OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 27 MARCH 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
LANGHAM – 20060770 - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide
hotel and village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages; Former
Glass Factory North Street for Avada Country Homes
The Committee is asked to give further consideration to this application in the light
of representations received and further advice from the Council’s appointed
consultants.
Background
At the meeting of Development Control Committee (West) on 16 August 2007 it was
resolved that the Head Of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve
the application for conversion and extension of buildings to provide 30-bed hotel and
village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages at the Former Glass
Factory, North Street, Langham.
This delegated approval was subject to:• completion of a Section 106 Agreement to include tying together of the
freehold of the cottages with the hotel, a phasing agreement, agreement on
the number of letting days, and to include if necessary highway improvements
to include vehicle activated signs, a 20 mph speed limit along North Street
and a travel plan;
• the carrying out of an ecological survey; and
• the imposition of appropriate conditions to include all windows facing
Langham Hall to be obscure-glazed and fixed, a requirement to undertake an
archaeological survey and the removal of permitted development rights.
Copies of the Committee Report and Minutes are attached at Appendix 1.
Subsequent to the decision on 16 August 2007, a request was made under the
Freedom of Information Act by Solicitors on behalf of an objector. This request
sought a wide range of information about the application and a response was sent in
accordance with the requirements of the Act but excluding information which was
considered to be commercially sensitive. The objector’s solicitor subsequently
requested a copy of the draft Section 106 agreement prepared by the applicant’s
solicitor.
On 31 October 2007 a letter was received from the objector’s solicitors which
highlighted what they considered to be the principal flaws of the proposed S106
agreement. This letter was accompanied by the opinion of Counsel, obtained by their
client, copies of which were forwarded to all Members of Development Control
Committee (West).
Development Control Committee (West)
1
27 March 2008
Both the Solicitors’ letter and Counsel’s opinion dated are attached at Appendix 1 for
reference.
This advice suggests that the Development Control Committee (West), in exercising
its powers as determining authority failed to examine properly the “enabling
development” issue in that:1. the viability work and Strutt & Parker’s appraisal of it were wrong in including
the actual purchase price in the exercise rather than carrying out a residual
valuation approach;
2. the Committee may have proceeded on the approach that the income stream
from the cottages was necessary to secure the ongoing viability of the hotel
when there was no evidence that this was the case; and
3. perhaps most importantly, the marketing exercise is prime facie inconsistent
with the claimed viability issues and the Council’s apparent acceptance that
enabling development is required here.
Furthermore, it was suggested that it was not clear that the Committee assessed
properly the application to build the cottages within its own policy framework, namely
treating the cottages as if they were ordinary residential development for the
purposes of the Local Plan and affordable housing policies in particular.
On the basis of the advice of Counsel and their concerns regarding the S106
agreement, the Solicitors warned that any decision by the Council to grant planning
permission for this development would be likely to be subject to a judicial review.
Strutt & Parker, who were instructed by the Council to assess the enabling
development argument put forward by the applicant, have been asked by the Council
to re-consider their appraisal in light of the comments submitted by Mills & Reeve and
Counsel advice. Their report has now been received, a copy of which is attached at
Appendix 1, Strutt & Parker conclude that:“Notwithstanding the issues raised in Mr Forsdick’s Opinion…….we confirm that the
conclusion reached in the Strutt & Parker Report (December 2006) remains valid. We
confirm that the level of proposed enabling development is appropriate to provide a
sustainable hotel and leisure development and provides a reasonable return to the
developer. If the level of enabling development was reduced we believe that this
would result in the allowable development costs exceeding the value of the
completed development.”
Strutt & Parker also state that it should be noted that market conditions have
weakened since our original appraisal was prepared in December 2006, which have
strengthened the case for enabling development.
With regard to the policy context in respect of the proposed holiday cottages, the
report presented to the Committee on 4 January 2007 made reference to Policies 4
and 126. The comments of the Planning Policy Manager in that report (see
Appendix 1) made it clear that under Policy 126 the holiday units should be treated
as unrestricted residential development and should be considered as the erection of
houses. The site in question is a village employment area where Policy 10 applies.
The holiday cottages would be contrary to that policy.
Furthermore, Policy 4 suggests that only small groups of houses in a selected village
should be allowed (not more than four dwellings), with any above four to be
affordable, as set out in Policy 58.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
27 March 2008
On 20 July 2006 determination of the application was deferred, amongst other things,
in order to negotiate a contribution towards affordable housing, based on a minimum
of seven dwellings under the local lettings scheme. This was rejected by the
applicant, as reported to Committee on 7 December 2006 and 4 January 2007.
There are clearly significant policy issues in considering this proposal. Members will
note, however, that the Planning Policy Manager is of the opinion that the
acceptability of the scheme hinges on a clear demonstration that the cottages are an
essential part of the proposal in the sense that they are necessary to make the
remainder of the scheme viable. If this is the case the cottages could be regarded as
“facilitating development”. It is considered that this, together with the creation of the
jobs and the provision of a village shop would be sufficient, on balance, to enable the
proposal to be recommended for approval.
The Council, through the commissioning of the independent report, has sought to
confirm the relationship of the holiday cottages with the viability of the remainder of
the scheme. It is a question of balance as to whether the likely overall merits of the
proposal outweigh the policy conflicts.
In respect of the S106 agreement, a revised draft is currently under consideration.
The legal agreement cannot be finalised pending consideration of this report by the
Development Control Committee (West).
Other outstanding matters include the proposed mitigation measures relating to the
two submitted ecological reports concerning bats. These have now been received
and, subject to the mitigation measures being considered acceptable, relevant
conditions will be attached to the decision notice.
Summary
A number of issues have been raised which call into question the soundness of the
decision taken by Development Control Committee (West) on 16 August 2007 to
recommend delegated approval of the application. On the basis of the further advice
from Strutt & Parker it is considered that the enabling argument is of sufficient weight
to override the conflict with adopted policy as amplified above and delegated
approval is recommended, subject to the conditions set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve
the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include
tying together the freehold of the cottages with the hotel, a phasing agreement,
agreement on the number of letting days, and to include highway
improvements to include vehicle activated signs, a 20mph speed limit along
North Street and a travel plan and the imposition of appropriate conditions to
include protected species mitigation measures, all windows facing Langham
Hall to be obscure-glazed and fixed, a requirement to undertake an
archaeological survey and the removal of permitted development rights
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 – File Reference 20060770)
Development Control Committee (West)
3
27 March 2008
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BLAKENEY - 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
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
The application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
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 no 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
27 March 2008
The Design and Access Statement prepared by the applicant's agent, which provides
reason for the design changes is attached as Appendix 2.
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 360 degrees. 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 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.
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
5
27 March 2008
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.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last site meeting 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
27 March 2008
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.
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 1.5m above
floor level and is such that a normal height person when standing on the floor would
be unable to look down into any of the surrounding gardens, with all views being
confined to rooftops and views of the harbour and marshes.
The applicant has put forward a number of alternative proposals for glazing to the
tower to overcome the perception of being overlooked. Officers have indicated an
alternative proposal, which the applicant is considering. Committee will be updated
orally in respect of this matter.
