OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 30 APRIL 2009
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
UPPER SHERINGHAM – 20071615 – Conversion of Former Public House to
Two Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey
Dwelling; Former Red Lion Public House, The Street Upper Sheringham for
John Ashton’s Children’s Settlement
Re-consideration of an undetermined planning application following a request by the
applicant to approve the development without the need to sign a Section 106
Obligation.
Background
Committee may recall that this application was last considered on 31 January 2008
when it was resolved to approve the application subject to the applicant agreeing to
sign a Section 106 Obligation. That Obligation was considered necessary in order:
1. To ensure that no works are commenced on the conversion of the public
house to two dwellings until a contract for Usher’s Barn is let.
2. To prevent occupation of the detached dwelling at the rear until a contract for
Usher’s Barn is let.
3. To prevent occupation of the two units in the former public house until the
works to Usher’s Barn have been substantially completed in accordance with
planning permission 01 20070735 PF and the replacement public house and
ancillary development is in operation.
Copies of the previous Committee report and minutes are attached at Appendix 1.
The applicants have now advised the Local Planning Authority that they are unable to
agree to sign the Section 106 Obligation and have requested that the application be
approved without the need to sign it.
The reasons put forward by the applicant for not entering into the Obligation are
attached at Appendix 1.
In summary the applicants have stated that:
1. They have been unable to find a tenant to take on the lease for the new
Ushers Barn development approved under application reference 20070735.
2. The associated costs of converting Ushers Barn in accordance with the
approved plans have been estimated as being high and the applicant
considers that it would be reckless to develop the barns before someone is
found to take on the lease.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
30 April 2009
3. The applicant considers that preventing the conversion of the former Red Lion
to dwellings and erection of the new dwelling in accordance with the timescale
specified in the Section 106 Obligation would be unfair and the current
appearance of the former pub is detracting from the character and
appearance of the village, which is located within the Conservation Area and
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. The former Red Lion will never re-open due to inadequate toilet and kitchen
facilities.
Key Issues
The key issue in this case are
1. Whether approval of the application without the Section 106 Obligation would
comply with Development Plan Policies.
2. If the approval of the application without the Obligation would not comply with
Development Plan Policies, are there any material considerations to warrant a
departure from policy?
Appraisal
Development Plan Policy
Since the resolution to approve was made on 31 January 2008, the former saved
North Norfolk Local Plan, under which the proposal was previously assessed, has
been superseded by the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. However, the
Committee also needs to consider the resolution made by the Cabinet on 2 June
2008 regarding the determination of planning applications “on-hand” on receipt of the
final binding report in respect of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Given that the proposal relates to an important local facility, Core Strategy Policy CT
3 – Provision and Retention of Important Local Facilities and Services - would apply,
the thrust of this new policy being broadly similar to Polices 86 and 87 of the former
Saved North Norfolk Local Plan. For ease of reference the appropriate text from
Policy CT 3 is attached below. The key tests within this policy are:
Development proposals that would result in the loss of sites or premises currently or
last used for, important local facilities and services will not be permitted unless:
•
•
alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available in the area or
will be provided and made available prior to commencement of
redevelopment; or
it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and if it is a commercial operation, that a viability test has
demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts
have been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at
least 12 months.
In respect of the first test, whilst the applicants are proposing to build a new public
house/restaurant within Ushers Barn, the timing of its provision required under Policy
CT3 would be similar to the requirements of the proposed Section 106 Obligation,
which the applicants have already stated they are unwilling to sign. As such, it is
considered unlikely that the applicant could comply with this test.
In respect of the second test, the applicants have clearly stated that the Red Lion will
not re-open due to inadequate toilet and kitchen facilities to be able to comply with
the requirements of Environmental Health. The applicants have also stated that the
public house was operating at a loss before it closed and only remained open
Development Control Committee (West)
2
30 April 2009
because of support from the John Ashton Children’s Settlement. The applicant has
been asked for copies of the last year’s trading accounts to substantiate their claim
that the Red Lion pub was unviable. However, with regard to selling or letting the pub
at a realistic period for at least twelve months, the applicants have not fulfilled these
requirements and have stated that they are unwilling to sell. As such, approval of the
application, as requested by the applicant, would be contrary to the requirements of
Policy CT3.
Material Considerations
It is a matter for the Committee to apportion the weight to be attached to any material
considerations. The applicants have put forward their case but there are a number of
unanswered questions relating to the Ushers Barn development and what guarantees
there are, if Committee approve this application without the Section 106 Obligation,
that it will be developed into a public house.
In summary, whilst approval of the application would be contrary to Development
Plan Policy, the applicant has put forward a number of material considerations, in
respect of which further clarification has been sought to identify whether these are
sufficient to outweigh adopted policy. Committee will be updated orally.
RECOMMENDATION:Committee will be updated orally
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 – File Reference 20071615)
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.
BINHAM - 20081110 - Variation of condition 8 of planning permission 20060688
to allow two pieces of plant to be stored on the wash-down facility at any time;
Manor Farm Field Dalling Road for Tracked Dumper Hire UK
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20081111 and 20090145 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20021871 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of land to haulage depot
Refused, 27 Feb 2003
20030917 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use of
land and buildings as agricultural and plant hire depot
Refused, 30 Sep 2003
Development Control Committee (West)
3
30 April 2009
20040341 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use of
land and farm buildings for agricultural and storage and distribution use
Approved, 11 Jun 2004
20060688 - (Full Planning Permission) - Retention of wash-down facility and diesel
tank
Approved, 29 Feb 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to vary condition 6 of planning permission 20060688 to allow two pieces of
plant to be stored on the wash-down facility at any time.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects - The reason for the condition being imposed originally was a good one
because the storage of vehicles on the wash-down facility is visually intrusive in this
conservation area. The current Certificate of Lawful Use only permits a maximum of
six hire vehicles on the whole of the Manor Farm site and therefore there should be
no pressure on storage space, and no need to store them in a visually intrusive way.
The proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area and should
be refused.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:
1. Object to the creeping light industrial use of Manor Farm which lies within a
Conservation Area.
2. In our view the original decision to allow the use of the yard for two low loaders
and a few machines for washing was already an unreasonable breach of the spirit of
the Conservation Area.
3. The use of the site is incompatible with the status and character of the village.
4. Concerned about the visual impact in the Conservation Area.
5. Noise/light.
6. Mud and water on the roads.
Supporting statement from applicant attached at Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
wash down facility is now screened by the new boundary wall. Hence the two
proposed pieces of plant would only be briefly readily visible when approaching the
site from the centre of the village. Against the backdrop of the existing buildings, two
additional lorries or dumper trucks could not be said to materially harm the character
or appearance of this part of Binham's Conservation Area.
County Council (Highways) - Request that the applicant submits figures indicating
how many vehicle movements associated with this proposal would take place outside
the agreed operation hours. Further comments will be provided when these figures
are received.
Subsequently confirmed that there are no highway objections to this application.
Environmental Health - No objections.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
30 April 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 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).
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
The principle of the use of land and farm buildings for agricultural and storage and
distribution use at Manor Farm was established on 11 June 2004 through the issuing
of a Certificate of Lawfulness.
Permission to retain a wash-down facility was granted on 29 February 2008 under
application 20060688. Condition 6 of that permission restricted the hours of use of
the wash-down facility to 8am-6pm on weekdays and 8am-1pm on Saturdays, with
no use on Sundays or Bank or Public holidays. Condition 8 of that permission stated
that unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no vehicle
should be parked or stored on the wash-down facility outside the hours of use
permitted by Condition 6 above. The reason for the condition was that the site is
located in the Conservation Area of Binham and the parking and storage of
commercial vehicles on the wash-down area outside permitted hours would be
harmful to the visual appearance of the area and would thus fail to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, as required by
Policy 42 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
30 April 2009
The applicant is seeking to vary Condition 8 of 20060688 to allow two pieces of plant
to be stored on the wash-down facility at any time.
In terms of visual impact, following the completion of the brick and flint wall along the
southern and eastern boundaries of the wash-down area, views of tracked dump hire
plant are limited, with virtually no views possible from the Field Dalling direction, save
for views of the tops of trailers when they are raised. The only direction from which
the plant would be visible is when leaving Binham heading in the Field Dalling
direction.
Whilst there was concern about the visual impact of plant on the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area when determining application 20060688,
hence the inclusion of condition 8 in the decision notice, the wall, as now built, acts
as a significant screen. It is considered that two additional pieces of plant could not
be said to harm materially this part of Binham's Conservation Area, thus preserving
its character and appearance.
In respect of the impact on the amenity of adjacent residents, it is not considered that
the proposal would be significantly detrimental if the site is operated in accordance
with the conditions imposed on permission 20060688 and provided that the use of
the site accords with that approved by the Certificate of Lawfulness.
In respect of highway safety implications, the Highway Authority has raised no
objection.
The development is therefore considered to comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
BINHAM - 20081111 - Use of land for storage of no more than ten items of
tracked dumper hire plant; Manor Farm Field Dalling Road for Tracked Dumper
Hire UK
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :18 Sep 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20081110 above and 20090145 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20021871 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of land to haulage depot
Refused, 27 Feb 2003
20030917 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use of
land and buildings as agricultural and plant hire depot
Refused, 30 Sep 2003
Development Control Committee (West)
6
30 April 2009
20040341 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use of
land and farm buildings for agricultural and storage and distribution use
Approved, 11 Jun 2004
20060688 - (Full Planning Permission) - Retention of wash-down facility and diesel
tank
Approved, 29 Feb 2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the use of land (as indicated by the Certificate of Lawfulness application
20040341) for storage of no more than ten items of tracked dumper hire plant
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects - The Council has a statutory duty to protect Conservation Areas and not to
allow development that does not preserve or enhance that area, which is a key
objective within the new LDF Core Strategy (Policy EN 8). This proposal would
neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area. The quality of the area has
depreciated whilst the Tracked Dumper Hire has been in operation and a further
escalation in activity would only make things worse. The moving of the large pieces
of equipment is dangerous and detrimental to highway safety in the local area where
the roads are narrow and not designed for this type of traffic. The proposal should be
refused.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection have been received. Summary of comments:
1. Object to the creeping light industrial use of Manor Farm which lies within a
Conservation Area.
2. The site has rapidly developed solely from use as an arable farm into a substantial
plant hire haulage and servicing depot which by the applicants own website admits
developed from 1 seven tonne tracked dumper in 2000 to a fleet of over 80 self-drive
vehicles today with carrying capacities of 1.5 to 22 tonnes.
3. The use of the site is incompatible with the status and character of the village.
4. The operators consistently exceed the permitted numbers of plant on site.
5. There have been at least 15 enforcement investigations carried out by North
Norfolk District Council into persistent breaches.
6. We feel there is a distinct lack of undertaking and commitment to tackle the
problems associated with this site.
7. The moving of the large pieces of equipment is dangerous and detrimental to
highway safety in the local area where the roads are narrow and not designed for this
type of traffic and are deteriorating rapidly as a result.
