OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 31 JANUARY 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 (COMBINED COMMITTEE)
1.
HOLT - 20050518 – Change of use of land to car and coach park, formation of
access and erection of toilet block; land adjacent to Thornage Road for Mr G F
Chapman
To consider a planning application for the change of use of land to car park and
coach park and associated development.
Background
This application was first considered by the Development Control Committee (West)
on 28 April 2005 when it was deferred in order to allow Officers to negotiate:a reduction in the number of car parking spaces;
increased landscaping;
the formation of a right hand turning lane, together with speed reduction; and
surfacing, lighting and a possible relocation of the access.
The application was again considered by the Development Control Committee (West)
on 26 May 2005 when the following were reported: the toilet block and coach parking had been deleted;
the number of car parking spaces had been reduced from 458 to 382;
the amount of landscaping had been increased; and
re-design and relocation of the access to a standard required in a 30mph speed limit.
Officers recommended that the application be refused on the basis of detriment to
the character and appearance of the landscape and Conservation Area, highway
safety grounds, and lack of detail on surfacing, lighting, levels, drainage, insufficient
landscaping and associated policy grounds. The Committee resolved to refer the
application to the Joint Development Control Committee with a recommendation of
delegated approval by reason that it was generally accepted that there is a need for
additional car parking in Holt, this need being identified through the preparation of the
Whole Settlement Strategy and a Commercial Leisure Study by DTZ Pieda
Consultants. A Working Party had also considered various options for sites in and
around the town.
At the meeting on 9 June 2005 the Joint Development Control Committee resolved to
inform the Highway Authority that the decision to approve the car park had been
made and to seek its agreement to a 30mph speed limit.
The Committee also resolved to give the Head of Planning and Building Control
delegated authority to approve the application with the access in its amended
position, subject to further details being agreed including right-turning lane, Valley
Lane pedestrian improvements, the provision of up to 4 coach parking spaces and
details of levels, landscaping, lighting, surfacing; and subject to the agreement of
local Members.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
31 January 2008
The matter was referred back to the Joint Development Control Committee on 19
January 2006 when it was reported that Norfolk County Council had declined the
District Council’s request to introduce a 30mph speed limit, and the applicant had
decided to seek permission for the formation of the access based on a 50mph limit,
which would be supported by the Highway Authority.
The Committee accepted the applicant’s request to seek a 50mph speed restriction
in place of the 30mph speed restriction previously sought and resolved that the Head
of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve the application subject to:
the receipt of amended plans providing for a right turn lane;
no new grounds of objection being received following re-advertisement and reconsultation on the amended plans;
off-site highway improvements to Valley Lane (pedestrian safety works) being
agreed;
provision of 4 coach parking spaces;
details of levels, lighting and landscaping;
the submission of surface water drainage details; and
the imposition of appropriate conditions, to include drainage and pollution controls.
At the meeting of the Development Control Committee (West) on 3 January 2008 it
was reported that amended plans had been received from the applicant’s agent
which included:details of the right hand turn lane;
the provision of 395 car parking spaces including 20 disabled spaces;
the provision of 5 coach parking spaces;
the introduction of a toilet block;
an increase in the site area from 1.6 hectare to 2.0 hectare to allow increased
landscaping to the south-eastern and western boundaries;
outline details in respect of drainage, lighting and highway improvements to Valley
Lane.
On 2 January 2008 a revised set of plans were received showing the previous
revisions referred to and detailed sections across the site and deleting a reference to
an overflow car park. Full reconsultation and readvertisement has been carried out
on those plans.
Given the lapse of time since the previous meeting of the Joint Development Control
Committee and the fact that some Members may not be familiar with the site, it was
recommended that Members of both the East and West Committees visit the site
prior to a report being presented to the Combined Development Control Committee.
Copies of the reports referred to are attached as Appendix 1.
Updates
Following readvertisement and reconsultation on the amended plans received on 8
November 2007 and 2 January 2008 the following responses have been received:TOWN COUNCIL (amended plans 02 /01/08)
No objection subject to appropriate screening including trees.
THORNAGE PARISH COUNCIL (amended plans 02 /01/08)
Objects to the application on the following grounds, (summarised):1) No evidence put forward to suggest that a car park of this size is required.
2) Could not Gresham’s pre-prep school car park be utilised during busy periods
outside term time.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
31 January 2008
3)
Car park would detract from the amenity and character of the area which is listed
as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and conservation area.
4) Would result in urban sprawl.
5) Use of “Greenfield” site runs contrary to Environment Agency’s guidelines, no
evidence that other Brownfield sites have been considered.
6) Creation of car park at odds with North Norfolk Local Development Framework
Core Strategy – not a sustainable form of development.
