OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 28 FEBRUARY 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.
Holt – Tree Preservation Order (HOLT) 2007 No.10 Orchard Piece and Oakside,
Kelling Road, Holt.
To consider whether or not to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
The above Order was served in response to the receipt of a planning application to
demolish one dwelling and outbuilding and erect eight dwellings on the site.
Following a site visit and the analysis of a pre-development tree survey, the
Landscape Officer raised concerns over the layout of the development and the
relationship to the trees worthy of retention on the site. The development would have
resulted in the loss of a number of trees on the site which contributed to the public
amenity. Furthermore the development was unsympathetic to the trees left for
retention.
Following the refusal of the planning application, partly due to the detrimental effect
on the trees and with the trees having no legislative protection, the Landscape Officer
carried out an evaluation of the trees with a view to serving a Tree Preservation
Order. The trees scored highly on the assessment in terms of amenity value, public
visibility and expediency; therefore it was deemed appropriate to serve an Order
immediately to protect the trees.
The Order was served on 20 December 2007.
Representations
Objections to the Order:One letter has been received objecting to the Order, from the owner of Orchard Piece
(dated 16 January 2008 – see Appendix 1).
The owner has objected on two grounds:1. Public Amenity Value of the trees.
The owner questions the validity of the Order as the trees are not considered to have
any public amenity value. The owner believes that they do not benefit the public at
large as they are not visible from the public domain and there is no public access or
right of way onto the land.
2. The need to serve a Tree Preservation Order.
The owner questions the need to serve a Tree Preservation Order on land where the
Council has recently granted planning permission without the need to serve a TPO in
the past.
Two letters of support for the Order have been received.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
28 February 2008
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
APPRAISAL
In response to the objections the following comments are made:1. Public Amenity Value - As part of the assessment process for initiating a TPO,
the Landscape Officer considered the relative public visibility of the trees and
suitability for a TPO. The trees were visually assessed from the roads and
pavements in the vicinity of the site, these being Cromer Road, Kelling Road and
Greenways. All of the trees in the TPO are visible or partly visible from one or
more of these public vantage points. The trees do not have an immediate impact
from the pavement but form an attractive verdant backdrop to the bungalows
along Greenways and the housing on Kelling Road and Cromer Road. Public
access onto the site in question is not required in order to appreciate the
individuals and groups of trees protected by the Order.
2. Need to serve a Tree Preservation Order – The previous planning permission
referred to by the owner in his letter of objection, refers to an application to erect
four detached single-storey dwellings. The layout of this development was
significantly different from the proposal to erect eight dwellings and was situated
in a way that did not impinge on the trees. It was concluded that the
development would not affect the viability of the trees nor vice-versa. Therefore a
TPO was not considered necessary and through the use of appropriate
conditions the trees could be protected during construction.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the trees identified in the Order have considerable public
amenity value and make a noteworthy contribution to the setting and character of the
site and the surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Holt – Tree Preservation Order (HOLT) 2007 No. 10 Orchard Piece and
Oakside, Kelling Road, Holt be confirmed.
Source: (Kerys Witton, Extn 6323 – File Reference: TPO (Holt) 2007 No. 3)
Development Control Committee (West)
2
28 February 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 tower, roof, dormer window and fenestrational changes, which
do not accord with the plans approved under 20060904.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Potential visual impact of the development on the Blakeney Conservation Area and
neighbouring properties.
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
Three letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The glazed area around the top of the tower is not as approved.
2. Neighbouring properties would be overlooked resulting in a loss of privacy and
causing considerable devaluation.
3. The tower has not technical value and was originally proposed as a ventilation
tower.
4. The height of the tower is in excess of that originally proposed.
5. The property is totally out of keeping in the area.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
28 February 2008
The Design and Access Statement prepared by the applicant's agent, which provides
reason for the design changes is attached as Appendix 2.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Further consideration of this issue will be given at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of revised design details.
2. Impact on Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
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 to Officers 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
28 February 2008
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 what
is now considered to be a poorly proportioned gable. Furthermore, fenestrational
changes to the western gable end through a reduction in the amount of glazing have
resulted in a loss of vertically to the gable, again contributing to its poor proportions.
Similarly, due to the changes in the construction of the roof, the dormer window to
the southern elevation appears more pronounced, which is accentuated by the three
light casement windows. In addition, the horizontal position of the dormer on the roof
has altered slightly with it now being 1.5m further to the west.
The net effect of these changes is that there has been a dilution in the quality of the
scheme as first presented. Instead of the tower having two tiers, which contributed to
its verticality, it now has a somewhat truncated and bulky rectangular appearance
which lacks the visual interest of the approved scheme. In addition, due to the
increase in width of the north and south elevations of the viewing gallery, the amount
of glazing has increased and with it the perception of being overlooked. Similarly the
changes to the construction of the roof have resulted in what is considered to be a
poorly proportioned western gable end, which lacks verticality and detailing, instead
presenting a somewhat squat and bland looking gable. Furthermore, the dormer on
what is the principal elevation now appears to be a more dominate feature. As such,
cumulatively it is considered that the design changes are a retrograde step and have
diluted the originally quality of the scheme.
The site lies within the Conservation Area and in such areas where preservation or
enhancement of the character of appearance is a policy requirement, high standards
of design should be expected. Discussions are therefore being held with the agents
to explore whether improved design can be achieved.
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 remain 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
28 February 2008
The Committee is recommended to visit the site in view of its sensitivity and
Members will be updated orally as to progress regarding discussions.
RECOMMENDATION:That Members visit the site pending discussions with the applicant's agents in
terms of possible improvements to the design.
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.
Amended plans have been received reducing the ridge and eaves height of the
dwelling by approximately 500mm, 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
At the request of Councillor High having regard to the following planning issues:1. Impact on neighbouring properties.
2. Design.
3. Highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
28 February 2008
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
28 February 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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
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)
8
28 February 2008
Furthermore, due to the site's location within an already developed area it is not
considered that the proposal would have a significant 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 comments made by the Highway Authority and the
objection to the application in respect of the suitability of Hilltop for further
intensification in use.
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.
HELHOUGHTON - 20071248 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of two twostorey detached dwellings and detached garage; 1 and 2 Raynham Road for Mr
G Morris
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 Oct 2007
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20071249 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Wensum Valley Project
Conservation Area
Development Control Committee (West)
9
28 February 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070688 - (Full Planning Permission) - Demolition of dwelling and erection of three
two-storey dwellings
Withdrawn, 14 Jun 2007
THE APPLICATION
The application previously proposed the erection of a terrace of three two-storey
dwellings with parking and garaging at the rear.
Amended plans propose the demolition of a dwelling and erection of two two-storey
detached dwellings and detached garage.
The dwelling on Plot 1 would have an eaves height of approximately 3.5m with a
height to ridge of approximately 7.1m with approximately 40 degree asymmetrical
pitched roof.
The dwelling on Plot 2 would have a height to eaves of 4.9m and a height to ridge of
7.9m also with 40 degree pitched roof. Materials would be a combination of brick,
brick and flint, clay pantiles and white painted joinery. Each unit would have a garage
and two off-road parking spaces. Access to the site would be via a new central
entrance onto Raynham Road replacing the existing northern access.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was given delegated approval at the last meeting subject to no new
grounds of objection being received. Further objections have been received, on the
basis of which Councillor Wakefield has also requested reconsideration.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original scheme - Objected to the original application as it is considered the
proposed development would not enhance the Conservation Area and would be
overdevelopment of the site. There are also concerns regarding a lack of amenity
space. Residents from neighbouring properties expressed concern regarding
sewerage if the present one dwelling is demolished and replaced by three properties.
There is no mains sewerage system in Helhoughton and problems with drainage
mean that the cess pit system which is in operation is not efficient.
Amended scheme - Object as follows:1. Concerned about loss of historically important building.
2. No need for further dwelling.
3. Northerly dwelling will overlook "Rosebank" and "Shenandoah" and will cause
shadowing.
4. Will impact upon telephone and electricity cables running across the site.
5. Insufficient detail about drains and sewerage.
6. Concern about access.
7. Concern about vehicular movements to and from the site blocking Raynham Road.
8. No bat survey has been carried out as bats are known to inhabit this property.
9. Concerned about the logistics of demolishing and rebuilding.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters have been received to the original scheme, two from the same address.
Two further letters have been received in respect of revised scheme. Summary of
concerns raised:1. The existing property is one of the oldest in the village and in the Conservation
Area and should be conserved.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
28 February 2008
2. Additional dwellings would cause additional pressure on the local road network.
3. The proposal would change the character of the Conservation Area.
4. The proposal would result in a serious loss of light and would overshadow our front
garden.
5. The dwellings would overlook our property and garden and reduce our amenity.
6. The proposals would not enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
7. The garages would also reduce sunlight to and overshadow our garden.
8. Increased traffic will increase noise levels, particularly to the rear areas of adjacent
dwellings.