8. Increased activities will result in increased noise disturbance to local residents.
9. A proposal to turn the farm into a haulage depot was refused in 2003 and we can
see no substantive change in policy to allow a different decision.
10. The Tracked Dumper Hire business is detrimental to the valuable tourism sector
within Binham and people are put off by the business, which is out of character with
the area.
11. The site is a danger to local road users and there are no wider community
benefits to the people of Binham through further expansion.
12. Mud on the roads.
13. Increased pollution in noise and light.
14. Does comply with spirit of original Certificate of Lawful Use.
See Supporting Statement from applicant at Appendix 3.
Development Control Committee (West)
7
30 April 2009
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - As the
Lawful Development Certificate allows for the storage of six items of plant, it is
difficult to see how Conservation and Design can object to the principle of an
additional four items. This said, it is not clear where exactly on the site they would be
situated. The assumption is that they would be moved around as space requires. If
this would result in greater clutter when viewed from the south, then we perhaps
need to be thinking about a planting belt to screen the site and ameliorate the extra
visual impact.
County Council (Highways) - Request that the applicant submit figures indicating the
existing and proposed vehicular movements associated with this development. This
would enable a more comprehensive response and further comments will be
provided when these figures are received.
Subsequently commented that there is a considerable history in relation to this site,
with the Highway Authority stating that it would not wish to see any intensification of
use.
The highway network in the vicinity of the application site is unsuitable to cater for
additional traffic by virtue of its restricted width and lack of passing provision. All of
the surrounding junctions suffer from restricted visibility and the need in Field Dalling
Road, adjacent to the site access, creates forward visibility issues.
The applicant has attempted to argue that increasing the numbers of tracked dumper
hire plant that can be stored on site will not increase traffic generation. However the
information contained within their design and access statement is far from
convincing. If anything it supports a view that traffic will increase. For example, part
of the argument is that certain repairs can take up to 4 months to complete whilst
awaiting parts from Japan. Thus only 5 items of plant currently pass through the site
during that 4 month period. Amending this condition would allow 9 items of plant to
pass through the site during the same 4 month period.
Notes the applicant's comments in relation to low loaders travelling empty between
the two sites, however the same argument could be put forward for evermore. Even if
we allow ten items to be stored at Binham, the applicant could purchase additional
plant in the future, increase the number of items at Thursford and then use the same
argument all over again that low loaders are travelling empty between the two sites.
As stated earlier, far from convinced by the applicant's argument. On its own, this
applicant does not appear to have the effect of removing empty running.
In addition, the increase in number from 6 items to 10 items is substantial. Would
need to see a very robust argument indeed to show where the figure of ten items has
come from, as opposed to seven or eight etc and how nearly doubling the number of
items stored on site will not increase traffic.
As I understand matters, the applicant has been given the opportunity to substantiate
their claims, however the time scale should not be open ended. In the meantime shall
be grateful if this letter is regarded as a holding objection.
Environmental Health - I have no record of complaints regarding noise/disturbance
from vehicle movements at this site. I understand that the site already has permission
for the storage of six vehicles. Given the information provided by the applicant I do
not feel that the addition of a further four stored vehicles will have a negative effect
on the nearby properties in relation to noise. As such I have no objections to the
temporary change of use.
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)
8
30 April 2009
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2208):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the 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).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
3. Highway safety.
4. Impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The principle of the use of land and farm buildings for agricultural and storage and
distribution use at Manor Farm was established on 11 June 2004 through the issuing
of a Certificate of Lawfulness following acceptance by the Council that evidence
produced by the applicant in the statutory declarations demonstrated that, on the
balance of probabilities, land had been used for agriculture and for a low level of
storage use for the plant hire business since around 1990, a copy of which is
attached at Appendix 3.
The Certificate of Lawfulness clearly states that the permitted use of the site
(excluding those areas coloured pink on the plan) was for agriculture in connection
with Manor Farm and for storage use being outside any use class and being limited
to a low level and not exceeding six items at any one time, those items being general
plant for hire, including such plant/equipment as a tractor, a wheeled articulated
dumper truck, two excavators, a mini-excavator, a compressor and a skid steer
loader.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
30 April 2009
The evidence produced by the applicant as part of the Certificate included
confirmation that the business began in 1987 and hired out equipment to farms and
statutory authorities (e.g. Environment Agency). The number of vehicles owned by
the company at that time was 13 machines using JCB type diggers and bull-dozing
equipment. The activities consisted of the vehicles being hired out to particular sites
in Norfolk and throughout the country... the vehicles rarely returned to the site and
only did so if they were not hired out on contract. General maintenance and repair
occurred on sites where the vehicles were on hire and was undertaken by employees
using mobile workshop vans. Normally vehicles were taken from site to site when
one project is finished and another starts. These activities have not materially
changed since the inception of the business in 1987. The evidence then went on to
suggest that the scale of the activity associated with the particular business has
increased from 13 machines to 25 as the operators have diversified to incorporate
tracked vehicles. The nature and characteristics of the plant hire element of the use
has not changed since the inception of the business in 1987. The vehicles
themselves rarely return to the site and only do so if they have not been hired out on
contract.
In the event of the Committee approving the current application this permission would
supersede the restrictions imposed by the Certificate of Lawful Use. In respect of the
definition of low-level use outlined in the certificate, legal advice has suggested that
this means six items only, as described above. This is important because, by the
applicants' own admission on their website, the business (Tracked Dumper Hire UK)
was founded by Jeremy Taylor in 2000 with just one second-hand 7 tonne tracked
dumper and now has a fleet of over 80 self-drive vehicles with carrying capacities
from 1.5 to 22 tonnes. This is a net increase in 55 vehicles owned by the company
compared with the number owned in May/June 2003 when the application for the
Certificate of Lawful Use was made. Certainly, this brings into question whether "low
level usage" is taking place.