Notwithstanding the concerns raised by representations that the proposal had not
been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, subject to appropriate
amended plans being received, it is considered that the proposal would comply with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to satisfactory resolution of the 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.
3.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071941 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Hill Top
House Hilltop for Mr W Garfitt
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :28 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two-storey detached dwelling, with only landscaping reserved.
Two car parking spaces are provided on the front of the site.
The materials proposed are brick, flint and pantiles.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
27 March 2008
Amended plans have been received reducing the ridge and eaves height of the
dwelling by approximately 0.5m, to some 7.4m. The ridge height of the rear twostorey wing has also been reduced from 7.1m to 6.4m, and the width reduced from
5.4m to 5m.
The proposed dwelling covers an area of approximately 12m x 7m, with the rear twostorey wing measuring approximately 2.7m x 5m and the front porch 2.3m x 1.7m.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order for a
site visit to be carried out.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application on the following grounds:1. This proposed development would block the footpath down to the Coast Road
which has in recent years been made deliberately less accessible.
2. The proposed development would block a pleasant open site.
3. The proposed cottage seems to be speculative infill, there is already restrictive
room for larger vehicles.
4. The proposed development appears to be too large for the plot.
5. There are doubts that the land in question is not actually owned by the applicant
but is actually common land and therefore until ownership of the land is proven, the
application should not be approved. This was once open land.
REPRESENTATIONS
Fourteen letters of objection have been received raising the following points:1. Views in and out of the Conservation Area will be impinged upon.
2. Loss of views to neighbouring properties.
3. Overbearing impact of development.
4. Loss of light to neighbouring property.
5. Loss of an open area important in Conservation Area terms.
6. Overdevelopment.
7. Will seriously detract from the appearance of the area and will definitely not
enhance it.
8. Contrary to Policies 20 and 42.
9. Fails the "conservation test" in that the proposed development will neither preserve
the character or appearance of the Conservation Area nor enhance it.
10. Proposal will set a precedent for further development on Hilltop.
11. At least 3 other properties within the village envelope which have plots large
enough for similar development.
12. Highly undesirable to increase still the further amount of traffic using this private
road and footpath.
13. Poor visibility at junction with the coast road.
14. Create severe parking problems.
15. Additional housing will exacerbate sewer blockages.
16. Proposal will ruin a community visual amenity, namely the view out to the north.
17. Severely impact on the amenities enjoyed by adjoining properties.
18. Proposed two-storey development is not in context of the surrounding properties
on Hilltop.
19. Increase in traffic.
20. Will detract from Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area.
21. Reduces green space and open skyline between properties.
22. Scale of dwelling.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
27 March 2008
An amended plan has been received from the applicant for proposed improvements
to the junction where Hilltop meets the A149 Coast Road, to provide additional space
for vehicles pulling off the A149, and tarmac surfacing of the first 6m of the access at
the junction.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
Original comments: In terms of form and character, this particular part of Cley is a
rather mixed affair supporting a diverse range of property types and ages. Through it
all, however, the unmade Hill Top track holds the area together in a characterful lowkey rural way. The site in question is situated half way up the track and very much
has the feel of an infill plot. For this reason, Conservation and Design would not wish
to object to the principle of the proposed dwelling.
With regard to design, the plans envisage a building of fairly standard appearance.
With its vernacular pretensions it would take an essentially neutral place within the
Conservation Area. As with many similar designs the success of the dwelling would
ultimately be down to the quality of the materials and workmanship.
Whilst generally mild-mannered architecturally, the dwelling would benefit from two
design improvements, namely a) the eaves should be dropped to house the dormers
entirely within the tiles, this would overcome the need for a clutter of down pipes and
improve the proportions of the slightly heavy looking gables, and b) the rear twostorey wing, which appears squeezed in between the other openings and greatly
adds to visual bulk should be slightly reduced in width and height.
With these amendments and with good quality materials (to be conditioned) the
dwelling should preserve the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
Comments on amended plans: No objection to the reduction in scale. However, if the
Committee were in mind to approve the application further discussions would be
required with the agent regarding the fenestration including the size of window
openings some of which now appear 'squeezed in', and size and position of the
dormer windows.
County Council (Highways) - The Highway Authority does not consider that Hilltop is
acceptable for any further vehicular use whatsoever and recommend that the
application be refused on the grounds that the unmade track of Hilltop is
unsatisfactory to serve any further development whatsoever due to its substandard
visibility and poor junction arrangement with the busy Coast Road (A149), its
inadequate width, lack of vehicular turning facilities, poor surfacing and lack of
facilities for more vulnerable road users (pedestrians) contrary to Policy 147 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan. A copy of the Highway Authority's comments are
contained in full in Appendix 3.
Comments on amended junction plan: Following a meeting on site with the applicant
and considering the applicant's amended plan of proposed junction improvements,
the Highway Authority maintains objections to the application as the junction works
are outside the land under control of the applicant and in the light of a previous
appeal decision regarding lack of access visibility and general unacceptability for
further vehicular use. Copies of the Highway Authority's further comments in full and
concerning the previous application are attached as Appendix 3.
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)
9
27 March 2008
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 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).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to carry
out a site visit.
The site is located within the residential policy area of the selected small village of
Cley-next-the-Sea where the principle of residential development is acceptable
provided that it enhances the character of the village and accords with other relevant
policies in the Local Plan.
The site forms part of the garden to the property known as Hill Top House. The
proposed dwelling would continue the linear form of development along Hilltop where
there is a variety of types and styles of dwellings. The Committee will note the
comments made by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who has
raised no objection to the proposal. The design and materials are considered to be
acceptable in this location and subject to further discussions regarding the
fenestration and size of window openings it is considered that the proposal would
preserve the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
27 March 2008
Furthermore, due to the site's location within an already developed area it is not
considered that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
It is considered that the proposed dwelling would comply with the basic amenity
criteria, apart from the relationship with the dwelling to the south (Hilltop Cottage).
The basic amenity criterion suggests that there should be distance of approximately
21m between primary frontages. Based on the submitted plans the distance would be
approximately 15.5m, which is a shortfall of approximately 5.5m. However, due to the
form and character of the area, the close proximity of dwellings in this location and
the reduction in the overall scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling, it is not
considered that this shortfall would have a significant detrimental impact on the
privacy or amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property to the south.
The Committee will note the original and amended comments made by the Highway
Authority and the objection to the application in respect of the suitability of Hilltop for
further intensification in use and the substandard visibility with the A149 Coast Road.
Therefore, whilst it is considered that the design and materials of the proposed
dwelling are acceptable and that the proposal would not have a significant
detrimental impact on the character of the village or Conservation Area, the proposal
is not acceptable in highway safety terms.