9. The area is notoriously bad for surface/wastewater drainage through soakaways
and a number of properties along Raynham Road have been affected as the water
table is so high.
10. The use of soakaways would result in water draining onto our land.
11. The new access would destroy ancient hedgerow and roadside banks and spoil
the character of Raynham Road.
12. The steep incline to the rear of the site will encourage further surface run-off onto
Raynham Road.
13. This is not a sustainable location for further dwellings as all residents would have
to use a car to meet their daily needs.
14. The original properties are perfectly sound and capable of being renovated back
to the original two dwellings.
15. Construction of the dwellings would cause unimaginable chaos to the area in
terms of noise and general disturbance.
16. There will be no benefit to the village.
17. The existing property was renovated in the last 6 years with NNDC grant money.
18. The existing garden is used by monk jack deer as a route to farmland over the
road.
19. The existing property is characterful and contributes to the Conservation Area.
20. The proposed gardens are extremely small for family properties.
21. The proposal would increase significantly vehicular movements in the area.
22. The proposal would have biodiversity implications through loss of hedgerow and
trees.
23. Not all of the hedge is within the applicant’s control and therefore the visibility
splay may not be able to be achieved.
24. The access drive width is inadequate.
25. Service vehicles to the properties would have to block Raynham Road as they
would not be able to enter the site due to restricted width.
26. The application was rushed through Committee on 31 January 2008 without
adequate time for people to comment on the revised scheme.
27. Plot 1 would overshadow our property.
28. Out of character with the area and would only detract from the area and not
enhance it.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Original
plans - Although the existing building is clearly of some vintage, it is considered that
its demolition can not be resisted for the reasons outlined below:1. The building is not of any particular architectural or historic merit.
2. The building has experienced some inappropriate alterations and additions in the
past; i.e. the application of a modern "plastic" paint finish, replacement windows and
a storm proof porch.
3. The building neither harms nor enhances the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area - its impact is entirely neutral.
4. With good quality (part reused) materials, the proposed redevelopment would
enhance this part of the village.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
28 February 2008
Whilst it appears to be a property which could be refurbished and re-used, there is no
real justification in heritage terms for this to happen. Conservation and Design would
therefore not wish to stand in the way of this application.
In terms of the new build, this has been carefully negotiated with the applicant and
his agent. Generally it follows the form of the existing building, albeit in an updated
and re-orientated form. The stepped ridge pays due reference to the rising ground up
Raynham Road, whilst the prominent position on the site maintains the existing
channelled views up and down this rural lane.
Whilst the new units do not offer any real design innovation or individuality, they are
well proportioned and appropriately detailed. As such, they would be compatible with
their surroundings. With good quality materials, the overall effect should be one of
enhancing the appearance and character of this part of the conservation area. As a
result, there can be no sustainable Conservation and Design objections to this
application.
If the application is to be approved, the following conditions are requested:1. That a brick sample be agreed.
2. That the existing pantiles be reclaimed and reused with any shortfall made up with
tiles which match their composition, colour and profile.
3. That full details of the windows and doors be submitted and agreed prior to their
installation.
Amended plans - Having now established that the existing cottage is not worthy of
listing, Conservation and Design comments can now concentrate on the
redevelopment proposals as amended.
In this respect, rather than the linked terrace previously proposed, two detached
dwellings are now envisaged. Whilst this moves away from the current form of
development on the site, it does not preclude a qualitative end result being achieved.
Clearly, however, this is down to the design and execution of the individual plots.
Design-wise, the general approach continues to be relatively restrained with two
architecturally unobtrusive compositions proposed. However, unlike the most recent
attempts which were blighted with regimented suburban overtones, this latest
scheme provides for a more sympathetic interpretation of vernacular building. Hence,
we now have two distinct buildings which pay due reference to their surroundings
and which successfully respond to the ground levels along Raynham Road.
In terms of detailing, the elevations are generally mild-mannered and do not seek
attention. This is considered appropriate given the similar properties adjoining the
site. Although it is uncommon to see a catslide roof on a front elevation, this is
justified on Plot 1 given the dormers on the property next door.
Therefore, with good quality natural materials, and with informal hard and soft
landscaping (all to be conditioned), the two units should preserve the appearance
and character of the conservation area.
County Council (Highways) - Original plans - The re-siting of the access drive to the
southern side of the site significantly improves visibility onto the Raynham Road and
accordingly I have no objection to this present proposal subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
In respect of representations received regarding visibility splay concerns, it is
considered that the hedge has matured over highway land and, accordingly, it is
within the remit of the Highway Authority to maintain the verge to the depth indicated
on the plan.
Amended plans - No objection subject to conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
28 February 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998- saved policies):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 7: Safeguarding land for sustainable transport uses (safeguards railway
land against prejudicial development).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of residential development in this location.
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.
4. Highway safety.
5. Loss of hedgerow.
APPRAISAL
On 31 January 2008, Committee gave delegated authority to the Head of Planning
and Building Control to approve both this and related Conservation Area consent
application (20071249), subject to no new grounds of objection following reconsultation and re-advertisement of amended plans and subject to written
confirmation from English Heritage regarding their listing assessment.
Additional new grounds of objection have since been received in respect of the form
and character of the proposed two new dwellings.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
28 February 2008
The site lies within the development boundary of Helhoughton and, as such, there
would be no objection to the principle of residential development on this site, subject
to the proposal enhancing the form and character of the village (Policy 4) and
compliance with other Local Plan Policies, particularly in relation to impact on the
Conservation Area (Policy 42), impact on amenity (Policy 13) and impact on highway
safety (Policies 147 and 153).
English Heritage previously considered a request to list the building and responded
orally that it was not of listable quality. A copy of their listing assessment is attached
as Appendix 4.
The proposed replacement properties would have a bigger footprint than the existing
property in view of the wider gable widths. However, the plot widths of 12m would not
be out of character with the plot widths of other dwellings along Raynham Road and
the stepping up of the ridges would also be in character.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposal
would preserve the form and character of the village and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
In respect of impact on amenity of adjacent residents, whilst there would be some
potential for overlooking of the adjacent property to the north from bedroom 4 of Plot
1, it is not considered that this would be significantly detrimental to their amenity.
To the west is a field separated by mature landscaping. Whilst this landscaping
prevents overlooking of the adjacent land, its removal would enable possible
overlooking to take place. Given that properties have existed on the eastern side of
Raynham Road for many years, overlooking could have taken place irrespective of
the proposal for the new dwellings. As such, it is not considered that refusal on the
grounds of potential overlooking of land to the west could be substantiated.
In respect of highway safety implications, County Highways have no objection.
A section of hedge would be removed to provide the new access. However, this is
not considered to be significant in terms of appearance or impact on flora or fauna.
Notwithstanding the new grounds of objection raised the development as proposed
would be in accordance with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
HELHOUGHTON - 20071249 - Demolition of dwelling; 1 and 2 Raynham Road
for Mr G Morris
Target Date :04 Oct 2007
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Demolition in a Conservation Area)
See also 20071248 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Development Control Committee (West)
14
28 February 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070723 - (Demolition in a Conservation Area) - Demolition of dwelling
Withdrawn, 14 Jun 2007
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the demolition of a dwelling.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was given delegated approval at the last meeting subject to no new
grounds of objection being received. Further objections have been received, on the
basis of which Councillor Wakefield has also requested reconsideration.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to this application because it is considered this historic building, sited in a
Conservation Area, should not be demolished. The building is not in a poor state of
repair and only six years ago received grant funding from North Norfolk District
Council to carry out refurbishment of the building.
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters have been received, four from the same address. Summary of
comments raised:1. The existing property is one of the oldest in the village and in the Conservation
Area and should be conserved.
2. The proposal would change the character of the Conservation Area.
3. The proposals would not enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
4. The use of soakaways would only result in water draining onto our land.
5. The original properties are perfectly sound and capable of being renovated back to
the original two dwellings.
6. There will be no benefit to the village.
7. The existing property was renovated in the last 6 years with NNDC grant money.
8. The existing property is characterful and contributes to the Conservation Area.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Although the dwelling in question is clearly of some vintage, it is not considered that
Conservation and Design can sustain an objection to its demolition for the following
reasons: 1. The building is not of real architectural or historic interest or merit.
2. The building has experienced some inappropriate alterations and additions in the
past; i.e. the application of a modern "plastic" paint finish, replacement windows and
a storm proof porch.
3. The building neither harms nor enhances the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area - its impact is entirely neutral.
4. With good quality (part reused) materials, the proposed redevelopment would at
least preserve and most probably would enhance this part of the village.
Whilst it appears to be a property which could be refurbished and re-used if there
were the will, there is no real justification in heritage terms for this to happen. Given
the building is not critical, Conservation and Design are unable to lodge an objection
to this scheme.
