently 232 households on the Council's Common
Housing Register who have requested housing in Great Ryburgh. This proposal will
provide a mixture of tenures - social rented and either intermediate rent and/or
shared ownership (depending on an assessment of affordability at the time of
completion).
The previously approved plans (application 20080619) have been reviewed and
redesigned by the applicant and Hastoe Housing Association in order to meet the
highest possible standards for affordable housing in terms of access, layout, energy,
efficiency and maximising natural light. The proposed demolition and reconstruction
of the single-storey addition to the north in application 20090432 would result in a
significant improvement in terms of internal and external layout, whilst remaining
sympathetic to the character of the Granary. However, the views of Conservation
would be particularly pertinent on this aspect of the application, and further
discussion would be welcomed if there are any concerns.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
25 June 2009
The general store/post office/coffee shop at the southern end of the Granary (and
accommodation above) formed part of the approved application 20080619 and
opened in March 2009. This has proved popular, and has increased locally-provided
services. The site is also well served by public transport links into Fakenham for
access to a wider range of services.
In conclusion, Strategic Housing supports this application, which would provide nine
units of affordable housing in Great Ryburgh.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - The application complies with Policy EN 6 through the
proposed use of the techniques listed in the sustainable construction checklist.
Therefore conditions ensuring the measures referred to in the sustainable
construction checklist are carried out prior to occupation and that dwellings 8 and 9
should achieve a Code Level 2 rating or above should be imposed on any approval.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 7: Safeguarding land for sustainable transport uses (safeguards railway
land against prejudicial development).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the character of the existing building.
3. Impact on amenities of adjacent residential properties.
4. Impact on amenities of the occupiers of proposed development.
5. Highway safety.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
25 June 2009
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this site following a recent site visit and having
considered planning application 20080619 last year. That application related to the
whole of The Granary building and was for a change of use from office/storage to ten
residential dwellings, one residential flat and A1 Post Office/store. The Committee
authorised approval of that application subject to satisfactory financial justification
and no objection from the Economic and Tourism Manager regarding the commercial
use of the site. Five of the proposed dwellings were to be affordable dwellings. The
application was approved under the policies contained in the North Norfolk Local
Plan and the North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document).
The Post Office/store use has been implemented. Therefore, the current application
relates to the remainder of The Granary building.
The current application is solely for nine affordable dwellings with no market housing.
The layout and fenestration of Units 1 to 7 has not changed from that agreed as a
non-material amendment on the previously approved application (reference
20080619). There are, however, changes to units 8 and 9 at the rear of the site.
Instead of being two single storey units, as previously approved, a new two-storey
addition is proposed to this part of The Granary building. The fenestration is
proposed to be changed as a result of this extension on the eastern, western and
northern elevations. However, the overall scale and massing of this part of The
Granary remain subordinate to the original building, and it is considered that the
design, materials and fenestration are in keeping with that of the original building. It is
not considered that these changes would have a significant detrimental impact on the
character of the building.
Under the policies contained in the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy the site is
located on land that is now designated as countryside. Affordable housing in the
countryside is acceptable in principle provided it complies with the requirements of
Policy HO 3. The proposal is for less than 10 dwellings and the site adjoins an
existing group of ten or more dwellings. The Committee will note the comments of
Strategic Housing who support the application.
As on the previously approved application there is a shortfall in the basic amenity
criteria requirements for distances between dwellings due to the relationship of The
Granary building to the single storey dwelling to the east known as 'The Dehn'.
However, only the rear gardens to units 1 and 2 overlap with the far end of that
dwelling. There would be approximately 2m between the western elevation of the
'The Dehn' and the 1.8m high boundary fence to the gardens of units 1 and 2. 'The
Dehn' is a single-storey property and has no private amenity space. It is not therefore
considered that this relationship would have a significant detrimental impact on the
occupiers of 'The Dehn' or on the proposed occupiers of the affordable houses.