Therefore the proposal 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 policy as listed in the Direction issued by
Government Office for the East of England of the 14 September 2007 is considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy 147: New Accesses
The unmade track, known as Hilltop, is unsatisfactory to serve any further
development whatsoever due to its sub-standard visibility and poor junction
arrangement with the busy Coast Road (A149), its inadequate width, lack of vehicular
turning facilities, poor surfacing and lack of facilities for more vulnerable road users
(pedestrians) contrary to Policy 147 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080256 - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
replacement detached single-storey residential annexe (retrospective); Umgeni
Coast Road for Lady B Rathcaven
Target Date :11 Apr 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Environment Agency Flood Zone Type 2
Environment Agency Flood Zone Type 3
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
Tree Preservation Order
Development Control Committee (West)
11
27 March 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20050101 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension to summerhouse
Refused, 06 Apr 2005
20050687 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of extension to summerhouse
Approved, 13 Jul 2005
20061041 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension to summerhouse to provide
annexe
Approved, 22 Aug 2006
20070922 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
annexe
Refused, 17 Sep 2007
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of summerhouse and erection of replacement detached singlestorey residential annexe.
The approximate measurements of the proposed annexe are 7m x 4.3m for the
sitting room to the centre of the building, 4.8m x 3.3m for the bedroom and bathroom
to the east, and 3.3m x 3.8m for the kitchen to the west. The central part of the
proposed annexe would measure approximately 3.7m to the ridge and the smaller
elements to the east and west would measure approximately 3.4m in height to the
ridge.
The materials proposed are brick, flint, clay pantile and timber.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the planning
complexities posed by the application and previous site history.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. New application for a permanent residence.
2. Inappropriate.
3. Unsuitable and contravenes Policy 42 in the Local Plan.
4. A grossly oversized building such as is proposed would be an eyesore and
dominate the landscape from afar.
5. Out of keeping with the neighbourhood.
6. Would set a precedent for other buildings and development in gardens in the
Hilltop area of Cley.
7. Access is likely to become a major problem as it is highly likely that Hilltop road
would be used for car parking and access gained through a breach in the flint wall.
8. The proposed new building would adversely affect the well being and quality of life
for the occupiers of 1 Old Hall Farm Barns, and would be overbearing and affect their
privacy.
9. Concerns over proposed chimney and bell tower in close proximity to neighbouring
properties.
10. Bell tower seems overly ostentatious and grandiose for a suburban back garden.
11. Object to the possibility that the bell would make a loud noise close to 1 Old Hall
Farm Barns.
12. Would devalue property.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
27 March 2008
13. Proposal contrary to North Norfolk Design Guide specifically sections 3.26, 3.32
and 3.33.
14. No vehicular access to the proposed new residential bungalow, this affects
emergency services that may be needed by an elderly person
15. Plans do not show the dwelling to the south.
16. Proposal would present an even more garish intrusion on the view from the Coast
Road.
17. The use of the annexe should be restricted to purposes ancillary to the residential
use of the main building and not allow commercial use.
18. Relationship of 1 Old Hall Farm Barns to application site not explained in
previous permission 20061041 which could have affected decision as no site visit
took place.
A Design and Access Statement has been submitted by the agent with the planning
application and Section 1 regarding the background to the application explains that
the summerhouse was demolished as the building contractors' Health and Safety
Officer decided that the two remaining walls that were to be retained were unsafe. A
copy of Section 1 of the Statement is attached as Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - Building Control already has an application for this
proposal which can be amended to suit. No other comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - You will be aware of the Highway comments in relation
to the previous application on this site for provision of an annexe (20070922 and
20061041). As this present application is for a very similar proposal (albeit new build)
again no objection is raised subject to a condition restricting the use of the proposal
to ancillary to the existing uses of Umgeni only.
Environmental Health - No adverse comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Development Control Committee (West)
13
27 March 2008
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 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. Principle of development in the residential policy area.
2. Impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
3. Impact upon neighbouring properties.
4. Landscaping.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be aware of the planning history in relation to this site, as detailed
above, and in particular its refusal of planning application reference 20070922 for the
demolition of summerhouse and erection of annexe on 17 September 2007. That
application was refused on the grounds that the proposed development would have
an overbearing and poor relationship with the neighbouring property to the south,
resulting in an unacceptable loss of amenity to that property. Furthermore, by reason
of its siting and height it would fail to preserve or enhance the appearance or
character of the Conservation Area. It is also considered that the development would
be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling by reason of its size and the extent
of accommodation proposed. The siting of a dwelling in this location would constitute
an unacceptable form of tandem development because of its poor relationship with
the existing frontage property known as "Umgeni".
The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision on 5 December 2007. The
applicant is also appealing against the Enforcement Notice which was served under
delegated powers by the Head of Planning and Building Control. The applicant has
requested a public inquiry, which will take place on 5 August 2008.
Prior to the submission of application reference 20070922 the previous planning
applications in relation to the summerhouse all related to extensions of it in order to
create additional ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling. In August 2006 the
Committee gave delegated authority to approve application 20061041 to extend the
summerhouse to an provide annexe, subject to the deletion of a chimney on the rear
elevation and a condition restricting occupation of the summerhouse for purposes
incidental to the residential use of Umgeni.
However, since application 20061041 was approved the original summerhouse
building has been demolished. A new building is sought in its place under this current
planning application. As the Committee will be aware following a previous site visit,
the new building has been constructed up to eaves level, but further work has ceased
pending determination of this application.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
27 March 2008
The proposal gives rise to some difficult planning considerations. Without a building
to convert, consideration should be given as to whether a replacement building in this
location would comply with Local Plan policies. Although there is no Local Plan policy
specifically relating to annexes there is a general requirement under Policy 13 that
proposals should be appropriate in terms of layout, scale, bulk, visual impact and
relationship to nearby properties.
Conventionally, applicants for annexes are encouraged to locate them either as an
extension to the main dwelling or adjoining it, since such a layout reinforces the
function of dependency between the annexe and the main dwelling. A layout
involving an annexe detached from the main dwelling by a significant distance would
tend to imply a sense of independence of use and function, particularly where, as in
this case, the proposal incorporates all the facilities required for independent living. In
this case, however, the use of the proposed building as an independent dwelling
would not be acceptable because it would lack suitable independent access and
privacy and would have a poor relationship with both Umgeni and neighbouring
properties.
On the other hand there are material circumstances to take into account in that the
new building proposed under the current application is located in the same position
as that approved under planning reference 20061041. The size of the building is no
different from that agreed as a non-material amendment, permitting movement of the
east wing of the building further to the north away from the boundary wall to the
south.
Planning application reference 20061041 established the principle of the use of the
then summerhouse as annexe accommodation ancillary to that of the main dwelling.
Whilst the original building has been demolished and an entirely new building is
being constructed it is in the same location and is of the same size and design, apart
from two openings on the southern elevation of the bedroom and bathroom wing, as
that approved under planning application 20061041. Since the building would not
look significantly different from that previously approved, it is considered on balance
to be acceptable.
In particular, it is considered that the general form of the building would not detract
from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, nor is it considered that
the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact upon the appearance of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Owing to the change in ground levels between the site and the land to the south the
existing boundary wall would screen any views out of the windows proposed in the
southern elevation of the new building. The roof of the new building would be visible
from the neighbouring property to the south of the site, which is approximately 13m
from the boundary with the application site, but this distance complies with the
District Council's basic amenity criteria as set out in the Design Guide. Whilst the
new building is on significantly higher ground than the properties that front the Coast
Road it is at least 45m from these residential properties, approximately 10m from the
dwelling to the south-east and some 30m from the dwelling to the south-west, which
are all in compliance with the basic amenity criteria. Therefore, it is not considered
that the privacy or amenities of the neighbouring dwellings would be significantly
adversely affected by the proposal, thus meeting the requirements of Policy 13.