Another issue for consideration is the number of vehicles travelling to and from the
Binham site and implications for highway safety. Binham is the head office for
Tracked Dumper Hire UK with a storage depot in Thursford and satellite depots in
Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Scotland and Northern Ireland. With a larger vehicle
base, it is important to establish how many of those vehicles are now returning to
Binham for repair/maintenance/cleaning compared with the numbers at the time of
the Certificate of Lawful Use. The Highway Authority had asked for clarification of
vehicle movements and these figures have been requested from the applicant. No
figures have been submitted.
In respect of impact on the amenity of adjacent residents, notwithstanding
representations received to the contrary, Environmental Health has no record of
complaints regarding noise or disturbance from vehicle movements at this site and
do not consider that four additional vehicles would have a negative effect on nearby
properties in relation to noise.
Any impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area would be dependent upon
the location of equipment on site and the size of such equipment. The largest pieces
of equipment (22 tonne payload) have a length of 5.97m, a width of 3.22m and a
height of 3.36m (when trailer is not tipped). If ten of these pieces of equipment were
located on site, all with their trailers raised, they would be likely to be prominent in the
Conservation Area. Depending on location, additional planting may be necessary to
ameliorate the extra visual impact. Further information is being sought from the
applicant regarding storage arrangements on site and Committee will be updated
orally in respect of this issue.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
30 April 2009
In summary, further expansion of the site has to be considered against Local
Development Framework Core Strategy Policy EC 3 which permits extensions to
existing businesses in the countryside where they are of a scale appropriate to the
existing development and where they would not have a detrimental effect on the
character of the area. It is evident from the number of vehicles owned by Tracked
Dumper Hire UK that the business has already expanded since the issuing of the
Certificate of Lawful Use in 2003 and there are question-marks as to whether the
current use can still be considered as "low-level". The applicant has indicated that the
business employs 18 full-time and 10 part-time people although it remains unclear as
to how many are dependent on the outcome of this application. However, Committee
will have to balance the employment issues against the concern that further
expansion brings with it regarding highway safety concerns through additional traffic
load on the surrounding narrow rural road network and resultant concerns about
impact on nearby residents and wider impact on the Conservation Area.
The increase in number from 6 items to 10 items is substantial. The Committee
would need to see a very robust argument to show that storing ten items of plant will
not increase traffic movements to and from the site. It is considered that employment
issues alone would not be sufficient to outweigh the clear policy objection and, as
such, the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:Refusal on highway safety grounds, as recommended by County Highways.
4.
BINHAM - 20090145 - Formation of hard standing for agricultural equipment;
Manor Farm Field Dalling Road for Taylor Farm Partnership
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :09 Apr 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20081110 and 20081111 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20021871 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of land to haulage depot
Refused, 27 Feb 2003
20030540 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of stables
Refused, 11 Jun 2003
20030917 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of
land and buildings as agricultural and plant hire depot
Refused, 30 Sep 2003
20031451 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of stables
Approved, 08 Oct 2003
20040341 - (Certificate of Lawfulness) - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of
land and farm buildings for agricultural and storage and distribution use
Approved, 11 Jun 2004
20051305 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of storage building
Withdrawn, 07 Sep 2005
20051460 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of aircraft storage building
Refused, 02 Nov 2005
Development Control Committee (West)
11
30 April 2009
20051816 - (Prior Notification) - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building
Refused, 13 Dec 2005
20060053 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of storage building
Approved, 21 Mar 2006
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application for the formation of hard standing for agricultural
equipment.
The area covered is approximately 24m x 20m. There is an existing post and rail
fence on the west and east boundaries. A post and rail fence is also proposed on the
southern boundary.
The hardstanding is constructed of 200mm thick consolidated type one aggregate
finished with road scraping and will be self draining.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control because of issues
surrounding current use of the site and its planning history.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object. On the grounds that the Parish Council is concerned at the general increase
in industrial activity on this site. For that reason we ask that any permission granted
for this application be strictly for the purpose applied for i.e. for agricultural equipment
only. We also ask that the site is continually monitored to ensure that this is complied
with.
REPRESENTATIONS
A supporting statement has been submitted with the application explaining the
reason for the agricultural hardstanding. A copy of the supporting statement is
contained in Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - On the
basis that the proposed hardstanding itself would have a negligible impact upon the
appearance and character of this part of Binham's Conservation Area, there can be
no sustainable Conservation and Design objections to this application.
This said, as the hardstanding will presumably be used to site a variety of vehicles
and equipment, it is imperative that the site be adequately screened to prevent undue
clutter at the southern entrance to the village. It is therefore recommended that the
proposed planting strip on the western edge of the hardstanding be extended around
its southern side to supplement the post and rail fence and to soften/screen the
development on its important southern side.
Environmental Health - In general terms I would not object to storage of agricultural
equipment outdoors. However, I would like to discuss the possible longer term
operation of agricultural or commercial equipment on the application site.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
30 April 2009
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Impact upon neighbouring residential properties.
3. Impact upon the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where agricultural uses are
permitted.
The hardstanding is located in a central position on the site to the south and west of
existing agricultural buildings. The site is fairly well-screened by roadside hedgerows
along Front Street to the west and the Field Dalling Road to the east, when viewed
from a distance in the wider area and consequently public views across into this part
of the site are therefore limited with the exception of views from the first floor
windows of some properties along Front Street. The site is, however, very open on
the southern boundary, which faces open countryside.