In accordance with the North Norfolk Design Guide the garden areas to new
dwellings should be no less than the footprint of the dwelling. Units 3 to 9 are
considered to comply with this requirement. However, there is a slight shortfall on
units 1 and 2 where the rear gardens are approximately 5m deep rather than 9m.
This is no different from that approved under the previous application. Moreover,
under the current proposal the garden space would be increased for some of the
units. It is not therefore considered that the shortfall on units 1 and 2 is significant
enough to warrant refusal of this application.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
25 June 2009
Because of concerns about the impact of noise from the adjacent Ryburgh Maltings
complex, discussions have been taking place between Environmental Health
Officers, Planning Officers, the agent and the applicant regarding the issue of
whether the bedroom windows of the proposed dwellings should or should not have
opening windows. The previous permission (reference 20080619) included a
condition that no development should commence until a scheme for protecting
occupiers of the proposed dwellings from the impact of noise from the adjacent
Ryburgh Maltings had been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with Environmental Health. This matter has not yet
been agreed and remains outstanding in respect of the current application.
Environmental Health has maintained that the bedroom windows should not be able
to be opened owing to significant concerns regarding the impact of noise from the
Maltings on the occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The applicant does not agree
with this opinion and believes that the future occupants of the proposed dwellings
should be given the choice as to whether they open their bedroom windows or not.
The applicant's agent has submitted details regarding the proposed use of a natural
ventilation system, which would naturally improve the air quality and thermal comfort
in the building reducing the need for bedroom windows to be opened (see Appendix
3). At the time of writing this report comments from the Environmental Protection
Officer were awaited.
In terms of car parking 15 spaces have been provided. This is no different from that
approved previously. However, in accordance with the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy car parking standards two spaces are required for each dwelling. Therefore,
18 spaces should be provided. There is currently a shortfall of three car parking
spaces. At the time of writing this report comments were awaited from the Highway
Officer including clarification as to whether there would be a highway objection to a
shortfall in parking in this location.
In summary, it is considered that the principle of the proposal is acceptable and,
subject to satisfactory consultation responses, it would comply with Development
Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from outstanding
consultees and to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
SHERINGHAM - 20081228 - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's Shop to rear 22 Station Road for
Museum Cottages
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :14 Oct 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Development Control Committee (West)
17
25 June 2009
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070155 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of museum into six residential
dwellings
Approved, 03 Apr 2007
20070989 - (Full Planning Permission) - Alterations to building to provide bin store
Approved, 20 Jul 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to convert a building, formerly in A1 retail use, into a one-bed dwelling. The
works would involve substantial alteration, including raising the eaves height by
approximately 0.5m and amending the pitch to provide a room in the roof. The
dwelling would have a footprint of approximately 31sq.m.
Amended plans have been received deleting windows in the northern elevation,
relocating a bin storage area and amending the design of first floor windows in the
southern elevation.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Bevan-Jones having regard to the impact of development
on the surrounding area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Original Plans - Objection on grounds of overdevelopment and impact on a
substantial adjacent tree. Bin area is not in the applicant's ownership and is part of a
private road. The property is the bin storage area for Museum Cottages and there is
no amenity space.
Amended Plans - Objection on grounds of taking away amenity facility to the five
cottages. Reiterate strongly the previous objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received (Two from the same address).
Summary of comments:
1. There are ownership issues that prevent the amenity space at the front of the
building being enclosed (right of way).
2. The building has never been a barbers shop, it started as a garage/workshop and
most recently as the museum gift shop.
3. Raising the eaves height would block sunlight to my garden.
4. The timber cladding would intrude onto my property and also onto a shared right of
way.
5. Windows would look directly into my garden resulting in loss of privacy.
6. The proposal would be likely to affect a large tree, which is in my garden.
7. No effort has been made to let or sell the retail unit.
The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Implications Assessment in support of
the proposal with regard to the potential impact on an adjacent Tree of Heaven.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions regarding protection of the adjacent tree.