Whilst the current application does not involve the felling of any trees the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has been consulted in view of the
history relating to the site and previous planning applications that have included the
removal of trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders. At the time of writing this report
comments were awaited.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
27 March 2008
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority is not raising an objection subject
to an appropriate condition restricting the use of the building as ancillary to the main
dwelling.
Notwithstanding the planning complexities posed by the development, subject to no
objections being received from outstanding consultees it is considered that, on
balance, the proposal would be generally in accordance with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions including restricting
the use of the new building for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the
main dwelling known as Umgeni and preventing it from being used as a
separate dwelling house or for commercial use.
5.
HIGH KELLING - 20080067 - Erection of detached garage; Humphries Corner 6
Pineheath Road for Mr and Mrs A Humphries
Target Date :11 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential
Selected Small Village
Tree Preservation Order
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19760176 - Bungalow and garage
Approved, 09 Apr 1976
19760941 - Erection of a bungalow
Approved, 13 Aug 1976
19780044 - Erection of new bungalow and garage
Approved, 10 Mar 1978
20071746 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions
Approved, 02 Jan 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a detached single garage in the front garden. The garage would be
3.85m wide x 5.4m long with a height to eaves of 2.3m and a height to ridge of 3.7m
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Form and character.
2. Impact on neighbour.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection/comment.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
27 March 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection. Summary of comments:
1. Will be visually prominent.
2. Contrary to proposed High Kelling Village Design Guidelines.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The only trees that
may be affected by this development are small Birch which will need to be removed
soon due to overcrowding.
Recommend a condition to protect the trees at the front of the site from removal, to
help screen the new garage from the road.
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).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Form and character.
2. Impact on amenity of adjoining properties.
3. Impact on existing trees.
APPRAISAL
The proposed garage, whilst forward of the dwelling, would be screened in part by
the presence of existing trees, which would lessen the visual impact to some degree
from the east. To the west, the garage would be more visually prominent due to the
higher crown of the trees.
It is not considered that the garage would result in any significant overshadowing or
loss of light or privacy for the adjoining neighbours to the west, given that they have
an integral garage at the front north-eastern corner closest to the boundary.
The proposal may result in the loss of a small number of Birch trees. However, most
of the trees, with the exception of a single tree at the site entrance, are not protected
and could be removed at any time. On this basis it is not considered that objection
could be sustained.
It is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
27 March 2008
In summary, whilst the garage would be sited forward of the dwelling, in view of the
overall limited detrimental impacts, on balance the proposed development is
considered to comply with adopted Local Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
6.
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
At the request of Councillor High having regard to the following planning issue:
Material considerations despite being outside the development boundary.
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 5.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
27 March 2008
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).
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) - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk 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).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Development Control Committee (West)
19
27 March 2008
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
27 March 2008
At the time of writing this report comments were still awaited from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager. However, this does not alter the fact that there is a
clear policy objection to this proposal for the erection of a dwelling in the Countryside
policy area.
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.
7.
SHERINGHAM - 20071180 - Erection of twenty-two flats; Central Garage 49
High Street for Mr N J Wright
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :26 Oct 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Core Retail Area
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
Development Control Committee (West)
21
27 March 2008
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of all existing structures and construction of 22 flats. All matters of detail
are reserved for future consideration except access. Vehicular access to the site is
proposed via an existing driveway situated between 37 and 39 High Street with
egress proposed from the existing driveway to the south of No.47. The submitted
drawings include indicative proposals for three detached buildings of two and threestorey with 18 off-street parking spaces.
A desk top study regarding contaminated land issues has also been submitted.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection in principle to residential or commercial purposes but concerns raised
regarding the widths of the proposed access and egress.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters from adjoining and other local residents (summarised):1. Block A will overshadow properties in Co-operative Street. Account should be
taken of the significant difference in levels this side.
2. Development will put further strain on already overloaded drainage system.
3. Proposals envisage inadequate off-street parking for the likely needs of the
occupiers of the proposed flats.
4. Proposals conflict with the retail designation of the site in the Local Development
Framework. Use of this unique site for any other purposes would not be in the best
interests of the town. Premature to emerging policy.
5. Site would be best used for a mix of residential and commercial use better
reflecting its town centre location.
6. Demolition of the lock-up garages and the inadequate provision for on-site parking
in the submitted scheme will lead to further on-street parking in the surrounding
streets exacerbating existing problems for local residents.
7. The gyratory access and egress will not work as access point is frequently
blocked.
8. Overlooking of neighbouring properties in Cremer Street.
9. Egress presents danger to pedestrians at busy footway by the 'clock-tower'.
10. Appearance of proposed buildings is too stark and out of keeping with the
traditional pattern of development.
11. What are the arrangements for the storage of refuse containers?
12. Access appears very narrow for its intended purpose.
13. Development Brief should be prepared for the site to enable proper testing of the
demand for the site for commercial purposes.
14. Development conflicts with national planning policy as outlined in PPS6.
Letter from applicant's agent in response to suggestion that proposals be amended
to include a commercial element:I would point out that the application as submitted is for outline, with only the 'access'
forming part of the application. The suggestion of some retail use within the site be
included within this applications is not deemed to be appropriate. The application as
submitted under current policies was, as you have previously stated, acceptable for
residential use.
The applicant's marketing agents have indicated that an objection was lodged within
the time frame against the new Local Development Framework proposals for this
site. To amend the application at this stage would be prejudicial to the applicant and
the future development of the site. However they have suggested that if you would be
Development Control Committee (West)
22
27 March 2008
prepared to issue a letter with the planning consent indicating that the Authority
would support some retail inclusion within the site, they would be happy to refer to
this in all sales particulars and advertisements as and when the applicant wishes to
dispose of the site. In this way potential retail developers or occupiers would be
included in the marketing.
Letter from applicant's agent in response to request for traffic assessment of the
existing and proposal site across a seven day period:
The garage at present carries out MOT testing and repairs to private vehicles, with
staff and customer vehicle movement of an average 40 vehicles daily which based
upon a 5 day working week is 200 x 2 = 400 movements.
Small van deliveries average is 9 each day averaging 45 each week x 2 = 90
movements.
Larger lorries and service vehicles averaging 5 each week x 2 = 10 movements.
The lock up garages and additional parking facilities have the potential movement of
at least 50 vehicles daily averaging 250 each week x 2 = 500 movements.
Potential total of 1000 vehicle movements in a week.
The suggestion that with 22 flats could generate 8 vehicles movements each flat this
would total to 176 daily based upon the five working day movement this would
generate a total of 880 vehicle movements.
In practical terms the proposed flats and their Town Centre location would almost
certainly be occupied by persons wishing to walk to the town facilities rather than
drive.
It should be brought to the Members attention that the provision of vehicle parking for
residential flat development within town centre locations is not required under current
planning policies. If this is causing a problem the parking facilities can be withdrawn,
this however would cause a greater burden on the surrounding highway network.