In view of its location on the site it is considered that the hardstanding area itself has
a limited impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring
dwellings.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who is not raising an objection to the application subject to a condition
regarding landscaping on the southern and western boundaries. Subject to this it is
considered that the hardstanding would preserve the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area.
Whilst the principle of a hardstanding for agricultural purposes in this location is
acceptable it does not currently appear to be being used for that use, but would
appear to be in use predominantly for car parking in connection with the Tracked
Dumper Hire business, which amounts to an extension of the mixed commercial uses
on the site in the Countryside policy area.
In accordance with Policy EC 3 of the Core Strategy regarding 'Extensions to
Existing Businesses in the Countryside' such uses will only be permitted where they
are of a scale appropriate to the existing development and would not have a
detrimental effect on the character of the area.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
30 April 2009
Subject to appropriate landscaping it is considered that the hard standing would not
have a detrimental effect on the character of the area. However, there are concerns
over whether the scale of development is appropriate in this location, given the
questions being raised under application reference 20081111 for the Use of Land for
Storage of no more than ten items of tracked dumper hire plant regarding whether
the current use can still be considered as 'low-level' and consequently appropriate in
scale.
The applicant has been asked to confirm the intended use of the hard-standing in
light of evidence so far that it is not being used for agricultural purposes, as stated.
Use of the hard-standing in connection with the Tracked Dumper Hire business
would encroach outside the area relating to the Certificate of Lawfulness approval
under application 20040341, in respect of which the applicant is seeking to vary the
terms under application 20081111, also on this agenda.
A response from the application regarding the use of the hard-standing is awaited
and Committee will be updated orally and a recommendation made in the light of the
response received.
RECOMMENDATION:Committee will be updated orally.
5.
THORNAGE - 20090081 - Continued siting of oil storage tank; Pen Cottage
Thornage Road Little Thornage for Mr Das Gupta
Target Date :23 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Environment Agency Flood Zone
Countryside Policy Area
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for retrospective permission for the continued siting of an oil storage tank.
The oil tank is located in the front garden of the property and a fire board and trellis
have been erected on the eastern side of the tank.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Mrs Brettle having regard to concerns raised locally and
that the development is retrospective and may require enforcement action if the
Committee are minded to refuse.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comment: No objection.
Additional comments received as follows:
The Council would like to add to the original comments it made to this application that
it feels that the comments made by the owners of Glaven Farm, Letheringsett should
be given due consideration since they and Barn Cottage are directly affected by the
siting of the oil tank.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
30 April 2009
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Unnecessary and ugly intrusion.
2. Should be relocated to rear garden.
3. Health and age of owner irrelevant to planning as to why can not relocate tank.
4. Even if screened at a later date, represents a very visible and intrusive impact on
the settlement and its setting.
5. Not sympathetic to the distinctive character of the settlement and landscape
character.
6. Does not protect or conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the
area.
7. Does not protect or enhance the setting of and views from the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area and the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
8. Contrary to Policies EN 2 and EN 8.
9. Adversely affects the built environment of Little Thornage.
10. Detracts from Conservation Area.
11. Fire board worsens visual impact.
12. Size and height of tank and the fire screen visually spoils area.
13. Eyesore, out of character with area.
14. Ignorance of planning laws or personal circumstances of an applicant provide an
excuse for contravening those laws.
One letter of support has been received.
The applicant has submitted a letter with the application explaining why the oil tank
has been located in the front garden, a copy of which is contained in Appendix 5.
A further letter, sketch and photographs have been received from the applicant
explaining the landscaping measures he intends to carry out to screen the fire board.
This involves covering the fire board in a thatched trellis, planting climbing Roses,
Honeysuckle and Clematis to grow over it to reduce any negative impact, allowing
the hedge adjacent to the road to grow higher and erect a trellis over the eastern
boundary hedge to help hide the tank from both the front and eastern view. The
applicant has also explained why he is unwilling to move the tank which includes
major loss of personal amenity if sited in centre of the garden as will take up most of
the front garden, would like to widen gate to create a vehicular access and to move
the tank would prevent this from happening, if re-sited a new trench would have to be
dug if sited to rear, and the major financial costs.
A third letter and photographs have been received from the applicant explaining what
he has done and examples of two other properties that have oil tanks visible from the
road.
CONSULTATIONS
Letheringsett Parish Council - Object, the Council believes this to be an eyesore and
an intrusion into the surrounding area. Not at all in keeping.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - It is
clear that the trellising has made a notable improvement in screening the tank; that
the concerns voiced have been addressed; and the trellising is not as intrusive as
first feared after considering the proposed sketches. It should also be noted that
erection of trellising is a permitted development right which can be undertaken at the
owner's discretion. Conservation and Design feel with the new mitigating measures
of the trellising and planting, and once the natural hedge boundary has grown any
impact will be minimal. Therefore Conservation and Design have no objections.
Development Control Committee (West)
15
30 April 2009
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Environmental Health - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
In this instance, planning permission is required for the oil tank because it is sited
forward of the principal elevation of the dwelling facing a highway.
In terms of visual impact, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
originally had no objection to the siting of the oil tank in the front garden but did
object to the fire board. The fire board is deemed necessary by Building Control
because the oil tank is located within 760mm of the boundary thus requiring fire
resistance by way of a wall or fire resisting board. The wall should extend 300mm
above the height of the tank and 300mm beyond each end. However, if the oil tank
were to be located more than 760mm from the eastern boundary of the site then no
protection is needed.