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)
15
28 February 2008
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission document):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
On 31 January 2008, Committee gave delegated authority to the Head of Planning
and Building Control to approve both this and related application (20071248), subject
to no new grounds of objection following re-consultation and re-advertisement of
amended plans and subject to written confirmation for English Heritage regarding
their listing assessment.
Additional new grounds of objection have since been received in respect of the
proposed two dwellings.
Representations received had raised concerns about the prospect of demolition on
the grounds that the existing building is one of the oldest in the village and
contributes positively to the character of the area. Advice from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager in respect of earlier application (20070723) has
suggested that although the dwelling in question is clearly of some vintage, it is not
considered that an objection to its demolition can be sustained on that basis.
It is considered that the existing building has a neutral impact on the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and subject to the replacement scheme
preserving or enhancing the character of the Conservation Area demolition is
acceptable.
English Heritage has indicated that the existing building is not of listable quality. A
copy of their listing assessment is attached as Appendix 4.
The proposal is considered to be in accordance with adopted Development Plan
policies.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
28 February 2008
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract
for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been made
and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the
contract provides.
REASONS:2) In order to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area,
in accordance with Policy 42 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
6.
HINDOLVESTON - 20071804 - Erection of four dwellings; 3 Melton Road for Mr
N Beckett
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :15 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19841351 - Change of use of school buildings into two residential units
Approved, 19 Dec 1984
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of single-storey buildings formerly used in connection with the use of the
site as a builders yard and erection of four dwellings on part of the residential
curtilage of the adjoining house (within the applicant's ownership) and the former
builder's yard. All dwellings would be served from a new single point of access onto
Melton Road and private driveway.
Access and layout only are under consideration at this stage.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application for the following reasons:1. Overdevelopment of the site. The Council feels this area is too small for four
dwellings.
2. There would be unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring dwellings (Neighbouring
properties are not accurately depicted on the submitted plan, particularly to the south.
3. The Parish Council request a site visit.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter of objection from owners of dwelling to south (summarised):1. Plan does not accurately show the proximity of the adjoining house which has
been extended towards the site in recent years with windows facing.
2. Overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of light.
3. Hedge on party boundary would not screen the new houses.
4. Overdevelopment of site out of keeping with the village environment.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
28 February 2008
5. Proposed buildings to the rear are behind the established building line.
6. Contrary to the emerging policies in the LDF regarding future development in
Hindolveston.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the provision of a 2m parallel
visibility splay across the site frontage and standard conditions regarding visibility,
construction of access and provision of on-site parking/turning areas.
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 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact upon the character of this part of the village.
2. Impact on neighbouring property.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting to enable Members to visit the site.
The site is designated in the Local Plan as residential within the boundary of the
selected small village. Accordingly there can be no objection in principle to the
proposed residential development, subject to enhancement of the character of the
village.
The existing buildings occupying the site are of little quality and the current proposals
offer an opportunity to enhance the appearance of this part of the village. The site
has an area of approximately 0.14ha. The proposed development would result in a
Development Control Committee (West)
18
28 February 2008
density of approximately 29 dwellings per hectare. Although this figure falls slightly
below the national indicative minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare stated in PPS3 it is
not considered unreasonable in the context of the fairly loose-knit pattern of
development surrounding this particular site.
No elevational details of the proposed houses have been submitted. However,
making some assumptions regarding the possible position of windows, the proposed
development could accord with the Local Plan basic amenity criteria window-towindow distances throughout except with regard to the neighbouring property to the
south. This property has two ground floor living room windows facing the site. As the
plan stands, the main rear wall of the closest facing new dwelling (plot 2) would be
approximately 18.5m distant. Assuming that this elevation of the new dwelling would
contain primary windows the distance between buildings should be 21m to accord
with the relevant basic amenity criterion. The retention of the present hedge on the
party boundary or its replacement with a close boarded fence would prevent any real
overlooking or loss of privacy. The applicant's agent has been asked to consider
whether the layout could be amended to address this shortfall.
However, in broad terms the submitted scheme is considered acceptable and,
subject to appropriate design and external materials at reserved matters stage, the
development would enhance the character of this part of the village (Policy 4) without
significant harm to neighbouring properties in accordance with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) These reserved matters shall relate to the appearance, landscaping and scale of
the proposed development and the means of access thereto and this condition shall
apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in
the current application.
3) Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council
residential access construction specification for the first 5m into the site as measured
back from the near edge of the adjacent carriageway.
4) Any access gate shall be hung to open inwards and shall be set back a minimum
distance of 5m from the near edge of the adjoining highway carriageway. Any side
wall, fence or hedge adjacent to the access shall be splayed at an angle of 45
degrees from each of the (outside) gateposts to the front boundary of the site.
5) Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted a 2m wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent
highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site's roadside
frontage. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any
obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
6) Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted the proposed
access and on-site parking and turning area shall be laid out in accordance with the
approved plan. They shall be retained thereafter for those specific uses.
7) Prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted details of the
location, height, design and materials of all screen walls and fences shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any screen wall
or fence, as approved, shall be erected concurrently with the erection of the dwellings
to which it is related.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
28 February 2008
REASONS:2) The application is submitted in outline form only and the details required are
pursuant to the provisions of Article 3(1) to the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006.
3) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy 147 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
6) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
7) In order for the Local Planning Authority to retain control over this aspect of the
development in the interests of the relationship to nearby properties and the
surroundings of the development in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
7.
HOLT - 20071754 - Erection of detached dwelling and cart lodge; land adjoining
10 Kelling Road for The Fishmongers Company
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :04 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
THE APPLICATION
Subdivision of residential curtilage and erection of detached dwelling to side/rear of
existing dwelling with detached car port to front. Details of the proposed layout
included; all other matters are reserved.
The plan has been amended showing the proposed dwelling re-orientated to achieve
a larger rear garden.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor High having regard to the impact of the development on
the amenities of the occupiers of the present dwelling on the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection. A Section 106 Agreement should be considered to ensure that the cart
lodge is used only for its intended purpose.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter of objection from the occupier of the existing dwelling on the site
(summarised):1. Loss of privacy.
2. Neighbouring house is occupied by the chaplain of Gresham’s School and a level
of privacy is required in connection with this role.
3. The main living area of the neighbouring house features extensive windows facing
the application site.
4. Overshadowing of rear garden.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
28 February 2008
5. Destruction of wildlife habitat.
6. Overdevelopment of site resulting in cramped layout to detriment of neighbouring
residents.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to standard access and off-street
parking conditions and the provision of a 2m wide parallel band visibility splay across
the site frontage.
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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Relationship to and impact upon surrounding properties.
APPRAISAL
The application site lies within the development boundary for Holt and is designated
as residential. Accordingly the subdivision of the property and the erection of an
additional dwelling at this location is acceptable in broad terms subject to the
proposed dwelling harmonising with the townscape and general character of the
area.
Although not a tandem arrangement the proposed dwelling would be set in a position
further back on the site than the existing dwelling so as no to intrude into the outlook
from the many windows in the side of the existing dwelling. As proposed, these
windows would face onto the new parking and turning area and the side wall of the
proposed cart lodge/garage which would be approximately 10m distant. The erection
of a two-storey dwelling in this location would, however, be likely to result in
overshadowing of the neighbouring property to the north and would be likely to have
an overbearing relationship.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
28 February 2008
Whilst the dwelling would comply with the minimum garden depth of 10m, the
dwelling would fall just short of the window-to-window distance under the basic
amenity criteria. However, whilst this shortfall is unfortunate, refusal on this ground
alone is considered unreasonable.
In respect of form and character, this side of Kelling Road is predominantly one of
detached properties. Whilst some dwellings are set back from the road, the proposed
dwelling would appear as a somewhat incongruous addition, by virtue of its
withdrawn position in the street scene.
In summary, whilst the principle of development in this location is considered
acceptable, the two-storey dwelling as proposed would result in significant
overshadowing of and have an overbearing relationship with No.10 Kelling Road, to
the detriment of residential amenity and contrary to the objectives of Policy 13 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
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 of the 14 September 2007 are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy 2: Small Towns
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development
In this instance it is considered that the erection of a two-storey dwelling in the
position proposed would result in significant overshadowing of and have an
overbearing relationship with No.10 Kelling Road, to the detriment of the residential
amenity of its occupiers and contrary to the objectives of Policy 13 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
8.
LITTLE SNORING - 20071317 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
20011826 to permit full residential occupancy; Dragonflies Thursford Road for
Mr and Mrs J Bowns
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Oct 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
County Wildlife Site
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20011826 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barn to holiday unit and
erection of wind turbine
Approved, 18 Dec 2003
THE APPLICATION
Removal of holiday occupancy condition attached to the original permission for the
conversion of barn to allow the present owners to continue to occupy the
accommodation as their primary dwelling.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
28 February 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous Committee meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters in support of the application from Norfolk Wildlife Trust, CPRE and the
applicants (see Appendix 5).