County Council (Highways) - No highway objection as there would be no adverse
highway impacts as a result of the proposed development.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
25 June 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of residential development in this location.
2. Impact on neighbours' amenities.
3. Impact on form and character of the Conservation Area.
4. Impact on trees.
5. Highway safety.
6. Waste disposal.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the town centre and primary shopping area of Sheringham
within which the principle of a residential dwelling is considered acceptable under
Policy SS 5, provided that the proposal would not result in the loss of shops or other
main town centre uses and subject to satisfactory compliance with adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy policies.
In this instance, whilst the building may have been used as a shop in the past, this
use has long ceased and permission has already been granted for non-retail use.
Application 20070989 permitted use of the building as a bin store for the adjacent
Museum Cottages, which also have planning permission to be converted into six
one-bed dwellings with no amenity space (20070155). Whilst the permission to
convert Museum Cottages to dwellings has been implemented, the proposal to
convert the 'Barbers shop' has not been implemented to date.
The site is located to the rear of No.22 Station Road and the amended plan indicates
that the only windows serving the proposed dwelling would be in the southern and
western elevations. It is the southern elevation only where first floor windows are
proposed and, whilst the windows would look towards the rear garden of Nos.28-30
Station Road which is currently open to public view, the applicant has modified the
Development Control Committee (West)
19
25 June 2009
larger window to limit the potential for overlooking. On balance, given that the
proposed windows in the first floor would be secondary windows and the limited
number of windows in adjoining properties would achieve compliance with the basic
amenity criteria, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly
detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of the adjoining properties.
The existing building is barely visible from Station Road, hidden as it is by the flat
roof extension relating to the electrical shop at 22 Station Road. The building has
been significantly altered and its current condition could not be said to contribute
positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal
would significantly alter the form and character of the existing building, most notably
in respect of height, the introduction of additional windows and the proposed recladding of the building in timber. However, subject to appropriate detailing and
choice of external materials, it is considered that the proposal would enhance the
appearance of the building and preserve the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
Within the garden of a neighbouring property to the north of the site is a Tree of
Heaven, whose canopy spreads out above the application building. Raising the roof
and/or the potential need to re-build the structure and provide new footings could
pose a threat to the longevity of the tree, which is protected by virtue of its location in
the Conservation Area. However, the applicant has submitted an Arboricultural
Method Statement and the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager considers
that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would not to
pose a threat to the longevity of the tree and would be acceptable.
In respect of parking provision, Policy CT 6 requires an average of 1.5 vehicle
parking spaces for a 1-bed property, although in designated town centres the
standard may be reduced if justified by improved accessibility and/or to enhance a
Conservation Area. The applicant is not proposing to provide any parking. Clearly the
site is very well located in terms of access to shops and services and rail and bus
services are situated within 500m of the site. The Highway Authority has confirmed
that there are no highway safety implications and that they would have no objection.
Given the small size of the property and the views of the Highway Authority, it is not
considered that refusal on highway safety grounds could be substantiated.
In respect of Environmental Health considerations relating to refuse storage and
collection, this proposal has to be considered in combination with extant permissions
relating to Museum Cottages. It is, as yet, unclear as to how and where occupiers of
Museum Cottages are storing their waste. This is relevant to this application because
the space available for the siting of the waste is limited. Further advice has been
sought from Environmental Health regarding this issue and Committee will be
updated orally.
In summary, the principle of a dwelling in this location is acceptable, there would be
no significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and
subject to the use of appropriate external materials, the proposal would enhance the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There are no significant
concerns regarding the impact on the adjacent tree and, there are no highway safety
implications. Subject to no new grounds of objection from Environmental Health
regarding bin storage facilities, the proposal would comply with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to no new grounds of objection from
Environmental Health and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
25 June 2009
9.
SHERINGHAM - 20090203 - Erection of two semi-detached two-storey
dwellings; Garage Court Lawson Way for Flagship Housing Group
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :26 May 2009
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of two, semi-detached two-storey affordable units, on land
currently occupied by eleven lock-up garages and a concrete hardstanding which
together have a total site area of 560sq.m.