A letter was sent to the applicant advising that, in order for the continued siting of the
oil tank to be considered acceptable, the tank should be moved more than 760mm
from the eastern boundary in order to omit the need for the fire board.
However, for the reasons given in paragraph 3 of the representations section of this
report the applicant was unwilling to move the oil tank and had proposed landscaping
to screen the fire board.
The applicant has since carried out the landscaping works by erecting some trellis
along the eastern boundary and covering the fire board in a thatched trellis, neither of
which require planning permission and are therefore outside of the control of the
Local Planning Authority.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
30 April 2009
Following a further site visit by the Case Officer and Conservation and Design Officer
it is considered that the trellis and thatched trellis on the fire board have helped to
reduce the visual impact of the oil tank and fire board in the Conservation Area, and
that the planting of honeysuckle and clematis will help to further soften the visual
impact of the trellis.
As such, whilst the only reason for the trellis screening is to reduce the visual impact
of the fire board, which was required owing to the location of the oil tank, this has
nonetheless helped make the oil tank and fire board appear more recessive and, on
balance, the development would at least preserve the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area.
In respect of flood risk implications, the site is located entirely within Flood Zones 2
and 3 where there is a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding. There
are no alternative sites either within Flood Zones 1 or 2 within which the applicant
could site the oil tank. Oral advice from the Environment Agency has suggested that,
provided the oil tank is maintained and operated in accordance with oil storage
regulations, a modern double-skinned oil tank should not pose any environmental
risks and would not require a flood risk assessment, even if located within Flood
Zone 3.
The proposal therefore complies with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
retention of the trellis and appropriate landscaping.
6.
WALSINGHAM - 20090181 - Erection of garages and boat store; 45a
Scarborough Road for Mrs J Wilson
Target Date :21 Apr 2009
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071292 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of four timber holiday lodges
Withdrawn, 08 Oct 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a garage and boat store. Amended plans have been received
reducing the overall size of the building to 11.7m X 7.5m with an overall ridge height
of 5.8m.
The front elevation of the garage and boat store would face south and would have
three single vertical emphasis garage doors with brick quoins and flintwork to either
side whilst to the eastern gable end there would be a larger vertical emphasis door
which would provide a second access to the boat store. The rest of the building
would be of red brick under a pantiled roof.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
30 April 2009
Access would be via the existing entrance to the property with an existing
substandard garage to the southern boundary demolished to allow the driveway to be
extended and a turning and manoeuvring area provided to the frontage of the
proposed garage and boat store.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Moore having regard to the following planning issues:
Size of proposed garage boat store, position on the site and access.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds that the access is unsuitable and that due to the size of the
development once built could be converted to living accommodation.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):
1. The proposed building is massive being larger than the applicant's bungalow.
2. It is situated at the top of the hill and will loom over us all.
3. Garage is too far from the bungalow.
4. The construction with cavity walls smacks of more holiday homes.
5. This is a back door approach to getting a holiday home which was rejected a year
of so ago.
6. The proposed site seems a most inconvenient spot for the location of a garage.
7. Scarborough Road is very narrow at this point and lorries cannot turn directly into
the site.
8. The delivery of materials by lorries and vans would result in them having to drive
into my shared access opposite the property.
9. There are already problems with highways safety on Scarborough Road with two
vehicles trying to pass.
10. Would create noise and disturbance to local residents.
11. Proposed building would have an adverse effect on our property as it would be
very close to our rear garden and would also invade the privacy of our side garden.
12. Should permission be granted then the use should be restricted.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Environmental Health - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
30 April 2009
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Visual impact in Conservation Area.
5. Access.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the Countryside policy area where Policies EN2, EN4 and
EN8 of the Core Strategy are applicable.
No 45A Scarborough Road is a detached single storey bungalow set within a large
plot of some 6200sq.m, where, in principle, the erection of a replacement garage and
boat store would be acceptable.
At the present time the site is divided into two distinct elements with the dwelling
situated to the front of the site with Scarborough Road whilst to the rear is a belt of
trees leading onto a large area laid to grass. The garage would be located
approximately 73m from Scarborough Road. In order to gain access to the building it
is proposed that the existing small garage which abuts the southern boundary and is
set some 40m back from the entrance to the site would be demolished.
As far as the design and siting of garage boat store are concerned, it is considered
that whilst being slightly larger than a conventional double garage that the overall
scale and massing of the building in this location is acceptable, subject to the use of
appropriate materials. Given the existing trees on the site, which are to be retained, it
would not be possible to site the garage closer to the dwelling and provide adequate
manoeuvring and turning area.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, the closest dwellings to the site
are the row of cottages to the north, Nos.33 - 41 Scarborough Road which have
south facing rear gardens, whilst No 41, the eastern most cottage, also has a long
narrow side garden extending the full length of the application site. However, given
the fact that the existing tree belt is to be retained, views of the garage boat store
from these dwellings and their rear gardens, the closest of which would be some 18m
away, would be restricted and would not result is any loss of privacy or amenities. As
such the only views of the building from the north would be from the eastern-most
section of the garden to No. 41 which is used as a vegetable plot and is some 30m
way and which for some of its length is screened by a hedgerow some 2m in height.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
30 April 2009
In terms of the impact of the garage boat store on the wider area, given the relatively
enclosed nature of the site together with the distance from the Scarborough Road, it
is considered that it would preserve the character and appearance of this part of the
Walsingham Conservation Area.