7) Concerns regarding unspecified area of overflow car parking.
8) Concerns regarding increased traffic along B1110, resulting in increased
volumes of traffic, and danger to road users.
9) No traffic analysis has been undertaken.
10) Additional lighting will have a significant effect on the environment and wildlife.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – Whilst raising no objection to the off-site highways
improvement works and the surfacing of the car park, in view of the concerns raised
by local residents and the need for the Local Planning Authority to undertake a fresh
Screening Opinion the Highway Authority were asked for further comments in respect
of the need for a Transport Assessment. Their e-mail response is attached as
Appendix 1. Members will note that if this was a new application the Highway
Authority would require a Transport Assessment.
Environment Agency - Objects to the application on the basis that since their
previous comments in 2005 new flood risk policies have been published, with
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). This requires that any additional surface
water generated by developments over 1ha in size is managed without both on-site
and off-site flood risk. In order to overcome their objection a detailed design for the
drainage system is required.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No objection in principle subject to there being no adverse
impact from run-off associated with the car park onto the Spout Hills County Wildlife
Site, that lighting does not adversely affect wildlife and that there is additional
buffering on the edge of the site adjacent to the former railway line which provides a
valuable corridor for wildlife.
Strategic Director (Communities) – Has been consulted in respect of the issue of
alternative sites which may have been considered previously by the Council’s Car
Park Working Party. Comments awaited.
Natural England – No objection.
Environmental Health - (amended plans 02 /01/08) No objection subject to the
imposition of conditions relating to hours of use and lighting.
English Heritage - (amended plans 02 /01/08) No comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation) (amended plans 02
/01/08) – Objects to the application for the following reasons:The latest amended plans which reduce the scheme by omission of the access for
occasional over flow car parking into the adjacent field can only be welcomed as a
means of reducing the impact of the development. However, the scale and position of
the proposed car park, together with associated lighting, hard surfacing, toilet block
and parking meters will not sit comfortably in the surrounding rural landscape and will
have a detrimental effect on the Holt Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
31 January 2008
In addition the relationship of the scheme to the adjacent dwellings and access onto
Valley Lane has not been well addressed.
For these reasons the view remains that the development would not preserve or
enhance the Glaven Valley Conservation area or the setting of the Holt Conservation
Area.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) (amended plans
02/01/08) – Objects to the application for the following reasons:Following the receipt of amended plans and having been in discussion with the agent
(re planting) it is still felt that the impact on the landscape would be significantly
detrimental and will not preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation
Area, and is therefore contrary to Policy 42 of the Local Plan and Policy EN8 of the
forthcoming Core Strategy Document. Further concerns relate to the impact on
Spout Hills County Wildlife Site and adherence of the scheme to PPS9.
Main concerns relate to:Major alterations to the site levels and visual impact on the Conservation Area.
Impact on drainage (current and proposed) and effect on Spout Hills CWS.
Impact on the disused railway embankment and wildlife corridor.
The re-grading of the site, resulting in a ground level around the 60m. contour, will
result in a 3m fill at the north-eastern corner. Even with the proposed landscaping
belt, the toilet block and car parking will be extremely visible from the Thornage Road
(from both directions) and from Valley Lane, being well above the existing hedge line.
The removal of the proposed Coach and Disabled parking and replacement with
further landscaping may limit the effect, but the result is likely to look out of character
in the area. In addition to this, the excavation of ground to the south-western end of
the car park and proposed bund, will look severely out of place. The excavation of
ground and proposed planting would help screen the car parking from the Thornage
direction, but the earth bund will create an artificial landform in the landscape,
drawing the eye to the feature. In my opinion a split level site would help alleviate
some of these concerns, reducing the need for such a large scale earthworks
operation.
The result of the earthworks on the drainage and the surface water runoff is currently
unknown. The north-eastern corner of the site forms part of a natural valley leading
to Spout Hills which is a County Wildlife Site. The site is characterised by springs
seeping from the valley sides feeding into a small stream which flows into the River
Glaven, fen meadows (with common spotted orchid and southern marsh orchid) and
drier grassland. It is possible that the earthworks and changes to the natural
drainage pattern could permanently alter the natural dynamics of the water system
effecting the springs to Spout Hills and the fen meadows. There is no evidence that
the proposed drainage and soakaways will be adequate, or that the ground will be
permeable enough (and if permeable at what rate) to accommodate the soakaways.
Would a Sustainable Urban Drainage System be more appropriate in this situation?