Each dwelling would be a two bedroom four person house with a gross internal floor
area of 75sq.m with each property having two car parking spaces to the frontage of
the development, with private rear gardens approximately 10m in depth.
The dwellings would be constructed of brick under concrete pantile roofs.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at previous Committee meeting.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection subject to the installation of opaque glass in first floor windows on the
south elevation.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twenty seven letters of objection have been received from local residents which
raise the following concerns (summarised):
1. Would increase current car parking problems especially at weekends.
2. Existing residents have to park their vehicles on the grass verges.
3. The additional dwellings would only exacerbate the existing car parking problems.
4. Existing residents would have nowhere to park.
5. The existing off-road car parking falls far short of the current recommendations.
6. Money would be better spent resolving existing car parking problems.
7. The adjoining playing field is used by children from Lawson Way who access the
field through the site.
8. Building in this location would mean that the playing field would not be visible from
Lawson Way, which could result in issues of children's safety.
9. The development would result in it being difficult to access the rear of the adjoining
properties.
10. What is required is a bus route or shop in the Lawson Way area.
11. Lawson Way is already over populated.
12. Surface water drains are unable to cope with all the storm waters now.
13. The development would result in a loss of light to neighbouring property.
In addition a petition signed and addressed by 52 individuals has been received who
do not agree to the construction of the proposed dwellings.
CONSULTATIONS
Beeston Regis Parish Council - Awaiting comments.
Community Safety Manager - Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
25 June 2009
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
the imposition of conditions regarding hard landscaping and paving.
County Council (Highways) - During an evening site visit 43 number vehicles were
seen parked within the parking area and on street, with parking within turning heads,
which accords with the Car Parking Appraisal submitted as part of the application.
Whilst it is evident that residents seek to park as close as possible to their homes, in
some instances, parking on the verge, this is not unusual in residential areas where
driveway parking facilities are at a premium. However given that there are currently
no tenants occupying the garage court, having relocated over 12 months ago, and
that the Car Parking Appraisal indicates that there are garaging facilities within
Lawson Way which are still available for leasing, the Highway Authority would find it
difficult to raise a sustainable objection to the proposal.
Strategic Housing - Fully support the application which is in the ownership of Victory
Housing Trust and which has been allocated joint funding for the Homes and
Communities Agency and North Norfolk District Council.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Car parking.
5. Child safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be carried
out and to allow Officers time to negotiate a widening of the footpath to the northern
boundary of the site which would provide views of the playing field to the east from
within the Lawson Way development.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
25 June 2009
The site is located within the development boundary for Sheringham which is defined
as Secondary Settlement in an area identified as primarily in residential use, where in
principle the development as proposed would be acceptable subject to compliance
with relevant policies.
Lawson Way is an established residential street on the eastern fringe of Sheringham
which is situated some 10-15 minutes walk from the town centre. The existing
development comprises a mix of 58 dwellings of various types including 46 houses in
terraces and 12 flats together with various garage blocks and parking courts. The
application site consists of eleven flat roofed lock up garages and court parking for a
further eleven vehicles is situated on the eastern boundary between number 12A to
the north, which is an end terraced property and number 14 to the south which is the
end property in a terrace of four dwellings. Following licensees of the garages being
given notice to vacate, they have been empty since February 2008, but part of the
concrete apron appears to still be used for parking by up to three local residents with
the rest of the site being informally used by skateboarders.
As far as the design of the proposed dwellings is concerned, these would be of a
similar scale, massing and elevational treatment to existing dwellings within the
development and as such would fit in well with surrounding properties.
In terms of the relationship of the proposed dwellings to the neighbouring properties
to either side, both numbers 12A and 14 Lawson Way have gable ends facing the
site with their rear gardens facing east towards the adjoining playing field. Number 14
has a blank gable facing the site and number 12A has in the past had a ground floor
window inserted in the gable end and also a conservatory to the east elevation.