In respect of access, the existing access to the southern boundary of the site, which
serves the current garage, would be utilised. However, the garage boat store in the
proposed location would allow a larger area for turning and manoeuvring which
would have the benefit of allowing vehicles to turn within the site and enter the
highway in a forward gear, which at the present time is difficult to achieve.
Furthermore, given that the proposed use would not result in an intensification of the
domestic use of the site, the Highway Authority has indicated that it has no objection
to the access arrangements.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would not have an adverse
impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider Walsingham
Conservation Area. Subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition that the
building is not used as habitable accommodation and is used solely as a garage/boat
store in association with the existing dwelling, the proposal would accord with
Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including that the
building is not used as habitable accommodation but is used solely as a
garage/boat store in association with the existing dwelling.
7.
WEYBOURNE - 20090029 - Conversion of games room to one unit of holiday
accommodation; The Stables Bolding Way for Mr Harrison
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :13 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Area
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of a games room to one unit of holiday accommodation, which
would include a sitting and dining area with kitchenette, bathroom, two bedrooms and
small patio/courtyard garden.
Materials proposed are as existing, i.e. timber, brick, flint and clay pantiles.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support the application on the following grounds:
1. The quality of the small 'complex' of buildings will be enhanced by the upgrade,
fitting better with the local style.
2. The development will make a positive contribution to tourism in the village.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
30 April 2009
3. There is sufficient space should an additional parking space become necessary making a total of 6.
4. Councillors do not consider that the visibility splays are inadequate for safe egress
from the site.
REPRESENTATIONS
A copy of the Design and Access Statement submitted with the planning application
is contained in Appendix 6 and makes reference to pre-application discussions
between the agent and Highway Authority regarding the vehicular access and
parking.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - The access which will serve this proposal onto the
A149, (a 'Special' route as defined in the Norfolk County Council Route Hierarchy)
has severely limited visibility on both directions due to the existence of the roadside
fronting flint wall.
Visibility is restricted to approximately 11m in the critical direction to the east and
10m to the west at the required setback of 2.4m. Visibility guidance in 'Manual for
Streets' for the 20mph limit in force at this site on The Street, requires visibility splays
of 25m at a setback of 2.4m. Accordingly, the available visibility only provides 44% of
this requirement to the east and 40% to the west.
There is a marginal increase in visibility at a 2m setback where the distance in the
critical direction to the east increases to approximately 14m and 13m to the west.
Subsequently the available visibility increase to only 56% of this requirement to the
east and 52% to the west.
It is felt that as the existing games room is ancillary to the existing use it therefore
does not produce any independent traffic movements, whereas the proposal to
convert to a separate unit of holiday accommodation has the propensity to generate
in the region of 4 extra traffic movements per day.
In light of this, the proposal is considered to intensify the vehicular use of the sub
standard access and I must therefore recommend refusal of the proposal on the
grounds of inadequate visibility splays at junction of the access with the County
highway and, as far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant
does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at the site
access.
If the applicant were able to provide improved visibility for the access or evidence of
previous traffic generating use of this building further consideration could be given.
Sustainability Coordinator - The application complies with the Policy EN 6 regarding
minimising energy consumption and resource consumption, but the development
does not currently comply with the part of Policy EN 6 that requires adaptation to
future climate change.
In order to comply with Policy EN 6 the development must show features that
minimise the water consumption of the building and/or features that attenuate the
flow of rainwater into storm drains. This could be through the use of water efficient
sanitary ware and/or rainwater recycling and/or sustainable drainage system.
I would recommend the application not be approved until evidence of the above has
been provided.
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)
21
30 April 2009
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions (specifies the conditions to
be attached to new unserviced holiday accommodation).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact upon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be carried
out.
The site is located within the residential policy area of the Coastal Village of
Weybourne where the principle of the conversion of a building to holiday
accommodation is considered to be acceptable, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
The alterations to the external appearance of the building are not considered to be
significant, being contained within the footprint of the building, apart from the addition
of a small boiler room to the north east corner. They also include the demolition of a
utility area, slight reduction in floor area of existing games room building, and
erection of new brick and flint boundary wall to the south to create an enclosed patio
area. It is considered that the design, materials and layout of the proposed alterations
are acceptable.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
30 April 2009
The site is not located in a prominent position in the street scene and is not visible
from the road. The site is well screened by the existing dwellings to the east, site
boundary walls and the adjoining holiday cottage to the north. It is therefore
considered that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. Due to the location of the site it is not considered that the
proposal would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
A window and a roof light are proposed in the eastern elevation and patio doors in
the southern elevation, which would be screened by the proposed boundary wall.
There are no windows proposed in the western elevation. The private amenity space
of the proposed holiday accommodation is well screened and the relationship to
surrounding properties is considered to be acceptable.
Car parking for the proposed holiday unit accord with the Council's car parking
standards without detracting from parking provision for the adjoining one bedroom
holiday cottage and applicant's own dwelling.
The Committee will note the comments of the Sustainability Officer who is not
satisfied that the information submitted, so far, fully complies with the requirements of
Policy EN 6 regarding adaptation to future climate change, by minimising the water
consumption of the building and/or features that attenuate the flow of rainwater into
storm drains, through the use of water efficient sanitary ware and/or rainwater
recycling and/or a sustainable drainage system.
The applicant's agent has been advised of these comments and at the time of writing
this report confirmation is awaited as to whether the applicant is able to meet the full
requirements of Policy EN 6 described in the previous paragraph. Subject to the
applicant's agent confirming that they are able to satisfy the requirements of Policy
EN 6 the proposal would be considered acceptable on sustainability grounds and
conditions imposed to ensure the measures agreed are carried out.