Further concerns result from the impact of the proposed earthworks on the disused
railway course embankment. This is not illustrated on the plans so the relationship
between the sites is not clear. If the embankment were to become destabilised or
the vegetation lost or affected, the result would be detrimental to the local biodiversity
of the site. Disused railways are important ecological features in the landscape and
provide important linear habitats for a variety of species (including protected
species). Further information on the site boundary and affect on the disused railway
would be beneficial to determine any impact.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
31 January 2008
Overall the scheme lacks adequate preliminary site investigation information, such as
topographical and geomorphological surveys and ground and surface water
information (including the depth of the water table, zone of saturation and surface
water runoff). Without this information can the applicant be sure that the proposed
earth movements and drainage proposals will be adequate, practical or possible?
The scheme lacks thought and character. It is clear that the scheme has been led by
the availability of land to site a car park and not by the needs of the landscape in
general, the mere act of planting a landscaping belt around the proposed car park will
not eliminate the impact of the car park on the Conservation Area.
I believe the true visual impact of the scheme would be evident if the applicant were
to provide photo/drawn montages of before and after views of the area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter of objection from North Norfolk Environmental Forum which reiterates their
previous comments that:1) The car park needs to be part of a long term solution with the suggested link road
to the industrial estate along with more housing.
2) Alternatively there are other possible sites at Hempstead Road and Kerridge
Way.
3) They also stress the importance of preserving this part of the Glaven Valley
conservation area for wildlife and the pleasure of residents and visitors.
Letter of objection from the Open Spaces Society who consider that:1) A car park and associated infrastructure in this location would urbanise what is
part of an area of High Landscape Value.
2) The location is poorly related the town involving considerable walking.
Letter of objection from CPRE attaching their previous letters of 18 April and 11 May
2005 together with the following additional concerns:1) Severe traffic disruption.
2) Holt will become primarily a centre for visitors and tourists.
3) The suggestion that the Council will support the car park infrastructure with public
money; a copy of the letters is attached as Appendix ….
Seven further letters of objection from the public which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1) Increased congestion on the B1110.
2) Will adversely affect the follow of traffic on the A148.
3) Would seriously undermine and threaten the area of High Landscape Value.
4) Would ruin the vista from the Thornage Road across the Glaven Valley
conservation area.
5) Increased light pollution.
6) The infrastructure of Holt cannot cope with the extra people the car park would
generate.
7) There are alternative sites such as Cley Road or the expansion of the North
Norfolk Railway car park.
8) Drainage from the site is likely to contaminate Spout Hills.
9) The proposal would be contrary to National, Regional and Local Planning Policy
Statements and Guidance notes.
10) Application should require a formal Environmental Impact Assessment.
11) There would be a conflict in Valley Lane between pedestrians and parents
dropping children at the school.
12) Proximity to school could result in child grooming/abduction.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
31 January 2008
Two letters have been received from local resident of Thornage, which raise
concerns regarding the lack of supporting information in respect of justifying the
need, traffic management measures, drainage and lighting. The letters also point out
the need to have regard to Regional Planning Guidance 6 and the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, together with the duty of the Local
Planning Authority to undertake a fresh Screening Opinion as part of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999. The most recent letter goes on
to suggest that due to the lack of information there is the very real potential the
application could be “called-in” or at worst be subject to a judicial review. Copies of
the letters are attached as Appendix 1.
Two letters of objection has been received from a resident of Thornage which
suggests that the proposed car park is contrary to national and local policies, that the
applicant has not justified the need for the proposed development and that no
Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out. In addition, the proposal is
at odds with the Core Strategy of the proposed North Norfolk District Council Local
Development Framework. Copies of the letters are attached as Appendix 1.
One further letter of objection has been received from a resident of Holt which raises
concerns regarding the proposed car park and identifies alternative sites for a car
park, together with occupancy figures for the existing car parks in Holt; a copy of the
letter is attached as Appendix 1.
A letter of support has been received from the Holt and District Chamber of
Commerce on the following grounds:1) The lack of car parking is putting off visitors and limiting the town’s expansion.
2) Parking in the town is a constant cause for congestion and other traffic hazards. If
permission for the car park is granted parking in the town would be reduced
which would further enhance its enjoyment.
3) The site is ideal for access as cars do not need to go through the town to reach
the car park and therefore will significantly reduce traffic congestion.
4) With sympathetic landscaping and screening with trees and shrubs, the use of
the car park need not significantly affect the appearance of the surrounding
countryside.
Sixty eight letters of support have been received from traders in the town which raise
the following points (summarised):1) Inadequate car parking provision in the town has been a problem for a number of
years.
2) Visitors unable to access the historic Georgian town centre do not return.
3) The lack of car parking has seriously affected the commercial viability of many
Holt traders.
4) Being a non seasonal town car parking is a constant problem, for office worker,
traders and visitors alike.