Letter of support from owner of nearby property (summarised):1. Despite initial concerns about the applicants' plans for conversion of the building
the scheme has proved to be entirely sympathetic as has the management of the
site.
2. Application of Council policy in this instance could infringe human rights of the
applicants.
3. Council should permit the occupation of dwellings such as this for local people.
4. Any planning permission should include stringent conditions to control future use
and development of the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
Policy 66: Agricultural and Forestry Workers' Dwelling in the Countryside (must be
essential for proper functioning of farm, acceptable in landscape terms and no other
suitable accommodation available).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy HO 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Development Control Committee (West)
23
28 February 2008
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Policy regarding the reuse of buildings in the Countryside.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the October meeting to allow Members to visit the
site and to allow the applicants the opportunity to present further information
regarding the management of the site and the marketing exercise undertaken by
them. It was deferred at the meeting on 15 November 2007 to enable consideration
of the possibility of granting a permission which might enable the applicants to
continue to occupy the premises as their permanent home for so long as they
needed but with the property reverting to holiday use thereafter.
On 18 December 2003 planning permission was granted to convert a detached barn
into a unit of holiday accommodation. Condition 2 of that permission stipulated:
"The accommodation hereby permitted shall be used for holiday purposes only and
shall not be used as the sole or main residence of the occupiers."
The conversion was subsequently completed. However during 2005 it became
apparent that the applicants were occupying the site as their primary place of
residence contrary to the terms of the planning permission. In February 2006 the
matter was reported to Committee and Members resolved to serve a Breach of
Condition Notice requiring the applicants to comply with the occupancy restriction
condition within a period of 12 months. That period would have expired on 14
February this year. However, in response to a letter from the applicants' agent
outlining difficulties that were being experienced in marketing the property, the
Committee resolved in February to extend the period for compliance by a further 6
months.
The site lies within the Countryside policy area as defined in the Local Plan. The
initial planning decision reflected the general presumption against residential
development in the countryside by restricting the use of the property to a holiday use
in accordance with Local Plan Policy 5.
The case put forward by the applicants cites the need for a permanent presence in
connection with the grazing of the 6.9ha site, the constant need to check/maintain the
wind turbine and associated electrically powered sewage treatment plant and the
continuing difficulty in finding a suitable buyer.
The advice in PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) makes clear that
planning permission should not be granted for isolated new dwellings in the
countryside without special justification. Notwithstanding that, the applicants are
citing the need for a presence on the site in connection with the management of
livestock as part of the justification for permanent occupation, it is not considered that
a convincing case has been made in this respect. Certainly it is not considered that
the applicants' occupation of the property would satisfy the functional and financial
tests that would be necessary to comply with the requirements of Local Plan Policy
66 in the case of a proposal for a new agricultural/forestry worker's dwelling in the
countryside.
It is clear from the comments submitted by Norfolk Wildlife Trust that the County
Wildlife Site is being managed in an exemplary manner by the applicants.
Nevertheless, it is not considered that the situation has materially changed since the
granting of the original permission or that there are any justifiable planning grounds
to permit a permanent residential dwelling in this remote countryside location.
Development Control Committee (West)
24
28 February 2008
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager was asked to consider the
practicalities of a personal permission as suggested by Members at the November
meeting. He concluded that it would be possible to approve the application subject to
an appropriately worded condition and that there would be no need for a Section 106
Agreement. The following condition has subsequently been agreed with the Planning
Legal and Enforcement Manager and the applicants:
'This permission shall enure solely for the benefit of the applicants, John and Priscilla
Bowns, for so long as both or either of these named persons occupy the property.
Upon the cessation of permanent occupation by both of these named persons the
property shall revert to holiday use in accordance with condition 2 of planning
permission reference 20011826 unless a further planning permission to vary or
revoke this condition has been granted by the Local Planning Authority beforehand.
The personal circumstances of the applicants are noted as is the fact that it has so
far proved impossible to find a buyer willing to take on the property with the current
occupancy restriction. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding that a personal permission
would be technically possible, the proposal clearly conflicts with Development Plan
policy and is again recommended for refusal.
If the Committee accepts the recommendation authority will be sought to pursue a
prosecution in respect of the continuing non-compliance with the Breach of Condition
Notice
RECOMMENDATION:Refusal, on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to the objectives of
Policies 5 and 29 and would result in an unrestricted dwelling in the
Countryside policy area.
9.
LITTLE SNORING - 20080047 - Erection of two-storey linked extension; Old
Chapel The Street for Mr R H Fuchs
Target Date :06 Mar 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Residential
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a two-storey linked extension to the north west of the dwelling.
The extension would be approximately 2.8m from the existing dwelling with a glazed
link at first floor, retaining vehicular access below.
The proposal would provide additional accommodation to the main dwelling including
a kitchen/living area, two bedrooms and a bathroom. The proposed extension would
measure approximately 8.21m x 5.82m and 7m to the ridge.
The materials proposed are brick, wood, flint, tiles and painted timber joinery, the
details of which are to be agreed.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
28 February 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Relationship to neighbouring properties.
2. Design.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:1. Road Safety - Concerned that the proposed extension would increase the number
of cars parking and using the access on The Street which at this point has poor
visibility.
2. Design - Objects to the development of this historical building. It believes that the
link-bridge and extension are not in keeping with the existing buildings in the village.
3. Development - Concerned that at a later date the link could be removed and the
property converted into two.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received raising the following points:1. Proposal is devoid of any aesthetic value.
2. Will impact badly on the particular character and beauty of the area.
3. Would be detrimental and at such variance with the character of the whole village.
4. Inaccurate and misleading site location plan.
5. Concerns that the extension would create a completely new dwelling house.
6. Demolition of the link would create two separate houses.
7. Contrary to advice in Design Guide.
8. The proposed extension would dominate the original character of the Old Chapel.
9. What should be a sympathetic and subservient extension is instead of a form,
height and scale which compete with the original building.
10. The roof plane to rear, rear window detail and glass link are alien features within
Norfolk villages and cannot be described as "local vernacular" features.
11. Overshadowing.
12. Would be of considerable detriment to the amenity and enjoyment of the garden
belonging to the neighbouring property to the north-west.
13. Construction and maintenance would take place on garden of neighbouring
property to north-west.
14. Would create a precedent for the construction of household extensions right up to
the boundary.
15. This would erode the existing nature and landscape of the village as present
characterised by an irregular and attractive pattern of buildings and garden land.
16. Loss of hedgerow would be detrimental to the Little Snoring local landscape.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - I would be against any proposal intensifying the
vehicular use of this site due to the restricted access and parking facilities available.
However, on the basis that the proposal is for ancillary accommodation only any
objection would be extremely difficult to sustain. Should your Authority be minded to
approve the application a condition regarding the provision of acceptable visibility
splays is required.
Furthermore, the Highways Officer has advised that following a request from a
member of the public the position of the highway boundary adjacent to the proposed
extension has been checked and that the available records indicated that no
encroachment will occur should the extension be constructed in the position indicated
on the submitted plans.
Development Control Committee (West)
26
28 February 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on neighbouring dwellings.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Little Snoring where
extensions to dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle providing they
accord with other relevant policies in the Local Plan.
Whilst the design of the extension would have a contemporary feel, the overall form,
scale and massing, in particular the ridge and eave heights, together with the gable
width, would be in keeping with the existing dwelling as would the proposed
materials.
At first floor level the glazed link would be set back from the front elevation of the
existing dwelling and proposed extension by approximately 600mm and would not
therefore be an unduly prominent feature within the street scene.
Furthermore, as the main body of the proposed extension would be detached from
the existing dwelling, it is considered that it would be subordinate to the main
dwelling, and the detached link extension would provide a physical 'break' in the
continuation of the front elevation. It is therefore considered that the design and
materials are acceptable and accord with Local Plan policy.
There would be no windows in the north-east elevation, apart from a high level port
hole window. Whilst there is a neighbouring detached two-storey dwelling to the north
west the proposed extension would be positioned forward of the neighbouring
dwelling and not directly adjacent to it. The neighbouring property has garden area to
Development Control Committee (West)
27
28 February 2008
the south east and south west, and whilst some overshadowing may occur at certain
points in the day it is considered that there is more than ample garden area to the
neighbouring dwelling for this not to have a significant detrimental impact on the
privacy and amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. The proposal is
considered to have an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties and
complies with the basic amenity criteria.
It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable and accords with
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no window or opening shall be inserted in the north-west
elevation of the extension hereby permitted unless planning permission has been first
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for
purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as The Old Chapel.