However, due to the fact that the proposed dwellings would be set back within the
site and also would abut the southern boundary, resulting in a separation distance
from the northern boundary of some 8.5m, it is not considered that dwellings in the
position proposed would result in a loss of light to the property to the north. However
it is proposed that the new dwellings would have a single window to the ground and
first floor to both gable ends which would provide a secondary means of light to the
living/dining room and bedroom 2. As such in order to overcome any privacy issues
and to comply with the basic amenity criteria a condition would be imposed requiring
the windows to be fixed shut and obscure glazed.
The issue of car parking has been raised as the principal concern of local residents,
who consider that there is already a lack of available car parking, especially at
weekends, with residents, having to park on highway verges and the turning heads of
road junctions, which lead to issues of highway safety.
Based on the car parking standards contained within the North Norfolk Core Strategy
under the current requirement there would be a need for a total of 122 off-street car
parking spaces to serve the total of 58 existing dwellings. However, the Car Parking
Appraisal submitted as part of the application indicates that, excluding the potential
for on-street car parking, there currently exists a total of 51 garage/spaces (excluding
the application site). In addition whilst reliance cannot be placed on on-street spaces
there are approximately 37 within the Lawson Way development. The appraisal goes
on to suggest that based on car ownership within census data in theory 33% of the
households in Lawson Way do not have a car, which would mean that of the 58
dwellings 19 dwellings have no need for 37 spaces. Therefore based on a
combination of existing garage/spaces and on street car parking there is an adequate
supply of car parking for the existing development without utilising the application
site, which would in itself have adequate car parking for the proposed dwellings. In
addition the appraisal also indicated that at the present time there is no demand for
garages in Lawson Way and two remain empty and that there is a regular hourly bus
service from the entrance to Lawson Way from 09:23 to 16:23.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
25 June 2009
This view is borne out by the Highway Authority who have indicated that although
there would be a shortfall of car parking based on current standards, given the
amount of available parking within the development it would be difficult to sustain an
objection to the proposal.
A further issue raised by a number of local residents is the fact that if built the
development would obscure views from within the Lawson Way development to the
playing field to the east which could result in issues of the safety of children using the
field. Whilst it is accepted that the development would result in a loss of this view this
is only enjoyed by a small number of properties as the gap between the existing
development is only 20m in width, with a small number of properties having a direct
view through the gap. Furthermore some 18 dwellings within the Lawson Way
development have their ground and first windows facing out over the playing field.
However, the views of the Community Safety Manager are awaited on this issue.
With regard to the possible widening of the footpath, the Committee will be updated
orally.
In conclusion it is considered that the erection of two additional dwellings in this
location would blend successfully with the rest of the development in Lawson Way,
the development has adequate car parking facilities and amenity space and it would
not unduly affect the amenities of neighbouring properties. Given the fact that the
lock-up garages have not been available to residents for over a year and the
remaining parking on the garage court is ad hoc, together with the fact that the
Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal, it is not considered that
refusal of the application could be justified. It is therefore considered that the
proposed development would accord with Development Plan policy and that, subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the use of obscure glazing to the
ground and first floor windows to each gable end, the scheme is considered
acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to no new grounds of objection from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the use of
obscure glazing the ground and first floor windows to each gable.
10.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090333 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace; Wingate Two Furlong Hill for Mrs Richards
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 Jun 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20050732 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved, 04 July 2005
20081588 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roofspace
Withdrawn, 22 Jan 2009
Development Control Committee (West)
24
25 June 2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single-storey dwelling with accommodation in the roof space,
including a one bedroom attached annexe with an internal doorway link to the main
dwelling.
The site measures approximately 36.5m x 20m. The footprint of the proposed
dwelling is in the shape of a cross.
The proposed dwelling would span approximately 17.5m east to west, and 14m north
to south at its longest points. The height of the proposed dwelling to the ridge would
be approximately 6.8m. The kitchen projection to the north would have a ridge height
of approximately 6m.