5) Due to the increase in the number of businesses within the town centre there is a
need for additional car parking.
6) Planning permission for further developments within the town should not be
granted without first addressing the car parking issues.
7) The location of the car park will provide a wonderful introduction to a previously
little know aspect of the Glaven Valley. Safe and direct access will allow many
areas to be explored.
8) All other options for car parking have been fully explored in the past.
9) The current proposal would take traffic away from the town centre and would not
prejudice highway safety.
10) Holt is a key destination for North Norfolk and should be able to offer good
provision for visitors to park.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
31 January 2008
Nineteen further letters of support have been received which raise the following
points (summarised):1) As a visitor to Holt we were unable to finds anywhere to park and eventually gave
up.
2) The car park would help to reduce congestion in the town centre.
3) The lack of car parking affects the viability and vitality of the town.
4) People are choosing not to shop in Holt due to the lack of car parking.
5) The proposal is well related to the existing road network.
6) The application would not prejudice highway safety.
Policies
In respect of the Local Development Framework in additional to the Local Plan
policies referred to in the previous reports attached as Appendix 1 for completeness
the following additional policies as contained in the North Norfolk Core Strategy
(Submission Document) should be referred to:Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS6: Access and infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
In addition Members should have regard to Regional Planning Guidance For East
Anglia (RPG6) which requires that the natural environment should be conserved and
enhanced and that the wider landscape should be protected for its own sake.
(Policies 37 and 39).
The relevant Regional Planning Guidance Policies and those within the Core
Strategy cover the same issues as the saved Local Plan policies in respect of affect
on landscape/natural environment/Conservation Area/transport.
Key Policy Considerations
1. Acceptability of development in the Countryside policy area (Policy 5).
2. Visual appearance and impact on Conservation Area (Policies 5, 13, 18, 21, 42
and 151).
3. Highway safety concerns (Policies 147 and 151).
4. Residential amenity (Policy 13).
Appraisal
The site lies within the Countryside policy area, the Glaven Valley Conservation Area
and is designated as part of an Area of High Landscape Value. It is prominent, with
open views across it to the town beyond. It is currently laid to grass and used for
grazing. Adopted policy generally presumes against large scale development in such
areas. However Policy 5 (Countryside) allows for some forms of development, for
Development Control Committee (West)
7
31 January 2008
example, community services and facilities that meet a proven need and transport
proposals. Policy 151 (Car Parks) does not preclude new car parks in the countryside
providing they do not have a significantly detrimental effect on the appearance or
character of the area.
The amended scheme would provide for 395 car parking spaces, including 20
disabled spaces, and 5 coach parking spaces on a site having a total area of
approximately 2.0ha. The access off Thornage Road, would involve the widening of
the existing carriageway to form a right hand turn lane into the site and subject to a
Traffic Regulation Order the speed limit on the B1110 would be reduced from 60 mph
to 50mph at this point.
In order to provide a level surface to the car park a sectional drawing submitted as
part of most recent amendments shows the ground level at the south-western end of
the site being lowered by 1.5m and the resulting surplus soil used to infill the lower
area of the site at the north eastern end, effectively raising the ground level at this
point by 3.0m to a similar height as Valley Lane. To the northern boundary, adjacent
to the former railway line, the earthworks would result in the ground level being
lowered by 1.5m. It is proposed that any surplus soil resulting from the works be
distributed along the western and south eastern boundaries to a height not exceeding
0.5m.
In addition the amended scheme shows a 20m wide landscaping belt along the
western and south eastern boundaries and a larger triangular area of planting in the
southern corner of the site, with planting islands within the site. To the northern
boundary a narrow strip of planting consist of a mix of trees and shrubs is proposed.
The plans also show the provision of a toilet block and pay station close to the
entrance of the site, together with some details in respect of drainage, lighting and
highway improvements to Valley Lane.
The provision of additional landscaping around the boundaries of the site would, in
the long term, soften the visual impact of the proposal. However the raising of the
ground level at the northern end of the site, even with the proposed planting belt,
would result in the toilet block and car park being prominent in views from Thornage
Road in both directions.
A further area of concern is that of drainage. In addition to the Environment Agency’s
objection the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised concerns
that the now proposed significant earthworks could affect the natural drainage
dynamics of the area where springs feed water to Spout Hill, a County Wildlife Site
and fen meadows.