4) Prior to the bringing into use of the development hereby permitted a parallel
visibility splay shall be provided across the complete roadside frontage of the Old
Chapel. The parallel splay shall extend between both the roadside wall of the existing
Old Chapel building and the roadside wall of the proposed extension and the
nearside edge of the adjacent highway carriageway. The parallel visibility splay
created shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 1.05m in
height above the adjacent highway carriageway.
5) No development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be
used in the construction of the external walls and roof of the building have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
6) Details of the external colour finish to the joinery shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved
details.
REASONS:2) To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan, as amplified by paragraphs
3.31-3.36 of the explanatory text.
3) In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings,
in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
6) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings,
in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
Development Control Committee (West)
28
28 February 2008
10.
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
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
8 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
29
28 February 2008
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
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.
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
30
28 February 2008
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.
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
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
Development Control Committee (West)
31
28 February 2008
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
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 per cent 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 per cent 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
Development Control Committee (West)
32
28 February 2008
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.
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 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).
Development Control Committee (West)
33
28 February 2008
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 seek
further details of existing traffic movements.
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.
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.
Members will also note the emerging LDF policies, following the submission of the
Core Strategy for examination. 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 Companion Document to PPS1. 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. The existence of these representations and the fact of
the on-going examination reduce the weight afforded to the emerging LDF.
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 Control Committee (West)
34
28 February 2008
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.
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 has been asked to provide the additional information requested
by Members at the last meeting regarding existing traffic movements. At the time of
writing a response was awaited.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
11.
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20060982 - Erection of 6 dwellings (including 2
affordable units); Depot Blowlands Lane for North Norfolk District Council
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :16 Aug 2006
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Parish Boundary Consultation Area
Residential
Selected Small Village
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks redevelopment of the District Council Depot for residential
purposes. The site, which is to the rear of properties in Blowlands Lane, has an area
of some 3,293sq.m and has a number of timber and brick built buildings on it which
are used for storage purposes. In addition there is a large area for the open storage
of materials.
At this stage only the means of access is under consideration with all other matters
reserved for later consideration.
An amended plan has been received which shows an indicative layout of six
dwellings consisting of four detached properties with garages and a semi-detached
pair of dwellings, which are allocated as affordable.
In addition to the amended plan a Supplementary Site Investigation and Quantitative
Risk Assessment, has been received, together with additional information in respect
of Blowlands Lane, as requested by the Highway Authority.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
Development Control Committee (West)
35
28 February 2008
PARISH COUNCIL
(Original comments): Objects to the application due to the lack of information on the
adequacy of the infrastructure for further development in terms of the ability of
Blowlands Lane to cope with increased vehicular usage, the removal of surface water
from the site, the sewage system and utility supplies. In addition they query the
number and type of dwellings and also point out that at the time of an appeal in 2004
on an adjacent site the Inspector concluded that the proposed development would be
severely detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with the objectives of Policy 147 of
the Local Plan and national guidance in Places, Streets and Movement.
(Amended comments): Support the application; however consider that the density
should be no more than currently planned and that ideally the development should
consist of bungalows or chalets, which would blend in with the surrounding area.
They would also wish to see adequate provision for drainage of surface water off the
site and the provision of a more powerful electricity supply together with clarification
of the status of Blowlands Lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
(Original proposal): Four letters of objection have been received from local residents
which raise the following concerns:1. Blowlands Lane is a single track road unsuitable for an increase in the number of
residential properties.
2. The road is un-adopted and additional traffic would mean more frequent
maintenance - who would be responsible for its upkeep.
3. Lack of pavements and street lighting would be unsatisfactory for families with
children.
4. Previous applications for residential development served off Blowlands Lane was
refused on the basis of poor access off the B1157.
5. Road unsuitable for large delivery vehicles.
6. Development would be detrimental to the village and appearance of the wider Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
7. Would constitute a form of backland development.
8. Inadequate access for emergency services.
9. Development would place additional pressure on sewage pumping station which is
already operating at full capacity.
10. Additional dwellings would increase pressure on an already overstretched Health
Service in the area.
11. Development should be for affordable housing only.
CONSULTATIONS
Sheringham Town Council - (Original proposal) - Raises no objection subject to
improvements to the access.
(Amended proposal) - No objection.
Anglian Water - No comments received in respect of either the original or amended
proposals.
County Council (Highways) - (Original proposal) - Has requested more information
regarding the vehicular use generated by the previous use of the site.
(Amended proposal) - No objection subject to a 1m wide margin to the edge of the
roadway being delineated in a different surface material to indicate the shared
pedestrian area.
Development Control Committee (West)
36
28 February 2008
Environment Agency - (Original proposal) - Considers that the previous use of the
site could cause contamination of the controlled waters and that pollutants entering
the groundwater below the site could contaminate public drinking water supplies.
Therefore in accordance with PPS23 they object to the application until such a time
that a site investigation has been carried out.
(Amended proposal) - Remove objection subject to the additional testing, remediation
and validation being undertaken as indicated in the Supplementary Site Investigation
and Quantitative Risk Assessment and the imposition of conditions.
Environmental Health - (Original proposal) - No objection.
(Amended proposal) - Additional tests as outlined in the Supplementary Site
Investigation Report should be a condition of any approval.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to the implementation of a
programme of archaeological works.
The National Trust - Having considered the plans the Trust is satisfied that the
proposed development would not have an impact on the setting of Sheringham Park.
However the Council should take the opportunity to ensure that the development is
an exemplar of sustainable construction and good design, through the use of
appropriate materials, renewable energy systems and minimising greenhouse gas
emissions.
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
Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999)
Policy CS.5: Whole Settlement Strategies
Policy T.2: New Development (to be assessed against effect on traffic generation and
alternative modes of access. Adequate access necessary).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998):
Policy 4: Selected Small Villages (small-scale residential development should
enhance character) (development should be compatible with character).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 16: Pollution Control (aims to protect public amenity and natural habitats
against potentially polluting developments) (prevents sensitive development near to
existing polluting environments).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy 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).
Development Control Committee (West)
37
28 February 2008
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 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 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Impact on amenity of adjacent residents.
4. Affordable housing.
5. Highways implications.
5. Land contamination.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Development Control Committee
(West) on 17 August 2006 in order to await further information in respect of highway
requirements, the need for a contamination survey and provision of affordable
housing.
The site lies within the development boundary of Upper Sheringham and is shown in
the Local Plan as being in an area primarily in residential use and, as such, the
principle of residential development would comply with Development Plan policy,
subject to enhancement of the character of the village.
As far as the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is
concerned, the depot, when viewed from the east, is partially screened by two-storey
dwellings fronting Blowlands Lane, with only the roofs of the existing buildings being
visible when approaching the site along the B1157 from the Sheringham direction. To
the north and south of the site there is close-knit residential development, which acts
as a visual foil. The western boundary of the site is open to view across adjoining
fields. However from here, owing to the lie of the land and the fact that the existing
buildings are seen against the backdrop of the two-storey dwellings, the visual impact
of the site is limited. It is therefore considered, given the mix of buildings and sheds
on the site, that a well designed residential development using appropriate materials
would be an enhancement of the site. Furthermore the development is not
considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of Sheringham Park.
Whilst the design and layout do not form part of the current application the amended
plan shows an indicative layout of six dwellings consisting of four detached properties
and garages and two semi-detached properties, which are allocated as affordable
dwellings. Given the fact that the existing dwellings in Blowlands Lane have windows
facing the site the relationship of any new dwellings to the rear of these properties
would be an important consideration. However, given the rear garden depths of the
existing dwellings, which range from 10m to 16m and based on the indicative layout
as submitted, it is not considered that the proposed development would be likely to
have an adverse impact on the amenities of the existing dwellings.
Development Control Committee (West)
38
28 February 2008
The erection of six dwellings, two of which are proposed to be affordable, would
comply with Policy 58 of the Local Plan, which requires that in selected small villages
proposals for more than four dwellings may be permitted providing the excess
dwellings are for affordable housing.
As far as the adequacy of the access road and suitably of the present junction with
the B1137 is concerned, the Highway Authority has indicated that given the previous
use of the site they have no objection in principle to the scheme as amended, but
would require the access road to conform with a Type 6 Mews Area road as specified
in the Norfolk Residential Design Guide.
Following the commissioning of a site investigation to ensure that the development of
the site would not cause contamination of the controlled waters the Environment
Agency have withdrawn their previous objection, and together with the Council's
Environmental Protection Section raise no further objection, subject to the impostion
of appropriate conditions.
In summary, the site is considered to be acceptable for the type of development
proposed. The affordable housing units should be secured by way of a planning
condition to ensure that they are built. On this basis the proposal would conform with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) These reserved matters shall relate to the siting, design, external appearance and
landscaping of the proposed development and this condition shall apply
notwithstanding any indication as to these matters which have been given in the
current application.