The materials proposed are red/orange brick and timber joinery. The agent has
confirmed use of clay plain tiles rather than slate.
Amended plans have been received regarding a number of alterations to the original
scheme including details of widening of access, setting back of gates and details of
on-site parking and turning for both the new and existing properties.
A change in siting of the proposed dwelling, which has been moved approximately
1m further to the west, is proposed.
Sections indicating rooflights are at high level. The porthole window in the eastern
gable is to be obscure glass. A sewage treatment plant is now proposed. The ridge
height of the kitchen projection to the north has been increased to 6.8m as on the
remainder of the proposed dwelling, but the roof has been changed to a hip.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Loss of light.
2. Overlooking.
3. Too close to boundaries.
4. Concerns over scale and height.
5. Out of keeping with surrounding properties.
6. Location of septic tank not shown.
7. Outline planning permission was granted in 2005 for a bungalow.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - No comment on fire service access, route acceptable.
No objection in principle to sewage treatment plant, but if approved condition
required for the submission and approval of details of the design of the sewage
treatment plant and that a percolation test is carried out prior to the commencement
of development.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
25 June 2009
County Council (Highways) - Original comments: No principle objection to this
application, but require certain access improvements to be indicated on the proposed
drawings, including:
1. Visibility splays of 43m x 2m x 43m to be provided from the access, involving the
removal of walls and vegetation to either side of access.
2. Widening of access to minimum 4.1m for first 6m into site from nearside edge of
adjacent highway carriageway to allow two cars to pass off-highway if required.
3. Setting back of any gates to minimum 5m from edge of carriageway with gates
opening inwards.
4. On site parking and turning arrangements for both new and existing property to be
detailed.
Comments on amended plans: The proposed parking layout shown on drawing
636.07.1/S11 indicates two parking places per dwelling without compromising on-site
turning facility, together with an improved access and the requested visibility splays,
although following a recent site visit it is unclear whether the applicant has control of
the land to the north of the access fronting Beechbank, which would actually allow
the improvements to take place.
Given that the requested improvements have been shown to be achievable in
principle, I am able to inform you that subject to the clarification of the land ownership
issues and, if required, some form of legally binding agreement such as a Section
106 Agreement, to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the required
visibility splays from the site in perpetuity, I would have no highways objection to this
proposal.
Should it not be possible to implement the visibility splays, I would consider the
proposal to be inappropriate and would be required to raise an objection based upon
inadequate visibility splays provided at the junction of the access with the County
Highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining
public highway (HDCR12 and 13).
Sustainability Co-ordinator - The application complies with Policy EN 6, subject to the
imposition of the Code for Sustainable Homes condition.
Environment Agency - No objection to sewage treatment plant subject to imposition
of advice note being imposed on any approval.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Control Committee (West)
26
25 June 2009
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. Acceptability of development in residential policy area.
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
3. Design.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be carried
out.
The site is located within the residential policy area of Wells where new residential
development is considered to be acceptable providing it accords with other relevant
policies contained in the Core Strategy.
Outline planning permission was first granted on this site under application 20050732
for the erection of a single-storey dwelling. All matters apart from access were
reserved.
Last year a full application (20081588) for the erection of a single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in the roof space was withdrawn. This followed Officer concerns that
the proposal was unacceptable in terms of its relationship to neighbouring dwellings
due to the height and scale of the dwelling in close proximity to the northern
boundary of the site. Under that application the proposed dwelling was shown to be
approximately 1m from the conifer hedge on the northern boundary, and 4.5m from
the dwellings to the north.
The siting and orientation of the proposed dwelling have been revised in order to
improve the relationship with the dwellings to the north. The proposed dwelling has
been moved further to the south, with the main part of the proposed dwelling
approximately 11.5m from the neighbouring dwellings and the kitchen projection
approximately 6m away. The tall conifer hedge remains on the northern boundary
and is at least 2.5m in height and in some places 3m, which provides a more than
adequate screen between properties.