In light of these concerns that applicant has been asked to provide a detailed design
for the drainage system for the site, together with an opinion from a hydrologist as to
the potential effects of the earthworks on the County Wildlife Site. At the time of
writing a preliminary opinion based on a desk top study, undertaken by Atkins
Limited, had been received which suggests that it is unlikely that the excavation
would encounter the water table or impact on the rate of flow from the springs, but it
is conceivable that the water quality of the springs could be affected by the
construction process. In addition, the applicant’s agent has confirmed that in January
2006 during trial hole investigations to a depth of 3m, at 8 locations across the site,
there was no indication of the presence of water and that the ground itself has
excellent porosity. This information has been passed to the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager for comment.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
31 January 2008
With regard to lighting, although the amended plans show lighting to both the car
park and adjacent highway there are no details in terms of the design or appearance
of the lighting or levels of luminance. As such in order to be able to assess the likely
visual impact of the car park lighting the applicant has been asked to provide precise
luminaire details and luminance calculations.
As far as highway safety is concerned, the Highway Authority has indicated that the
amended plans showing a right hand turn land would comply with the criteria for a
50mph situation and that subject to the implementation of the necessary off-site
highways improvements, it raises no objection to the proposal. However in the
subsequent e-mail it points to the fact that since the publication of DCLG Guidance
on Transport Assessments – March 2007 there is a requirement to undertake a
Transport Assessment for car parks with more than 100 spaces. In terms of the
introduction of pedestrian safety improvements to Valley Lane, although some details
are on the amended plans in order to be able to assess fully their likely impact the
applicant has been asked to submit a further detailed drawing showing the proposals.
A Screening Opinion was undertaken in March 2005, when it was established that an
Environmental Impact Assessment was not required. In view of the changes to the
application, in particular the significant earthworks proposed and the lapse of time
since the original Screening Opinion, Officers consider that a fresh Opinion should be
carried out. However given the number of outstanding issues, it is considered that
this cannot be undertaken until such a time that the additional information requested
is available. The applicant has therefore agreed to an extension of time to allow the
Local Planning Authority to complete a new Screening Opinion.
As far as the impact of the development on residential amenity is concerned there
are a relatively small number of properties that are sufficiently close to the site to be
directly affected. Occupiers of two properties on the south side of Thornage Road
(particularly Thornwood) and dwellings in Valley Lane would experience some loss of
amenity.
As Members are aware Officers previously recommended that the application be
refused on the basis of detriment to the character and appearance of the landscape
and Conservation Area, highway grounds, and lack of detail on surfacing, lighting,
levels, drainage, insufficient landscaping and associated policy grounds. The
Committee resolved to refer the application to the Joint Development Control
Committee with a recommendation of delegated approval by reason that it was
generally accepted that there is a need for additional car parking in Holt. This need
being identified through the preparation of the Whole Settlement Strategy and a
Commercial Leisure Study by DTZ Pieda Consultants. A Working Party had also
considered various options for sites in and around the town.
The previous concerns of Officers remain and the new policies contained within the
Core Strategy Submission Document support these concerns.
At the time of writing the report further information has been requested from the
applicant’s agent in respect of drainage, lighting and highways works, (to Valley
Lane), which will need to be the subject of re-advertisement and re-consultation.
These are also necessary to enable another Screening Option to be given.
Under these circumstances a detailed recommendation cannot be made at this stage
and that the application should be deferred.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
31 January 2008
RECOMMENDATION OF THE FORMER JOINT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
COMMITTEE:Accepted the applicant’s request to seek a 50mph speed restriction in place of
the 30mph speed restriction previously sought and that the Head of Planning
and Building Control be authorised to approve the application subject to:
• the receipt of amended plans providing for a right turn lane;
• no new grounds of objection being received following re-advertisement and
re-consultation on the amended plans;
• off-site highway improvements to Valley Lane (pedestrian safety works);
• provision of four coach parking spaces;
• details of levels, lighting and landscaping;
• the submission of surface water drainage details;
• and the imposition of appropriate conditions to include drainage and
pollution controls.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:That the application be deferred pending receipt of the further information
requested.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference: 20050518 31 Jan 08)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
BINHAM – 20060688 – Retention of Wash-Down Facility and Diesel Tank; Manor
Farm, Field Dalling for Taylor Farms Partnership Limited
To reconsider the planning application following a previous resolution to give
delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve in the
light of drainage negotiations.
Background
At the meeting of Development Control Committee (West) on 24 April 2007 it was
resolved that the Head Of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve
the application for the retention of the wash-down facility at Manor Farm, Field
Dalling Road, Binham.
This delegated approval was subject to:
• Resolution of a drainage channel issue.
• No objection from the Environment Agency.
• Erection of the 2.5m high wall.
• The imposition of appropriate conditions.
Copies of the Committee report and minutes of the meeting dated 24 April 2007 are
attached at Appendix 2. No further letters or representations have been received.
The design of the boundary wall has been agreed but resolution of the drainage
channel across the site frontage has not been concluded.