3) This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans received by the
Local Planning Authority on 7 January 2008, unless otherwise first agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
4) Two of the six dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied solely as affordable
housing to meet local needs in accordance with details which have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation.
Thereafter the two dwellings shall be occupied in accordance with the approved
details.
5) The two affordable units hereby permitted shall be constructed and made available
for occupation in accordance with the requirements of condition 4 above prior to any
of the four market houses hereby permitted being occupied.
6) The reserved matters submitted pursuant to this outline permission shall provide
for Type 6 Mews Area road type, as specified in the Norfolk Residential Design
Guide, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the
Highway Authority.
7) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details (in
the form of scaled plans and/or written specifications) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority to illustrate the following:
Access arrangements.
Parking provision in accordance with adopted standard.
8) Prior to the commencement of development, an investigation and assessment into
the presence of possible contaminants affecting the site shall be carried out in
accordance with details which shall have first been agreed in consultation with the
Local Planning Authority. The findings of the assessment shall then be submitted to
Development Control Committee (West)
39
28 February 2008
the Local Planning Authority in writing. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place on those areas of the site
which have been identified as potentially containing contaminants until a scheme to
protect the exposure of future users of the site from hazards associated with the
contaminants has firstly been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and
secondly implemented in full.
REASONS:2) The application is submitted in outline form only and the details required are
pursuant to the provisions of Article 3(1) to the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) Order 1995.
3) To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) Upper Sheringham is a selected small village within which development proposals
for more than four dwellings may be permitted provided that all the excess dwellings
are for affordable housing, in accordance with the requirements of Policy 58 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan. The condition is therefore required to ensure
compliance with the above policy.
5) To ensure that the affordable units are constructed and occupied in accordance
with Policy 58 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
6) To ensure the safe access to and within the development, and provision for
pedestrians and cyclists, in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North Norfolk
Local Plan.
7) To ensure that the development is as sustainable as possible, and in accordance
with Policy 147 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
8) In the interests of public health and safety, and in accordance with Policy 16 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
12.
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20071934 - Erection of garage and alterations to
access; Blowlands Sheringham Road for Mr A Buckingham
Target Date :05 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Selected Small Village
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a detached single garage and alterations to the access.
The garage would be located in the front garden approximately 3m from the southern
corner of the existing dwelling. The garage measures approximately 2.5m x 5m and
3m to the ridge.
The access would be repositioned to a more central position on the site.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to carry
out a site visit.
Development Control Committee (West)
40
28 February 2008
PARISH COUNCIL
Support the application with the following conditions:1. That the garage is moved back to the front building line of the bungalow.
2. The painting be toned down so as to blend in with the surrounding area.
3. All relevant County Council highway specifications are met in full with regard to the
access to the property.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising the following
points:
1. The proposed garage is forward of the existing Blowlands building line.
2. Most garages to properties in the village are to the side or set back from the
building line.
3. There are several sites for the garage which will not encroach on the building line.
4. The ground level of the neighbour’s garden is higher than the site, close
excavation will mean the soil will collapse unless a retaining wall is built.
5. If the hedge is removed would want to see replaced with a close boarded fence to
match existing fencing at Blowlands.
6. A painted and rendered finish is out of keeping with the properties on either side
and with the village properties in general.
CONSULTATIONS
Sheringham Town Council - No objection.
County Council (Highways) - No objection to the granting of permission subject to the
access being constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council residential
access construction specification and the satisfactory re-instatement of the kerbing
adjoining the carriageway edge. In addition the frontage fencing indicated on the
proposals plan should not encroach onto highway land, and conditions regarding the
existing access being permanently closed, access and parking in accordance with
approved plans, submission of a scheme regarding adequate drainage measures.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 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).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
Development Control Committee (West)
41
28 February 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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Visual Impact.
2. Impact on Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. 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 Upper Sheringham where
there is a mixture of bungalows and houses.
There are no other neighbouring dwellings along this road which have garages
located to the front the properties. However, the garage would be set back into the
site in close proximity to the dwelling and due to its siting, small scale and hipped
roof it is not considered that it would be unduly prominent. It is therefore considered
that the proposed garage would have minimal visual impact upon the area and would
preserve the character of the Conservation Area.
Furthermore, it is considered that the relationship with the neighbouring dwelling to
the south would be acceptable due to the difference in ground levels, hedging to the
boundary and the hipped roof. It is not considered that the proposal would have a
significant detrimental impact on the privacy or amenities of the neighbouring
property.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the
garage or access alterations subject to the imposition of conditions. It is not therefore
considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on highway
safety.
It is considered that the garage and access alterations are acceptable and that the
proposal accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) No development shall be commenced until a sample of the proposed roof material
and external colour finish of the render to the proposed garage has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
completed in accordance with the approved details.
3) Within three months of the date of any permission being granted the vehicular
access shall be constructed in accordance with the Norfolk County Council
residential access construction specification for the first 4.5m into the site as
measured back from the near edge of the adjacent carriageway.
Development Control Committee (West)
42
28 February 2008
4) Vehicular access to and egress from the adjoining highway shall be limited to the
access shown on the submitted location plan only. The existing means of access to
the site shall be permanently closed and the highway verge shall be reinstated in
accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority, concurrently with the bringing into use of the
new access.
5) Within three months of the date of any permission being granted the proposed
access and on-site parking area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled and surfaced
in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for that
specific use.
6) The access hereby permitted shall be constructed with drainage measures to
prevent surface water run-off onto the adjacent public highway, in accordance with a
detailed scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
REASONS:2) In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily
with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk
Local Plan.
3) To ensure satisfactory access into the site, in accordance with Policy 147 of the
adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
5) To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted North
Norfolk Local Plan.
6) To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with Policy 147 of the adopted
North Norfolk Local Plan.
13.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at the next meeting.
As these applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make their representations at the next meeting of the Committee when the
applications are discussed.
WALSINGHAM – 20080050 – Change of use and conversion from
hostel/café/chapel to C1 (Religious Retreat), including construction of covered
walkway, new shopfront, additional dormer windows, Bell Cotte and
fenestrational changes; 47, 47A and 49 High Street, Walsingham for Mr P Hoye
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,
Walsingham for Mr P Hoye
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
It has been requested by Councillor T Moore that an early site visit is carried out by
the Committee on the above planning and listed building consent applications in view
of car parking issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
43
28 February 2008
WIGHTON – 20080021 – Erection of water treatment buildings; Wighton WTW
Wells Road for Anglian Water Services Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
It has been requested by Councillor T Moore that an early site visit is carried out by
the Committee on the above planning application in view of potential impact on the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to undertake site visits in the above cases.