Letter from agents on behalf of applicant expressing dismay at the number of delays
in determining the application when there is no policy basis to do so. Appeal on
grounds of non-determination will be made if deferred again and an appeal will be
lodged if the proposal is refused. Look forward to receiving a favourable decision.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - It is envisaged that the public combined system can accommodate
foul flows only from the proposed development of 22 dwellings based on a gravity
discharge. Further consideration on capacity would need to be given should flows
require pumping from the site.
There is insufficient capacity in the existing combined system to accommodate
surface water flows and therefore all alternative methods of surface water disposal
must be investigated for the site, including soakaways and other SUDS systems. If
this were not possible any connection to the public combined system would be
subject to heavy restriction.
Should the Council be mindful of granting planning permission conditions should be
imposed requiring i) the submission and approval of a detailed scheme of foul and
surface water drainage for the site and the subsequent construction of the
development in accordance with the approved details and ii) the submission and
approval by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Anglian Water of details
of surface water attenuation for the site.
Building Control Manager - A ground contamination report is needed at planning
stage because of the existing use of the site. Access for fire appliances is awkward.
The egress route is the only suitable way to get appliances within 45m of all of the
flats. The ingress route is of insufficient width.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
27 March 2008
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
lies within the heart of Sheringham town centre. Despite this, however, its backland
nature and mix of temporary structures means that it currently fails to make any sort
of positive contribution to the town's conservation area. As a result, there can be no
Conservation and Design objection to the principle of demolishing the existing
buildings and replacing them with some form of residential development.
That said, the prevailing form and character of the area is very much about fairly
modest buildings arranged incrementally in close-knit formations. It is definitely not
about regimented monolithic structures laid out around the perimeter of sites. Whilst
it is recognised that siting is not a matter to be considered as part of this application it
has to be pointed out that if 22 flats are ultimately to be considered acceptable they
would need to be provided in a far more compatible, additive way. Certainly the
rather functional indicative elevations do little to convince us that the scheme would
preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
In the event of the other consultees being happy with this proposal Conservation and
Design would welcome the opportunity to devise a note for any approval advising
that the units would need to be delivered in an altogether different form.
County Council (Highways) - You will be aware that the Highway Authority has
previously expressed a preference for a car free development on this site.
The provided details of the existing uses and vehicular movements associated with
those uses indicates that this proposal would not be likely to increase the vehicular
use of the poorly located access/egress points onto High Street. Accordingly, and
notwithstanding the above preference, subject to vehicular access only being from
between no.s 37A and 37B High Street and egress being from the south of no.47
High Street I can have no objection to the granting of permission.
The above access/egress arrangement should be suitably conditioned and I would
welcome the opportunity to comment further at the reserved matters stage.
Traffic Assessment - The provided vehicle movements figure of 100 weekday trips for
the garage appears reasonable given that the garage is relatively large.
The figures regarding the lock up garages are harder to judge in that occupancy and
scale of vehicular use could be variable, however, given that there are 37 garages on
the site and that each of these could possibly accommodate a second vehicle on the
apron to the front of each garage a figure of 100 weekday movements appears
slightly on the low side taking the worst case scenario would give 37 x 2 x 2 = 148.
Using the applicant's agent's figures the overall site generates a total of 200
movements per weekday with, it is assumed, the garage working only a five day
week, of course the lock up garages would generate traffic movements for a full
seven days albeit expected figures being lower at weekends.
TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer Services) data indicates that a residential
flat in this type of location would generate 3-5 vehicular movements per weekday.
This figure being lower than the 8-10 movements generally quoted for a residential
dwelling in that the location and likely occupier of this proposed type of dwelling does
not necessarily own or use a car to the same degree at a 'family' type house in a less
urban area.
On the above basis the proposed 22 flats would generate, at worst case scenario, 22
x 5 = 110 weekday movements.
The above indicates that the vehicular use of the site would decrease should this
application be allowed.
Environment Agency - (Summarised) - Contaminated Land: Object as the land has
the potential to be contaminated and no appropriate site investigation has been
carried out. As a minimum the applicant should produce a desktop study for
consideration by the Local Planning Authority. If the desktop study identifies that
Development Control Committee (West)
24
27 March 2008
contamination may be a problem a full site investigation will be required prior to
determination of the application. If, upon receipt of this information the LPA considers
that the proposals present a significant risk to controlled waters further consultation
with The Environment Agency will be necessary.
Sustainable Development: The development should be carried out in all respects in
as sustainable manner as possible.
Environmental Health - From the initial information provided by the applicant's agent
it is clear that the site potentially contains contaminants. Therefore, a full site
investigation needs to be carried out, including assessment of the risk to controlled
waters. This investigation should be undertaken by a suitably qualified, experienced
and independent person/company.
Please continue to consult with the Environment Agency.
A condition should be attached to any permission requiring the submission and
approval of a scheme for the storage of refuse and the subsequent implementation of
the approved details.
County Council Planning Obligations Co-ordinator - Based on the proposals for 22
dwellings a total developer contribution of £1,100 (i.e. £50 per dwelling) will be
required, this to be paid in one lump sum on occupation of the 10th dwelling.
Planning Policy Manager - The Development Plan is the starting point in the
consideration of planning applications and currently comprises saved Structure Plan
and Local Plan policies. The emerging Development Plan is also a material
consideration and comprises the East of England Plan and the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework. Emerging policy in the Core Strategy has been submitted
to Government for examination, and is presumed to be sound. It is therefore material
to decisions but generally should be afforded less weight than the saved Local Plan
policies.
The Central Garage site lies within the 'Town Centre' as designated in the North
Norfolk Local Plan. Policy 7 allows commercial development and other uses as long
as they are compatible with maintaining retailing as the prime function of each area.
The site is currently used as garage/workshops and therefore residential
development would not detract from retailing as the prime function of that area.
Residential development on the scale proposed would, however, prejudice future
retail redevelopment of the site. Emerging policy in the LDF Core Strategy includes
Policy SS12, Sheringham. This states that between 500 to 750sq.m of new
comparison goods retail floorspace will be accommodated in Sheringham. Suitable
sites for development of new retail floorspace will be allocated in the Site Specific
Proposals document and a suitable central site for a market will be safeguarded.
This need for additional comparison goods floorspace in the Sheringham area was
identified in the DTZ North Norfolk Retail and Commercial Leisure Study, 2005,
which has been adopted for the purposes of informing planning policy and
development control decisions. The study found capacity for new comparison goods
floorspace of 3,700 to 7,700sq.m net (depending on trading efficiencies and other
variables) in the Cromer/Holt/Sheringham zone. The Core Strategy divides this up
between Cromer (5,000sq.m) and Sheringham (500-750sq.m).
The Central Garage site and surrounding area is one of few areas in Sheringham
town centre that would appear suitable to accommodate substantial new comparison
goods floorspace. Core Strategy policy EC5 directs new retail and leisure proposals
to Primary Shopping Areas or the next best sequentially available sites in towns. This
site is adjacent to the proposed Primary Shopping Area in Sheringham and is
therefore considered one of the most appropriate sites to accommodate such
development. Development of this site for other purposes could result in sequentially
less preferable sites being allocated/developed. It should be demonstrated that loss
Development Control Committee (West)
25
27 March 2008
of the site will not prejudice Policy SS12 objectives of expanding the comparison
goods offer in Sheringham.