The principal issue at stake is whether or not the use of the wash-down facility is
contributing either directly or indirectly to surface run-off onto Field Dalling Road and
both the Environment Agency and Norfolk County Council Highways have been
subsequently contacted in respect of the need for the drainage channel.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
31 January 2008
The Environment Agency has stated to the applicant that it would have no objection
to the construction of a gully to direct uncontaminated surface water into a ditch or
soakaway. However, any discharge to controlled waters of contaminated water from
this site would be an offence under the Water Resources Act 1991 and would be
investigated and dealt with according to the Environment Agency’s enforcement and
prosecution procedures.
Norfolk County Council Highways originally suggested that overspill from the site
onto the highway should be avoided and that a drainage channel across the
complete access on the applicants’ land would seem to be a reasonable answer to
the problem. The applicant considered that the need for the channel was unjustified
and that the wash-down facility did not contribute to run-off onto Binham Road. A set
of procedures for staff when using the wash-down facility was submitted by the
applicant so as to reduce the potential for spillage and therefore negate the need for
the drainage channel. However, given visual evidence of water running-off the site,
County Highways remained of the opinion that a drainage channel was required.
A site visit was undertaken on 10 January 2008 attending by representatives of the
Highway Authority, the applicant and his agent.
A demonstration of the operation of the wash-down facility was carried out and it was
accepted by the Highway Authority representatives that, unless operated in a
significantly different manner from that demonstrated, the wash-down facility would
be unlikely to be responsible for significant amounts of water running onto Field
Dalling Road.
There is, however, the separate issue of the existing situation regarding water run-off
from the large concrete access and 'apron' of Manor Farm, and ideally the Highway
Authority would wish to see some form of on-site drainage installed to prevent this
occurring and potentially being detrimental to highway safety.
It was subsequently agreed that the applicant would contact the Environment Agency
to discuss the suitability of additional surface water discharging from his site into the
existing land drainage system, being mindful of the implications of contravention of
the Water Resources Act 1991. It has been stated that the Highway Engineer would
arrange an investigation of the highway drainage and, whilst on site, would inspect
the condition of the existing land drain to the north-west of the access to establish if
this is capable of taking further excess water from the site. If this can be achieved
then the applicants have stated that they would be agreeable to install a suitable
channel drain across the complete access to the site.
Assuming this to be carried out in the near future, the Highway Engineer would be
satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made to reduce the potential for water
discharged from the site to represent a hazard to highway safety.
Were it revealed that the existing drainage was incapable of accepting further
discharged water and the only further solution was to use a drainage system
acceptable to the Environment Agency then it was accepted by Highway Authority
representatives that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to address this
in this instance.
Summary
Whilst the actual amount of run-off from the wash-down facility onto Field Dalling
should be minimal if used properly in accordance with the submitted procedures, it is
considered that reasonable efforts should be made to reduce the potential for water
discharged from the site to represent a hazard to highway safety on Field Dalling
Road.
Development Control Committee (West)
11
31 January 2008
Further consideration is being given to the suitability of the use of existing land drains
in conjunction with a trapped gully at the site entrance and, depending on the results
of this assessment and whether any such waters would be polluted, the applicants
have indicated that they would be prepared to complete the works.
In the event that the existing land drains are incapable of accepting further
discharged water or that such water would be contaminated, the Highway Authority
would not insist that a drainage channel be provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Committee reaffirms giving delegated authority to the Head of Planning
and Building Control to approve the application subject to resolution of the
drainage channel investigation and imposition of appropriate conditions. If it is
possible to provide the drainage channel than permission should be granted
with conditions requiring all outstanding works to be completed within 6
months of the date of permission. If it is not possible to provide the drainage
channel then permission should be granted without the need for the channel
but with conditions requiring all the other outstanding works to be completed
within 6 months of the date of permission.
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 – File Reference 20060688)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
SHERINGHAM – Tree Preservation Order (Sheringham) 2007 No.8 9b and 11
Holt Road, Sheringham
To consider whether or not to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
The above Order was served in response to a proposal to fell 3 Corsican Pines by
the owner of 11 Holt Road Sheringham.
It was considered that the group of trees in the gardens of both No.11 and No.9b
were of sufficient amenity value to warrant protection. The group of eight trees are a
key landscape feature on Holt Road and add to the visual amenity of the area.
The Order was served on 8 August 2007.
Representations
Objections to the Order.