14.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - 20071912 - Erection of two-storey extension; Spurrells
Pightle Long Lane for Mr and Mrs R Harrod
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20071473 - Erection of two-storey side extension, singlestorey rear extension and detached double garage; North Lodge Church Close
West Runton for Mr and Mrs Hill
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20071480 - Erection of single-storey extension to day and
business centre; Hill Top Sheringwood for Hilltop Outdoor Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - 20071904 - Erection of first floor rear extension and re-siting
of garage; The White House Church Close West Runton for Mr and Mrs D H
Adamson
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - 20071951 - Conversion of cartshed to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Westgate Farm 91 Warham Road for Ms J Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071858 - Revoke condition 3 of planning permission 821431 to
enable use of premises for purposes within Use Class A2 by any person or
persons; 91 High Street for Mr M Sowerby
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071961 - Erection of bin store with balcony above and
installation of replacement windows; Counting House Mariners Hill for Mr and
Mrs S Lambert
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BRINTON - 20071994 - Retention of blocked-up entrance door; Daubeney Hall
Farm Lower Hall Lane Sharrington for Mr M Burkitt
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071433 - Erection of first floor rear extension with
windowless 'dormers' to provide accommodation in roofspace; Lime Tree
House High Street for Mr L Kingsbury
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
44
28 February 2008
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20072000 - Erection of two-storey extension; Swan
Lodge Cley Road Holt for Mr and Mrs T Ambler
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20071847 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (revised siting);
Horseshoe Corner The Street for Ms D Lawrence
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071980 - Construction of dormer windows to front roofslope
(amendment to design of dwelling approved under planning permission
reference 20070305); plot 6 Gladstone Road for Mr and Mrs T C Cox
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071199 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide
residential annexe; Apple Tree Cottage 143a Holt Road for Mr J Punchard
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20071750 - Change of use of barn from agricultural to B8
(storage); Clipstone Farm Clipstone for Ralph Harrison Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20071887 - Retention of swimming pool enclosure, boundary
wall and garden shed; Big Barn Old Hall Farm The Street Barney for Mr R
Armstrong
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20071888 - Retention of boundary wall; Big Barn Old Hall
Farm The Street Barney for Mr R Armstrong
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FULMODESTON - 20071940 - Erection of two-storey extension and garden
room; Old Vicarage 97 The Street Barney for Brigadier and Mrs Heywood
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - 20071943 - Removal of window and installation of door; 7
The Sheltons Barsham Road for Mr and Mrs A Sparshott
(Alteration to Listed Building)
GREAT SNORING - 20071984 - Erection of conservatory; Coldblow House New
Road for J A Cones and R G Hulbert
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20071986 - Erection of three-bay cart shed; The Croft Bridge
Road for Mr K A Philpott
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20080002 - Erection of detached timber garden building;
Bridge House Bridge Road for Mr and Mrs M Youngman
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - 20071654 - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of
building as two bedroom residential dwelling; Birds Farm Cottage Walsingham
Road for Mr and Mrs Hunt
(Certificate of Lawfulness)
Development Control Committee (West)
45
28 February 2008
HOLKHAM - 20071960 - Construction of ha ha wall; Model Farm Model Farm
Road for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071528 - Erection of four detached single-storey dwellings; Orchard
Piece 8 Kelling Road for Character Homes Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071765 - Installation of replacement windows and staircase, blocking
of doorway and internal alterations; 11 Pearsons Road for C P D Limited
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20071956 - Erection of first floor side extension; Reepers Cottage Cley
Road for Mr and Mrs B Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071969 - Erection of single-storey extension; 3 Cherry Tree Close for
Mr and Mrs Stickler
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - 20071999 - Construction of two dormer windows; Beach Cottage
Meadow Lane for R Barrow and C Rawlings
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - 20071424 - Conversion of gallery to dwelling; The Old Barn 45
The Street for Mr N Curtis
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - 20071425 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
dwelling; The Old Barn 45 The Street for Mr N Curtis
(Alteration to Listed Building)
LETHERINGSETT - 20071836 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 6
Riverside Road for Ms Rose and Mr Hinks
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT - 20071837 - Demolition of conservatory and erection of
single-storey rear extension; 6 Riverside Road for Ms Rose and Mr Hinks
(Alteration to Listed Building)
SHERINGHAM - 20071831 - Demolition of hall and erection of five three-storey
terraced dwellings; 8-12 Waterbank Road for A G Brown (Builders) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071835 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Crown
Inn East Cliff for Enterprise Inns
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071947 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling; land at
Campion Way for Mr and Mrs A Lethbridge
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071954 - Erection of single-storey extension, dormer window
and car port (revised roof design); 21 De Morley Garth for Mr and Mrs J
Leonard
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
46
28 February 2008
STIFFKEY - 20071965 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; North side
Bungalow 84 Wells Road for Mr J Griffin
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - 20071845 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey rear extensions;
Castle Hill Cottage The Green Hunworth for Ms J Marriott
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20071859 - Conversion of garage to flat; 34 Mount Pleasant for
Mr S Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - 20071950 - Installation of rear rooflight; 5 Windmill Farm
Folgate Lane for Ms F Pitcher
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071898 - Change of use from A1 (retail)/residential
to residential; 8 High Street for Mr and Mrs K Sisman
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071899 - Internal alterations; 8 High Street for Mr
and Mrs K Sisman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071952 - Erection of single-storey extension;
Glenshee Burnt Street for Mr and Mrs P B Wyer
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071973 - Erection of garden room and workshop;
Belmont Cottage Burnt Street for Mrc C Abel
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071974 - Erection of garden room and workshop;
Belmont Cottage Burnt Street for Mrs C Abel
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WOOD NORTON - 20071918 - Erection of two-storey rear extension, singlestorey front extension and detached garage; 2 Church Road for Mr and Mrs R
Wellard
(Full Planning Permission)
15.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - 20071857 - Installation of two replacement windows to front
elevation; 112 High Street for Mrs A Haskins
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BLAKENEY - 20071997 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Morgan Cottage
97 High Street for Mrs L Chapman
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071998 - Demolition of single-storey rear extension and
erection of two-storey rear extension and internal alterations; Morgan Cottage
97 High Street for Mrs L Chapman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
Development Control Committee (West)
47
28 February 2008
BRISTON - 20071468 - Retention of storage shed; Emery Wood Craymere Road
for Ms P Rowan
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071866 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage; plot
adjacent 10 Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20071959 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 11-13
Barney Road for Mr and Mrs M Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - 20071921 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage; Old
House Grouts Lane for Mr and Mrs Lockyer
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071944 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached
garage; 1 Blyth Crescent for Kelling Construction Company
(Outline Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
16.
NEW APPEALS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070910 - Change of use to single-storey dwelling;
The Store Post Office Lane for Mr A W Simmons
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
FAKENHAM (SOUTH WARD) - 20071585 - Display of internally illuminated
totem advertisement; former Rainbow Superstore Holt Road for Lidl UK Gmbh
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
HINDOLVESTON - 20070789 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
Homely Acre 61 The Street for Mr and Mrs D Self
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
RYBURGH (GREAT WARD) - 20071062 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and
garage; land south of 91 Fakenham Road for Mr M Davenport
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
17.
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 - 20061674 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The
Garages The Fairstead for Mr and Mrs S W Tart
INFORMAL HEARING 22 Jan 2008
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070134 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The
Garages The Fairstead for Mr and Mrs S W Tart
INFORMAL HEARING 22 Jan 2008
Development Control Committee (West)
48
28 February 2008
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070922 - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
annexe; Umgeni Coast Road for Lady Rathcavan
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SHERINGHAM (NORTH WARD) - 20030991 - Demolition of buildings, including
dwellings, and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car
parking, servicing and landscaping; land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores
Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
SHERINGHAM (NORTH WARD) - 20070217 - Demolition of buildings, including
dwellings, and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car
parking & servicing and provision of footpath link to station road; land at
Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
18.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
EDGEFIELD - 20070871 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Green Farm
Norwich Road for Mr D Sands
SITE VISIT :- 25 Feb 2008
19.
APPEAL DECISIONS
MATLASKE - 20061840 - Conversion of former forge to ancillary residential
accommodation; The Forge The Street for Mr and Mrs Kokelaar
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
STIBBARD - 20070195 - Demolition of conservatory and garage and erection of
replacement extension; Moor End House Moor End Road for Mr and Mrs
Pierce-Roberts
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
20.
SHERINGHAM CONSERVATION
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
AREA:
CHARACTER
APPRAISAL
AND
Agreement is sought for the draft Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Proposals for Sheringham to be approved for public consultation
purposes.
1
Background
1.1
Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plans
Conservation areas are designated under the provision of Section 69 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A conservation area is defined
as ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of
which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’.
Development Control Committee (West)
49
28 February 2008
Section 71 of the same Act requires local planning authorities to formulate and
publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of these conservation
areas. Section 72 also specifies that, in making a decision on an application for
development within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
The Government’s Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 219 measures the
number of conservation areas in a district with an up-to-date character appraisal.
In response to these statutory requirements, this appraisal document defines and
records the special architectural and historic interest of the conservation area and
identifies opportunities for enhancement. The appraisal conforms to English Heritage
guidance as set out in Guidance on conservation area appraisals (February 2006)
and Guidance on the management of conservation areas (February 2006).
Additional government guidance regarding the management of historic buildings and
conservation areas is set out within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and
the Historic Environment (PPG15). Government advice on archaeology is set out in
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology (PPG16).
1.2
Purpose
This document therefore seeks to:
•
Define the special interest of the conservation area and identify the issues which
threaten the special qualities of the conservation area (Part 1: Character
Appraisal)
•
Provide guidelines to prevent erosion of character and achieve enhancement
(Part 2: Management Proposals).
Note: A copy of the draft Sheringham Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan is available for inspection in the Members Room.
2
Assessment of the Sheringham Conservation Area
The format of the appraisal includes the planning policy context, a summary and
assessment of the area’s special interest including location and setting, historic
development and archaeology, layout and planform, architectural and townscape
character, spatial analysis and key views, character analysis including the qualities of
buildings, prevailing uses and the contribution of green spaces and suggested
boundary changes. However, it must be noted that no character appraisal can ever
be completely comprehensive and omission of any particular building, feature or
space should not be taken to imply that it is of no interest.
The central part of Sheringham was designated a conservation area by North Norfolk
District Council on 16 June 1975. This includes the seafront and historic core of the
town, residential streets to the east as far as The Driftway, two of the main
commercial streets, High Street and Church Street, and the adjoining St Peter’s
Road and Waterbank Road. The central part of the conservation area extends inland
as far as Co-operative Street, with a narrow projection to the south-east, along the
line of Beeston Road.
Development Control Committee (West)
50
28 February 2008
Following a request from the Town Council in 1995, the conservation area was
extended to include Station Approach, the only remaining commercial road until then
left outside the area, together with the late 19th - early 20th century development
around the Boulevard to the west, and part of the Esplanade. To the east, parts of
Cliff Road and The Avenue were also incorporated. This helped provide some
protection for prominent buildings such as the Burlington Hotel, the railway station
and the Town Council offices.