The LDF Site Specific Proposals preferred options document that was consulted
upon in September 2006 identified the site and surrounding land as a 'retail
opportunity site'. It stated that this is a valuable town centre location and
redevelopment for a range of commercial and other uses would expand the
opportunities available in the town centre and improve the townscape. The retail
opportunity site included the telephone exchange, library and shops to the south as
well as the builder's yard to the rear and other land in the area (see page 101). Work
on the Site Specific Proposals document is, however, at an early stage and there can
be no certainty that this site will come forward as an allocation.
The form and design of the proposal is a relevant concern and it is considered that
the proposal as submitted would not comply with existing and emerging polices
seeking high quality design and development that harmonises with the townscape
and general character of the area in which they are sited. Existing Local Plan Policies
13 and 42 are relevant here, along with emerging Core Strategy policies EN4 and
EN8. National guidance in PPS3 and PPS1 also requires high quality inclusive
design. PPS1 states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to
take the opportunity to improve the character and quality of an area should not be
accepted (paragraph 34). PPS3 states that good design is fundamental to the
development of new high quality housing which contributes to the creation of
sustainable mixed communities.
Emerging Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires 45% affordable housing provision on
schemes of 10 or more dwellings. PPS3, Housing, sets a national indicative minimum
site size threshold of 15 dwellings until local thresholds are set (paragraph 29). There
is a high local need for affordable housing and the 2007 Strategic Market Housing
Assessment prepared for the Authority by Fordham Research suggests that in
excess of 900 affordable dwellings are needed per year. Further details are provided
in paragraphs 3.2.6 to 3.2.12 of the Core Strategy. The proposal does not seem to
incorporate any such requirements.
Emerging Core Strategy Policy EN6 also requires that all proposals demonstrate how
energy use and resource consumption have been minimised and that proposals of
more than 10 dwellings include on-site renewable energy technology to provide for at
least 10% of predicted total energy usage. These considerations need to be
integrated from the outset rather than 'bolted on' at the end and we would expect to
see more details on this aspect in an energy consumption statement. This is
supported by PPS22 which states that Local Planning Authorities may require a
percentage of the energy to be used in new residential, commercial or industrial
developments to come from on-site renewable energy development (paragraph 8).
PPS3 says applicants should bring forward sustainable, environmentally friendly new
housing developments and should reflect the approach set out in the forthcoming
PPS on climate change and the Code for Sustainable Homes (paragraphs 12 and
15).
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)
26
27 March 2008
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 2: Small Towns (potential for growth subject to compatibility with existing
character).
Policy 7: Town and Large Village Centres (broad range of development/uses
encouraged).
Policy 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 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 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Developer contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
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. Appropriate use of town centre location?
2. Prejudicial to future options for retail development in the town centre?
3. Impact upon surrounding properties.
4. Impact on the Conservation Area.
5. Highway safety and off-street parking provision.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the December meeting to enable Members to visit
the site. It was again deferred at the meeting on 3 January 2008 to enable the
applicant to consider a formal request by the Committee to consider the possible
inclusion of a commercial retail element in line with the emerging Local Development
Framework preferences for the site. At the last meeting it was deferred to await the
views of the County Council (Highways) following receipt of a traffic assessment,
which was requested by Committee. County Council (Highways) comments have
now been received.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
27 March 2008
The application site currently accommodates a vehicle maintenance centre and 37
lock-up garages arranged in terraces. The site is designated in the Local Plan as
town centre and the two driveways serving the site from High Street fall within the
Core Retail Area. Part of the site falls within the Conservation Area.
Local Plan Policy 7 provides for the possibility of a broad range of commercial and
other uses within the designated town centres providing there is no conflict with the
Core Retail policy. In this case there would be no building on those parts of the site
that fall within the designated Core Retail Area. Accordingly there is no conflict with
Local Plan Policy 79. Furthermore it is difficult to argue that the residential
development of this particular site would in any way detract from the attractiveness of
the town centre as a retail area. Accordingly it is considered that the proposals
accord with Local Plan Policy 7.
Members will note the emerging LDF policies, following the submission of the Core
Strategy and examination in public. The starting point for the Inspector during the
examination will be that the Core Strategy is presumed to be 'sound'. It should
therefore carry some weight. However, guidance is given on the weight to be given to
the emerging policies in the OPDM publication, The Planning System: General
Principles. In this case representations have been received in respect of Policies
HO2 and EN6 referred to specifically by the Planning Policy Manager and Policy
EC5, which is related to the retail element of Policy SS12. Policy SS12 seeks to
accommodate 500-750sq.m of new comparison goods floorspace in Sheringham,
which will respect the small-shop nature of the town. Suitable sites for development
of new retail floorspace will be allocated in the Site Specific Proposals and a suitable
central site for the market will be safeguarded.
Notwithstanding some existing highway access difficulties, the Central Garage site, in
conjunction with adjoining land, might be considered a potential site to accommodate
new comparison goods floor space and/or a site for a market. Indeed, the application
site forms part of the retail area (ROS5) identified in the Local Development Site
Specific Proposals - Preferred Options. However, there is no certainty that this site
will come forward as an allocation and accordingly at this stage little weight can be
attached to the Site Specific Proposals in the determination of this planning
application. In any event the preferred use of the site would continue to be 'for a
range of commercial and other uses' to expand opportunities in the town centre and
improve the townscape. In this respect the future policy proposals for the site restate
the current policy requirements as outlined in Local Plan Policy 7
Therefore, whilst safeguarding the site for a mixed retail/residential use might have
longer term benefits for the vitality and viability of the town centre of Sheringham, it is
considered that the current adopted policies could not be substantiated a refusal of
the proposal.
The buildings which currently occupy the site are of no special quality and the
application presents an opportunity to enhance the appearance of this part of the
Conservation Area. Members will note the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager in this respect. Clearly the present indicative proposals
would have to be substantially reworked in order to achieve this objective. Care
would also have to be taken at reserved matters stage to ensure that the
development relates satisfactorily to all neighbouring residential properties, particular
care being needed with regard to the adjoining dwelling to the north which is set at a
lower level than the application site.
Development Control Committee (West)
28
27 March 2008
In response to initial concerns raised by the Environment Agency regarding potential
ground contamination, the applicant's agent has provided a 'desktop' study for
consideration by the Council's Environmental Protection Officer. The Environmental
Protection Officer has subsequently requested a full site investigation and this is now
being undertaken.
The applicant's agent had been asked to provide additional information regarding
existing traffic movements. This information has been received and County Council
(Highways) have now commented. It is considered that the vehicular use of the site
would decrease should this application be allowed.
As such, it is considered that, subject to satisfactory resolution of the ground
contamination issues, the proposal would comply with current Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve, subject to the prior resolution of the ground
contamination issues and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
WALSINGHAM - 20080050 - Change of use and conversion from
hostel/cafe/chapel to C2 (religious retreat), including construction of covered
walkway, new shopfront, 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*
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.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor T Moore having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Car parking.