Two letters of objection have been received, one from the owner of 11 Holt Road
Sheringham (dated 21 August 2007 – see Appendix 3) and one from a neighbour at
13 Holt Road Sheringham (dated 28 August 2007 – see Appendix 3).
The owner of 11 Grove Lane has objected on three grounds:Visual Amenity - with regard to the Corsican Pines being a landscape feature adding
to the visual amenity of the area, the only good view available is from the golf course
and that car drivers on Holt Road should be watching the blind bend not the scenery.
He feels that the three Corsican Pines in his garden are branchless for the first 9m or
so and as such not a pretty sight.
Development Control Committee (West)
12
31 January 2008
Safety - trees of 16 – 20m and only 1 – 2 m off the edge of the pavement, on a busy
road could be extremely dangerous and that in high winds even if the roots hold, the
branches, which overhang the road, can be quite fragile.
Maintenance - Pine needles and cones are deposited in the rainwater gulley for the
Council to clear up, or blown into the rainwater gully on his property, requiring
removal about three times a year.
The owners of 2 The Cottage, 13 Holt Road objected on two grounds:Visual Amenity - the Corsican Pines, especially the ones in the front of 11 Holt Road,
are in poor condition, being extremely tall with no branches or greenery except right
at the top and are unattractive and for the most part just trunk.
Health and Safety - the trees now constitute a dangerous hazard and in high winds or
a storm could easily fall across Holt Road or onto the bungalows at 9b and 1 or 11
Holt Road causing extensive damage and/or possible loss of life and/or serious
injury. Make reference to a notice at Kelling Heath Caravan Site regarding the
removal of Corsican Pines from the Heath on safety and suitability grounds.
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:Visual Amenity - The Landscape Officer carried out a visual impact assessment on
foot from public places and does not consider the view obtained from motor vehicles
to be of high importance. The absence of lower branches is a key feature of
Corsican Pines. The Pines are not in a poor condition and they score well on
assessment in regard to condition, quality and contribution to the amenity of the
neighbourhood. No report from a qualified arborist on the poor condition of the trees
has been received.
Health and safety - A visual inspection of the trees by the Landscape Officer has not
highlighted any structural problems. No arboricultural report on the poor health of the
trees has been received. Corsican Pines can reach a height of 45m; the trees on
Holt Road are therefore well within the normal height range and growth
characteristics of this species. The District Council’s Landscape Officer has also
carried out a Quantified Tree Risk Assessment of the Pines concerned. The results
show that the risk of failure is acceptable.
The work at Kelling Heath was carried out as part of a heath land restoration project
and the majority of the Corsican Pines had been removed due to poor forestry
practice in the past. A number of Corsican Pines at the edge of the site, adjacent to
the touring area had been left and considered quite safe. The Forestry Commission
were also been consulted regarding the health and safety of Corsican Pines.
Maintenance - The problem of pine needles is not a consideration inhibiting the
serving or confirming of a Tree Preservation Order. Adequate maintenance is the
solution.
Development Control Committee (West)
13
31 January 2008
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 Corsican Pines covered by the Order make a significant
contribution to the setting and character of the site and the surrounding area.
Officers consider that the removal of the Corsican pines would be detrimental to the
amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed.
Source: (Simon Case, Extn 6142 – File Reference: TPO (Sheringham) 2007 No. 8)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as
Condition No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
BLAKENEY - 20080010 - Removal of condition 8 of planning permission
reference 20061800 to provide use of reflective glass; The Coast House Back
Lane for Mr and Mrs J Hartley
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :28 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Flood Buffer Zone
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20061800 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-and-a-half-storey extension
including provision of two studio holiday units
Approved, 01 Aug 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the removal of condition 8 of planning permission 20061800, which required
the windows of both the existing dwelling and one and a half storey extension to be
glazed with non-reflective glass.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle due to the concerns raised in respect of impact in
the AONB and Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee (West)
14
31 January 2008
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to removal of condition which was only imposed a short time ago, as they do
not support the use of reflective glass in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATION
A letter of objection has been received from the owner of the neighbouring property
which states that the condition was imposed in order to mitigate the intrusive impact
which may be worse at sunrise and sunset when reflected light may cause glare over
Blakeney Harbour. As far as safety is concerned the letter suggests that the usual
practice is to attached gauge blast curtains to the inside of windows and also to
attach images of birds to the windows, which would be highly visible to any incoming
birds.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds - 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 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 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental 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 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).
Development Control Committee (West)
15
31 January 2008
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the Conservation Area and Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
3. Impact on wildlife.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the development boundary for Blakeney in an area primarily in
residential use (Policy 6) where the principle of development would comply with
Policy 4, subject to it enhancing the character of the village. In addition, as the site is
situated within the Blakeney Conservation Area, Policies 20 and 42 of the Local Plan
are also relevant.