The kitchen projection on the northern elevation has been amended by changing the
gable to a hipped roof. The height of the roof to this part of the proposed dwelling has
increased to approximately 6.8m, but the roof would now slope away from the
neighbouring dwellings to the north. The kitchen is a double height room and
therefore has no first floor. There are three roof lights proposed in the northern
elevation for two bedrooms and the landing. A section provided by the agent shows
that these are high level openings. It is not therefore considered that the proposal
would result in loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings to the north.
Following the receipt of amended plans the proposed dwelling would be
approximately 2.5m from the eastern boundary of the site. All the openings on this
elevation would be at a high level. It is not therefore considered that this would result
in a significant loss of privacy to the dwelling to the east, which has a blank gable
facing the site and is approximately 4.5m from the boundary. Whilst it is considered
that there would be some overshadowing to the east late in the day it is not
considered that this would be of significant detriment to the amenities of occupiers of
the neighbouring dwelling.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
25 June 2009
The relationship to the dwellings to the west and the south is considered to be
acceptable.
It is therefore considered that, whilst there is a slight shortfall in the basic amenity
criteria distance to the north, the relationship between dwellings would be
acceptable; the existing hedge along the northern boundary is of such a height that
this already results in loss of light to the dwellings to the north.
The site is located off the existing access drive to the dwelling known as 'Wingate'.
The site is set well back and well screened from the road to the west and is not
located in a prominent position. There is a mixture of types and styles of dwellings in
the immediate area. It is not therefore considered that there is a particular local
distinctiveness in this part of Wells-next-the-Sea. The agent has confirmed that the
roof tiles will be clay plain tiles. The materials are therefore generally considered to
be acceptable as is the design in this location.
The Committee will note the comments of the Highway Authority regarding the
amended plans and concern raised over the visibility. Their comments have been
passed to the agent and at the time of writing this report a response was awaited.
Therefore, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory amended plan regarding visibility
splays, and no objection from the Highway Authority regarding this matter, it is
considered that the proposal would be acceptable and accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections from the Highway
Authority regarding satisfactory resolution of visibility at the access, and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
11.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of full reports at the next meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make their representations at the next meeting of the Committee when the
application is discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
CORPUSTY – 20090398 – Siting of timber dwelling for supervisor of
agricultural/horticultural /agro-forestry unit; Land at Lock Farm Road for Mr A
Den Engelse
CORPUSTY – 20090467 – Erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings and
wind turbine and construction of roads, terraces and soil bund; Woodfruits
Lock Farm Road for Woodfruits
Development Control Committee (West)
28
25 June 2009
SHERINGHAM – 20090533 - Change of use from dwelling to bed and breakfast
establishment and erection of retaining wall to provide five parking spaces
(renewal of planning permission: 20040949); The Heights 1 Vicarage Road for
Mr and Mrs Moss
THORNAGE – 20090454 – Conversion redundant farm buildings to A1 (Retail),
B1 (Business) and D2 (Leisure) Breck Farm Barns Fakenham Road for Mr D
Astley
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visits are recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order to
expedite proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - 20090343 - Conversion of garage to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Broomhills Long Lane for Mrs Hardaker
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - 20090306 - Erection of replacement double garage; Old Barn Cottage
Binham Road Wighton for Mrs Slater
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20090384 - Erection of side conservatory and carport; Cones
Back Lane for Mr and Mrs Gwynne
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - 20090327 - Conversion of cart shed to one unit of holiday
accommodation and erection of wall; Manor Farm Manor House Road Lower
Bodham for W P Cubitt and Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - 20090442 - Prior notification of intention to erect pole barn;
Laburnum Farm Cromer Road for Ms E Thurtle
(Prior Notification)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090369 - Erection of extension to rear dormer and
erection of garden shed; Emmaus Holt Road for Mr Heale
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20090366 - Erection of one and a half storey extension; Hall Farm
Bungalow Aylsham Road Saxthorpe for Mr and Mrs Mitchel
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - 20090324 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Ballywensum
Norwich Road for Mr and Mrs Keogh
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
29