In 1999, the District Council commissioned a report on the conservation area, which
concluded that the area had suffered serious erosion of character, and that
consideration should be given to removing conservation area status. The only part of
the town which might, it was argued, benefit from being a Conservation Area were
the streets between Church Street and Station Approach. The recommendations of
the report were not adopted, and in October 2006, as part of a national governmentled reappraisal of conservation areas, the present report was commissioned. It
concludes the following key characteristics and key issues:
Key characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The role of the sea and the fishing industry in determining the town’s pattern of
development.
Substantial late 19th - 20th century development as a result of the town’s role as a
holiday resort.
Conservation area bordered on the south side by the A149 coast road and later
suburban development.
Landscape setting: raised ground each side of the town - Skelding Hill and
Beeston Hill.
An historic core centred around the seafront, including High St, Beach Rd and
Wyndham Street.
The main commercial streets, High Street and Station Road running in a linear
north-south direction dividing the conservation area.
Residential areas comprising mostly small to medium sized terraced houses on
the east and west sides of the conservation area.
Late Victorian/Edwardian “garden suburb” around the Boulevard on the west
side.
Strong tradition of building in brick and flint cobbles, continuing to the end of the
19th century.
Key issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need to review the Conservation Area boundary.
Negative impact of traffic and parked cars within the town centre, including road
markings.
Indifferent quality of street furniture.
Need to improve public parks, open spaces and gardens.
Poor appearance of Promenade.
Permitted development resulting in the loss of architectural detail and boundary
treatments. Permitted but detrimental alterations and extensions.
Poor quality of design for new developments.
Unattractive entranceway into Station Road from the A149.
Need to adopt a list of Buildings of Local Interest
Development Control Committee (West)
51
28 February 2008
Management Proposals
•
•
•
•
•
Review of the Conservation Area boundary
Encourage enhancement in the public realm as identified
Protect identified areas through Article 4(2) directions
Adopt a list of Buildings of Local Interest
Engage with other agencies to minimise negative impact of traffic and parked
cars
3
Conclusion
Its landscape setting on the clifftop between Skelding Hill and Beeston Hill, the high
quality Victorian and Edwardian residential developments, its historic importance as a
fishing and sea trade village and a 19th and 20th century holiday resort all give the
Sheringham Conservation Area a distinct character. To preserve and enhance this
special character is the main aim of the character appraisal and management
proposals.
4
Timetable for public consultation and formal adoption
The six weeks public consultation period will be carried out during May and June
2008. This will include a public exhibition, meeting and distribution of leaflets to all
addresses in the Sheringham Conservation Area. It is anticipated that an amended
document will be brought to Committee for final adoption in autumn 2008.
5
Recommendations
•
That the Draft Character Appraisal and Management Plan incorporating proposed
boundary changes and Article 4(2) directions outlined in the body of this report be
approved for public consultation purposes.
•
That following consultation, the amended Sheringham Conservation Area
Character Appraisal and Management Proposals be brought back before
Committee for final adoption.
6
Budgetary Implications
There are no budgetary implications at this stage. Adoption of some of the
Management Proposals may have financial implications and these will be assessed
as part of the adoption report to be prepared for the Committee following the public
consultation period.
Source: (Franziska Callaghan, Extn 6367 – File Reference: Sheringham Committee report
pre-consultation)
Development Control Committee (West)
52
28 February 2008
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
21.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA CONSERVATION AREA: CHARACTER APPRAISAL
AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
Agreement is sought for the draft Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Proposals for Wells to be approved for public consultation purposes.
1
Background
1.1
Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plans
Conservation areas are designated under the provision of Section 69 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A conservation area is defined
as ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of
which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’.
Section 71 of the same Act requires local planning authorities to formulate and
publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of these conservation
areas. Section 72 also specifies that, in making a decision on an application for
development within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
The Government’s Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 219 measures the
number of conservation areas in a district with an up-to-date character appraisal.
In response to these statutory requirements, this appraisal document defines and
records the special architectural and historic interest of the conservation area and
identifies opportunities for enhancement. The appraisal conforms to English Heritage
guidance as set out in Guidance on conservation area appraisals (February 2006)
and Guidance on the management of conservation areas (February 2006).
Additional government guidance regarding the management of historic buildings and
conservation areas is set out within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and
the Historic Environment (PPG15). Government advice on archaeology is set out in
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology (PPG16).
1.2
Purpose
This document therefore seeks to:
•
Define the special interest of the conservation area and identify the issues which
threaten the special qualities of the conservation area (Part 1: Character
Appraisal)
•
Provide guidelines to prevent erosion of character and achieve enhancement
(Part 2: Management Proposals).
Note:
A copy of the draft Wells Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan is available for inspection in the Members Room.
2
Assessment of the Wells Conservation Area
The format of the appraisal includes the planning policy context, a summary and
assessment of the area’s special interest including location and setting, historic
development and archaeology, layout and planform, architectural and townscape
Development Control Committee (West)
53
28 February 2008
character, spatial analysis and key views, character analysis including the qualities of
buildings, prevailing uses and the contribution of green spaces and suggested
boundary changes. However, it must be noted that no character appraisal can ever
be completely comprehensive and omission of any particular building, feature or
space should not be taken to imply that it is of no interest.
The Wells Conservation Area was designated by North Norfolk District Council on 6
June 1974. Wells-next-the-Sea has developed around its harbour and the beauty of
its natural setting, with wide views of the marshes, sandbanks and creeks, strongly
influences how the town is experienced by the visitor and resident alike. Its history as
an important port has left an industrial flavour to some of its buildings around the
Quay which is unusual in the county. The movements of the tides, boats, skies, and
wildlife as well as the crowds of visitors in the summer create a lively dynamic in this
part of the town. In contrast, behind the Quay, a quieter country town has developed,
characterised by enclosed spaces, and narrow alleyways. The town has 186 listed
building entries (several of these individual entries include a number of buildings, so
that the total number is significantly more) and a number of other buildings of local
architectural or historical significance.
Key characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The setting of the conservation area bordering the outstanding natural landscape
of the creek and marshes
The Quay and Yards as a key feature of the conservation area in terms of plan
form and activity, contrasting with the quiet rural market town behind
The unusually high retention of historic shop fronts along Staithe Street and the
High Street
The separate character area of the Buttlands in terms of form and architectural
style
Great diversity of building types, dates and architectural styles throughout the
residential areas
Extensive network of alleyways and yards, and high boundary walls formed from
flint and brick, creating confined, enclosed spaces
The Old Staithe as a remnant of the original centre of the settlement
The predominance of Holm Oaks.
Key issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Permitted development resulting in loss of architectural details, boundary
treatment and detrimental alterations and extensions
Unsympathetic alterations to listed buildings
Lack of coordination and maintenance of the ‘public realm’
Poor ground surface treatment in the public realm
Lack of traffic management and car parking
Siting and design of new development
Inappropriate 20th century infill
Deterioration of upper floors above shops on Staithe Street
Need to adopt a list of Buildings of Local Interest
Need for a survey to update the list of buildings of special architectural or historic
interest
Need to review the conservation area boundary
Development Control Committee (West)
54
28 February 2008
Management proposals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Review of the conservation area boundary
Commission Survey to update the list of buildings of special architectural or
historic interest
Adopt a list of Buildings of Local Interest
Protect identified areas through Article 4(2) directions
Engage with other agencies to promote the management of traffic and car
parking problems
Encourage enhancement in the public realm as identified
3
Conclusion
The many historic buildings of interest, the beauty of the conservation area’s natural
setting and the harbour, the vibrant Quay area with its large scale industrial buildings
and harbour area, and the quieter rural market town area which forms its hinterland,
all give the Wells Conservation Area a distinct character. To preserve and enhance
this special character is the main aim of the character appraisal and management
proposals.
4
Timetable for public consultation and formal adoption
The six weeks public consultation period will be carried out during May and June
2008. This will include a public exhibition, meeting and distribution of leaflets to all
addresses in the Wells Conservation Area. It is anticipated that an amended
document will be brought to Committee for final adoption in autumn 2008.
5
Recommendations
•
That the Draft Character Appraisal and Management Plan incorporating proposed
boundary changes and Article 4(2) directions outlined in the body of this report be
approved for public consultation purposes.
•
That following consultation, the amended Wells Conservation Area Character
Appraisal and Management Proposals be brought back before Committee for
final adoption.
6
Budgetary Implications
There are no budgetary implications at this stage. Adoption of some of the
Management Proposals may have financial implications and these will be assessed
as part of the adoption report to be prepared for the Committee following the public
consultation period.
Source: (Franziska Callaghan, Extn 6367 – File Reference: Wells Committee report preconsultation)
Development Control Committee (West)
55
28 February 2008