2. Impact upon Grade II and II* Listed Buildings.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
Development Control Committee (West)
29
27 March 2008
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, exploratory 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 6.
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.
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.
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
30
27 March 2008
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).
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 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 were still awaited.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
27 March 2008
However, the Committee will note the comments from the Highway Authority which
has 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 are
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 has been advised of these comments and at the time of writing
this report an amended plan omitting the car park from the scheme was awaited.
The absence of 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, on
balance, 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 is sufficient justification to warrant 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.
Subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended plans, including a reduction in the
number of parking spaces and subject to no objections being received from the
Parish Council 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 the receipt of satisfactorily amended
plans, including design changes and a reduction in the number of parking
spaces, no objections from the Parish Council and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
9.
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)
32
27 March 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 and construction
of covered walkway, additional dormer windows, new shopfront and fenestrational
changes.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor T Moore having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on Grade II and II* Listed Buildings.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
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 granted in the same location as the proposed seven car parking spaces
for one dwelling, a new vehicular access, and car parking and turning arrangements
under reference 20042083.
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
Ancient Monuments Society - Awaiting comments.
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, 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 6.
Development Control Committee (West)
33
27 March 2008
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.
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 of the Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings.
APPRAISAL
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 is 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 amended plans were still awaited.
Development Control Committee (West)
34
27 March 2008
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 the receipt of a satisfactory amended plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended
plans, no objections from outstanding consultees or the Government Office for
the East of England, and imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
WIGHTON - 20080021 - Erection of water treatment buildings; Wighton WTW
Wells Road for Anglian Water Services Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :29 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
County Wildlife Site
Countryside
Fluvial Flood Zone
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19810230 - Pitched roof generator extension
Approved, 06 Mar 1981
20000370 - (Full Planning Permission) - Drilling and development of replacement
water abstraction borehole
Approved, 15 Jun 2000
20071057 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of water treatment buildings
Withdrawn, 25 Jul 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a nitrate reduction plant on a site area of approximately 0.77 hectares.
The proposal has been designed to resemble a Norfolk barn complex and consists of
a range of buildings, the tallest of which would be approximately 10m high. Also
proposed are a number of tanks, ancillary buildings and a new concrete road.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - Commented on the proposals in
2007 highlighting concerns about the impact of such a large scale development in the
open countryside and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We are, however,
sympathetic to the necessity of improving the Water Treatment Works in the area.
The site, in some respects, does provide some advantages such as being screened
from the roadway by the railway embankment and being situated in a natural valley
depression. However, the site would still be extremely visible from the railway and
from Public Rights of Way.
Development Control Committee (West)
35
27 March 2008
As mentioned before, we feel that a scheme of suitable quality and design might be
acceptable on this site. However, in my opinion, the current proposals fall short of
this requirement. Anglian Water stipulate that due to the type of equipment necessary
for the plant, large buildings are required to enclose them. The proposed RGF
building is extremely large and little has been done to soften the impact of the
building. The proposed materials are utilitarian and do not reflect other materials in
the locality.
It is felt that significant improvements could be made to the design of the
development, drawing upon features found in the North Norfolk Design Guide. A
development of this scale would be almost impossible to hide within the landscape;
therefore it requires thought and consideration on what features can be incorporated
into the design to limit the impact.
Conservation, Design and Landscape have considerable concerns about the current
design, therefore we recommend that the applicant be invited to discuss the design
issues further and amend the application before taking the application to a decision
stage.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - This site lies in an
area designated as Countryside within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
The current water treatment works lie adjacent to the Wells and Walsingham Light
Railway to the west of the track and are concealed from the main Wighton to Wells
road by the railway embankment. The development of this site to accommodate a
nitrate reduction scheme to improve local water quality is not disputed.
The existing building is approximately 3m high and occupies a footprint of 60sq.m. It
is constructed in brick with a grey slate roof.
The proposals must be considered against Local Plan Policy 20: Norfolk Coast Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty and also Policy 13: Design and Setting of
Development.
The proposals involve construction of a set of large scale buildings and tanks
between 4.5m and 9m high set immediately to the west of the existing unit. The
largest building has a footprint of 275sq.m. Proposed materials are brick and slate
roofing to match existing. The buildings will house the necessary machinery for the
nitrate reduction operation.
The design ethos is to make the buildings sit in the open landscape like a 'Norfolk
Barn complex' in order to minimise the impact of this development on the
environment.
This principle is quite acceptable, given the rural open setting within a rolling field
pattern punctuated with the occasional barn complex. The elevational and roof
treatment of each building will be critical to the success of the development.
The scale and bulk of this development and its impact in the landscape do give rise
to concern. Some of the buildings are up to 9m high with elevations that extend 22m.
In addition the roofline of the scheme will be level with the top of the rail
embankment.
The sheer mass of these large individual buildings will undoubtedly have a major
impact on the surrounding countryside.
Some of the openings are very utilitarian and bear no relation to features on a barn.
The effect of these could be lessened with the addition of a lean-to open cart shed
with vertical timber posts. This would create an overhang and set the functional
openings back into the shaded area making them less obtrusive. Advice contained in
the North Norfolk Design Guide relating to barn conversions is appropriate in this
case.
Materials are a key element of the success of this scheme and will play a key part in
relating the buildings to their setting.
Development Control Committee (West)
36
27 March 2008
Boundary treatment will also have a major impact on this development and every
effort should be made to make this appear ‘natural’ and unobtrusive in the landscape.
Further discussions with the applicant would be useful in order to fine tune the
elevational details of the proposals. A montage or a model would be extremely useful
for this purpose in order to visualise the impact of all the buildings together.
Environment Agency - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to condition regarding external lighting
and notes regarding potential for contaminants to be present.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Awaiting comments.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 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 18: Light Pollution (aims to prevent insensitive lighting schemes to protect
residents, traffic safety and environment).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Design.
3. Landscape impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Development Control Committee (West)
37
27 March 2008
APPRAISAL
In respect of the issue of principle, whilst located within a sensitive countryside
setting, the principle of the need for a nitrate reduction plant is accepted in light of the
legal duties placed upon Anglian Water to provide clean and safe drinking water for
local residents and to comply with the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations
2000.
The primary consideration therefore relates to the design, form and setting of the
proposed buildings to house the equipment and their associated impact upon the
wider countryside, which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states that
within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the conservation of the natural beauty of
the landscape and countryside should be given "great weight" in development control
decisions.
In this instance and in light of other options not being considered viable by Anglian
Water, the approach to try and replicate a Norfolk barn complex is accepted as being
the most likely to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside,
subject to satisfactory design and external appearance.
However, whilst the applicants have improved upon the local distinctiveness of the
proposed buildings compared with the earlier withdrawn scheme, in light of
comments received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager it is
considered that there is room for further improvement to help the scheme to fit more
comfortably within its setting.
Negotiations are therefore taking place to improve the scheme and Committee will be
updated orally in respect of progress
RECOMMENDATION:Committee will be updated orally.