Whilst the principle of the conversion of the building is considered to be acceptable
the Committee will note the objection of the Highway Authority. Unless the applicant's
agent is unable to confirm that the proposal would be able to fully comply with the
requirements of Policy EN 6 it is for the reasons given in the Highway Authority's
comments that the application is considered to conflict with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE,FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
Inadequate visibility splays would be provided at the junction of the access with the
County highway which would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the
adjoining public highway. As far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the
applicant does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at
the site access. The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to
highway safety.
It is therefore considered that the application is contrary to adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy policy.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
30 April 2009
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - 20090113 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; The Main Barn at The
Old Rectory 6 Wiveton Road for The Beeston Group
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20090114 - Alterations to facilitate conversion of barn to dwelling;
Main Barn at The Old Rectory 6 Wiveton Road for The Beeston Group
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BRISTON - 20081358 - Use of land for storage, parking and siting of portable
building in connection with the portable toilet hire business; land at Brambles
Farm Thurning Road for Mr M Holden
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090167 - Erection of gate and 1.2m high boundary
fence; Cley Hall The Fairstead for Mrs Maizels
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20090164 - Change of use of land from agricultural to amenity
land; Tan office Farm Briston Road Saxthorpe for Mr Schilling
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - 20090220 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Dunton Hall Farm Tatterford Road for Dunton Hall Farming Co Ltd
(Prior Notification)
FAKENHAM - 20090118 - Erection of extension; J W Automarine Enterprise
Way for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090138 - Erection of 2 one and a half storey dwellings; 17
Smiths Lane for Mr and Mrs James-Allison
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - 20090137 - Installation of rear door, replacement windows
and internal alterations; Tudor Cottage 32 Langham Road for Mr and Mrs
Terrington
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FULMODESTON - 20090156 - Extension and alterations to farmhouse and
alterations to barns to provide holiday accommodation; Croxton Farm Croxton
Road Croxton for Mr and Mrs W Runciman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
GREAT SNORING - 20090153 - Internal and external alterations to west bay and
internal alterations to two first floor bedrooms; The Manor House Barsham
Road for Dr Schmidt
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HIGH KELLING - 20090117 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extension;
Cartref Heathfield Close for Mrs Hickey
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
24
30 April 2009
HOLT - 20090105 - Erection of internal stud walls; 1a Market Place for
Cockertons
(Alteration to Listed Building)
HOLT - 20090115 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling; 39 Albert
Street for Mr Opie
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20090124 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 16 Appleyard
High Street for NFU Mutual
(Non-illuminated Advertisement)
LITTLE SNORING - 20090173 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 16
Manor Close for Mrs S Salmon
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - 20090163 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home; Trees
Field, off Massingham Road West Raynham for Mr J S Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - 20090198 - Continued siting of mobile home; 14 The Street Little
Ryburgh for Mr Hunt
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20090111 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide
annexe; 15 Creake Road for Mr Armiger
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20090154 - Single-storey side extension; 56 Cooper Road for
Mr Dawson
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20081211 - Change of use of extension to separate holiday cottage;
82 Wells Road for Mr W Hickey
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - 20090127 - Erection of single storey extension to toilet block;
Highsand Creek Camp site Greenway for Mr and Mrs M Harrison
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - 20081295 - Continued use of land for storage of tyres; land at
Texas Avenue Tattersett Business and Leisure Park for Garrya Investments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20090134 - Erection of garden room extension;
Limeburners Cottage Warham Road for Mr R West
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - 20090169 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Yew Tree
House Buddells Lane for Mr and Mrs P Vincent
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
25
30 April 2009
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - 20090191 - Use of land for siting 6 static holiday caravans; Pine
View Caravan Park The Lanes for Mr K P Graves
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20090186 - Use of land for parking of police vehicles; Fakenham
Police Station 30 Norwich Road for Norfolk Constabulary
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20090005 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings
with garage court; land at Burgh Beck Road for Mr and Mrs Sherwood
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20090100 - Erection of nine dwellings; land at Seaview
Crescent for Peart and Barrell Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
HINDRINGHAM - 20081166 - Erection of cottage style dwelling and garage; land
adjacent to 44-46 Wells Road for Mr and Mrs M Woodhouse
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
HOLT - 20081526 - Erection of building to provide serviced holiday
accommodation; land at Jenis Barn Thornage Road for Mr S Chapman
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
LANGHAM - 20081176 - Erection of dwelling and garage; land adjacent Stable
Court, Langham Hall Holt Road for Mr A Burlingham
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
WARHAM - 20081276 - Erection two-storey dwelling; 79 The Street for Holkham
Estate
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
UPPER SHERINGHAM - 20080492 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling;
land at The Green The Street for John Ashton's Children's Settlement
INFORMAL HEARING
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
SWANTON NOVERS - 20081648 - Continued display of non-illuminated
direction signs; Half Mile both sides of Crossroads Dereham Road for Mrs H
Duffield
Development Control Committee (West)
26
30 April 2009
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
FAKENHAM - 20080273 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached double
garage; land adjacent 10 Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Builders Limited
APPEAL DECISION :- ALLOWED
SALTHOUSE - 20080401 - Erection of single-storey earth-sheltered dwelling;
land at Purdy Street for Mr B Williams
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20061288 - Erection of first floor rear extension and
conversion of roofspace to two residential units; Premises rear of The Old Mill
Maryland for Mr and Mrs Ward
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
WOOD NORTON - 20071379 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; The Old Fire
Station Foulsham Airfield Foulsham Road for Thomas and Money Haulage
APPEAL DECISION :- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee (West)
27
30 April 2009