25 June 2009
FAKENHAM - 20090383 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2 Toll Bar for
Mr Sofrin
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090265 - Erection of storage building; 8 Millers Close for Mr
Richards
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090337 - Retention of covered seating area; Mr Chips 24 Bridge
Street for Mr Aygun
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20090386 - Erection of single-storey extension; Croxton
Farm Croxton Road Croxton for Mr and Mrs W Runciman
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - 20090277 - Erection of replacement front conservatory; 14 The
Knoll for Mr and Mrs I Summers
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20090260 - Erection of rear and side extensions to provide
additional accommodation; 54 Pineheath Road for Mr Buck
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20090299 - Erection of shed to provide toilet facility; All Saints
District Church Cromer Road for Revd Stoker
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - 20090285 - Erection of one and a half-storey extension;
Foxburrow Farm Binham Road for Mr Wordingham
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20090262 - Erection of front porch; 22 Norwich Road for Mrs Dagger
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20090298 - Internal alterations, installation of replacement doors,
windows and porch and removal of section of wall to form access; 3 Pearsons
Road for Mr N D Weston
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20090312 - Erection of single-storey extension; The Lawns Hotel 26
Station Road for Mr Rees
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20090332 - Installation of awning; 28 High Street for Mr J Barnes
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20090340 - Installation of awning; 28 High Street for Mr J Barnes
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20090379 - Alterations to boundary wall to provide access and parking
area; 3 Pearsons Road for Mr N D Weston
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
30
25 June 2009
KELLING - 20090034 - Internal alterations and erection of loggia, swimming
pool and garage; Kelling Hall Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Widdowson
(Alteration to Listed Building)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - 20090311 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
detached garage; 1 Meadow View The Street for Saltcarr Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20090355 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 19 Bell
Close for Mr Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
PLUMSTEAD - 20090402 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Fenmoor
Cherry Tree Road for Mr M Moran
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20090385 - Internal alterations to north wing; Stiffkey Old Hall
Church Street for Dr and Mr Bell
(Alteration to Listed Building)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20090296 - Construction of outdoor education centre;
Visitor Centre Wood Farm Sheringham Park for The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090352 - Installation of two dormer windows to
facilitate provision of living accommodation in roofspace; Corner Cottage
Glebe Road for Mr and Mrs Howard
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090358 - Removal of garage doors and replace with
patio doors; 14 Mainsail Yard Freeman Street for Mr Booth
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090372 - Installation of patio doors; 16 Mainsail
Yard Freeman Street for Mr Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20090371 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions; Middle
Cottage The Street for Norwood Property
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20090323 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling; Jonelyn The Street
for Mr C S Holman and Ms R G Woodhouse
(Demolition in a Conservation Area)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FAKENHAM - 20090334 - Erection of two-storey side and single-storey rear
extensions; 22 North Drive for Mr Greenaway
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20090283 - Erection of single-storey front extension and porch;
6a North Street for Mr and Mrs Bentley
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
31
25 June 2009
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090211 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Ropewalk Cottage The Buttlands for Mr Harrowven
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20090322 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling and
detached garage; Jonelyn The Street for Mr Holman and Ms Woodhouse
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
No Items.
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No Items.
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
HINDRINGHAM - 20081166 - Erection of cottage style dwelling and garage; land
adjacent to 44-46 Wells Road for Mr and Mrs M Woodhouse
HOLT - 20081526 - Erection of building to provide serviced holiday
accommodation; land at, Jenis Barn Thornage Road for Mr S Chapman
LANGHAM - 20081176 - Erection of dwelling and garage; land adjacent Stable
Court, Langham Hall Holt Road for Mr A Burlingham
WARHAM - 20081276 - Erection two-storey dwelling; 79 The Street for Holkham
Estate
WARHAM - 20081310 - Erection of two dwellings; adjacent The Reading Room
The Street for Holkham Estate
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No Items.
Development Control Committee (West)
32
25 June 2009