11.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended for a site inspection by the
Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at the next meeting.
As this application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make their representations at the next meeting of the Committee when the
application is discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by the officers at
the meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20080329 - Erection of forty dwellings; land off Grove
Road for Melton Constable Country Club
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
It has been requested by Councillor R Combe that an early site visit is carried out by
the Committee on the above planning application in view of it being a major
application of local significance.
Development Control Committee (West)
38
27 March 2008
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake a site visit in the above case.
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - 20080001 - Erection of one and a half storey extensions; 1 and 2
The Butts Saxlingham Road for Mr and Mrs Burrows
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20080059 - Installation of en-suite bathroom; Mount Cottage 54
High Street for Mr I Kirk
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20080082 - Installation of replacement telecommunications
antenna; The Old Lifeboat House Blakeney Point for BT Group Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - 20080017 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 20031776 to allow use of floodlights on Tuesday, Thursday and
Sunday evenings from 6pm to 8.30pm; Bodham Playing Field Cromer Road for
Bodham Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080052 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Missel
Marsh Hilltop for Mr S Baldwin
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20080040 - Erection of agricultural building; Church Farm Cromer
Road Saxthorpe for Mr N Last
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20080068 - Erection of single-storey extension to outbuilding;
Tan office Farm Briston Road Saxthorpe for Mr K Schilling
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - 20071878 - Erection of first floor rear extension, front dormer
window, replacement of flat roof with pitched roof and detached garage; Friars
Well Ramsgate Street for Mr P A Loughlin
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20071873 - Demolition of garage and erection of singlestorey extension and garage and erection of wind turbine on nine metre mast;
The Cottage Clipstone Lane Kettlestone for Mr and Mrs Leversedge
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20080079 - Erection of car port; plot 3, 43 The Street for Mr R
Eggleton
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080023 - Change of use of ground floor from residential to A1 (retail);
39a Bull Street for Mrs R Webster
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
39
27 March 2008
HOLT - 20080099 - Conversion of bike shed into shower block; Kenwyn House
Greshams Preparatory School Cromer Road for Gresham's Preparatory School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080100 - Erection of extension and replacement of external staircase;
Kenwyn House Greshams Preparatory School Cromer Road for Gresham's
Preparatory School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080150 - Extension and conversion of part of first floor to provide
residential annexe; The Old Stables Kerridge Way for Mr and Mrs S Gooch
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20080151 - Alterations to provide first floor living accommodation; The
Old Stables Kerridge Way for Mr and Mrs S Gooch
(Alteration to Listed Building)
LANGHAM - 20080101 - Conversion of outhouse into
accommodation; Seal Cottage 8 North Street for Mr N P Wykeham
(Full Planning Permission)
habitable
LETHERINGSETT - 20080137 - Prior notification of intention to erect
agricultural building; Barnaway House Barnaway Lane Little Thornage for C C
Keen and Sons
(Prior Notification)
SHERINGHAM - 20080024 - Installation of replacement shop front to facilitate
conversion of two shops to one unit; 5 Station Road for Mr and Mrs D Barney
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080037 - Erection of dwelling (revised design); plot 3,
Beeston Garage site, 41 Cromer Road for Vesuvio Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20080042 - Erection of replacement rear extension and
detached annexe; Morley Grange 14 Cremers Drift for Mr S Pigott and Mrs S
Walker
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - 20071553 - Conversion of barn to B1 (office) and ancillary storage;
Stody Hall Farm Brinton Road for Stody Estate Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - 20080057 - Conversion of building to treatment rooms, erection
of plant room, conversion of barns D1/D2 to holiday accommodation (revised
design) and revised car parking and landscaping; Manor Farm Fakenham Road
for Mr Wagg
(Full Planning Permission)
THURNING - 20080030 - Erection of single-storey link extension; Church Farm
House Sandy Lane for Mr N V Lyles
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
40
27 March 2008
WALSINGHAM - 20080007 - Retention of boundary fence/retaining wall; 4-5 The
Hill for Mrs S P Tune
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20071684 - Installation of replacement pediment window; 49
High Street for Mr P Hoye
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WALSINGHAM - 20080013 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
conservatory; 29 Cleaves Drive for Mr T Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071740 - Erection of single-storey and first floor
rear extensions; 43 Freeman Street for Ms B J Marshall
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071865 - Demolition of garage and erection of
extension to provide holistic clinic; Knot's Yard The Quay for Mr and Mrs J
Gizzi
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080003 - Erection of replacement single-storey
extension and outbuilding; East House East End for Mr and Mrs Baker
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080027 - Demolition of utility wing and erection of
single-storey extension and outbuilding; East House East End for Mr and Mrs
Baker
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080048 - Construction of replacement roof to
single-storey extension; Mill House Northfield Lane for Mrs B Downey
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20080069 - Erection of first floor side extension and
part two-storey rear extension; 83 Northfield Crescent for Mr and Mrs I Lear
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - 20080065 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 7 Home
Farm Rise for Mr and Mrs Alloway
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - 20080081 - Erection of eight metre pole mounted
telecommunications antenna; Friary Farm Cley Road Blakeney for British
Telecom
(Prior Approval)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BODHAM - 20080036 - Continued display of direction signs; Entrance to
Gypsies Lane, off Cromer Road for Crayford and Abbs Ltd
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
Development Control Committee (West)
41
27 March 2008
FAKENHAM - 20080039 - Erection of first floor rear extension and detached
garage/store; 73 Norwich Road for Mrs L Rose
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - 20080018 - Erection of first floor extensions; Water Hall Mill Lane
for Mr and Mrs B Hopkins
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
BRISTON - 20071304 - Erection of dwelling; New Hall Farm Mill Road Briston
for Mrs N Smith
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
FAKENHAM - 20070673 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; 24 Holt Road
for Mr J Doughty
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
HOLKHAM - 20071596 - Conversion of farm office to residential
accommodation for estate worker; Farm office Longlands Holkham Park for
Holkham Estate
INFORMAL HEARING
15.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 01/019/DEV6/07/004 - Breach of condition 2 of planning
permission 20061041 for extension to summerhouse; Umgeni Coast Road for
Lady Rathcavan
PUBLIC INQUIRY
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070922 - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
annexe; Umgeni Coast Road for Lady Rathcavan
PUBLIC INQUIRY 05 Aug 2008
SHERINGHAM - 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 - 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
Development Control Committee (West)
42
27 March 2008
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070910 - Change of use to single-storey dwelling;
The Store Post office Lane for Mr A W Simmons
FAKENHAM - 20071585 - Display of internally illuminated totem advertisement;
former Rainbow Superstore Holt Road Fakenham for Lidl UK Gmbh
HINDOLVESTON - 20070789 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
Homely Acre 61 The Street for Mr and Mrs D Self
RYBURGH - 20071062 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage; land south
of 91 Fakenham Road for Mr M Davenport
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20061674 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The
Garages The Fairstead for Mr and Mrs S W Tart
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070134 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The
Garages The Fairstead for Mr and Mrs S W Tart
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
EDGEFIELD - 20070871 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Green Farm
Norwich Road Edgefield for Mr D Sands
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
43
27 March 2008