In August 2007, following a site visit, the Committee granted permission for the
erection of a one and half storey extension to the north elevation of the existing twostorey chalet style dwelling, which dates from the 1970s. As part of the scheme,
improvements were proposed to the main house, including replacing the existing
white uPVC windows in timber of a more appropriate design. However, due to the
prominent location of the property, within the Blakeney Conservation Area and Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty the Committee considered that the use of nonreflective glass to all the windows would reduce the amount of reflection especially
from the large area of glazing to the new extension, thereby helping to reduce its
overall visual impact in the landscape.
Works have now commenced on site with the improvements to the existing dwelling
taking priority. However, having sought advice on the use of non reflective glass from
glazing specialists, the applicants have been advised that the use of such glass
seems to increase the incidence of bird strikes. Therefore given the location of the
development adjacent to the marshes and Blakeney Harbour there are concerns that
in addition to having a potentially adverse effect on wildlife, increasing the mortality
rate, there is a real danger of personal injury to residents from heavy birds (ducks)
penetrating the glass. For these reasons the applicants are seeking the removal of
the condition.
In terms of the impact on the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty are concerned whilst large areas of glazing are proposed to the north, east
and western gables on the extension it is not considered that the use of reflective
glass would significantly increase its impact or be detrimental to the appearance or
character of the area.
Similarly the area of glazing is not to be increased in size; as such it is not
considered that a change in the type of glazing would increase the potential for
overlooking. When compared to non-reflective glass which has a polarising effect,
the reflective sheen of ordinary glass can reduce the ability to look into a building and
with it the perceptions of overlooking.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has been consulted to establish if there
is any evidence that the use of non-reflective glass results in a greater incidence of
bird strikes. Provided they have no objection the proposal is considered acceptable
and would accord with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to
approve the application subject to no objections from the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds.
Development Control Committee (West)
16
31 January 2008
5.
BODHAM - 20071223 - Change of use of agricultural land to site for one static
caravan and one touring caravan and the provision of one transit pitch; land
off Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
Target Date :28 Sep 2007
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20051159 - (Full Planning Permission) - Retention of field shelter as commercial log
store
Refused, 06 Sep 2005
20070522 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of three agricultural buildings and
retention of 2.2m high gate
Refused, 10 Jul 2007
THE APPLICATION
Use of approximately 0.1ha of agricultural land for the siting of a static caravan, a
touring caravan and the creation of a transit pitch. Permission is sought
retrospectively for the static and touring pitch.
The application originally sought permission for two static caravans, two touring
caravans and two transit pitches. The proposals have been reduced to reflect the
applicant’s needs.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control having regard to the need to
weigh planning policy issues with the applicant's human rights.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments in respect of original proposals.
Strong objection. The main objections are as follows:1. Is in contravention of planning regulations.
2. Agricultural land should remain so and not be used otherwise.
3. This is a retrospective application and if agreed would set a dangerous precedent
for development outside the village envelope.
4. There is no need for another caravan site in the village.
5. Noise pollution is a problem as there are no facilities on the site and a generator is
needed constantly.
6. There are concerns now that as this site has been allowed to be established it will
take many months for any enforcement to take place and is this now planning policy,
to allow buildings or changes of use to happen without prior permission?
Comments in respect of amended proposals.
1. Would create noise pollution with generators being used day and night.
2. In contravention of planning regulations as it is agricultural land and should be kept
as such.
3. Already 2 caravan sites in the village, also at surrounding villages and do not need
more.
4. There are no facilities on the site.
5. Could set a precedent regarding development outside the parish envelope.
Development Control Committee (West)
17
31 January 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Objections received from two local residents (summarised):1. Detracts from appearance of countryside/Area of High Landscape Value.
2. The presence on this and the adjoining site of yet further unauthorised caravans is
a clear breach of planning regulations.
3. The current lawful use of the land remains as agriculture. The site is subject to a
Covenant which restricts its use to agriculture.
4. Site lacks the necessary facilities for permanent occupation.
5. Inappropriate and ugly steel and wooden fencing has been installed on site
boundaries.
6. 'Keep out' signs are aggressive and make villagers feel vulnerable.
The applicant has employed the services of East of England Planning Aid. Letters
submitted with the original submission and the amended proposals by the Casework
Planner are appended to the report (see Appendix 4).
In summary the applicant is a gypsy, who works locally and requires the site for his
occupation. The touring pitch is required for his touring unit with the additional transit
pitch for visitors.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Comments in respect of original and amended
proposals:Hart Lane (U14314) is throughout its length between The Street (C528) to the north
and Osier Lane (C308) to the south of mainly single track construction, in places
narrowing to below 3m in width, and has limited opportunities for two vehicles to pass
each other in safety without encroaching on the highway verge. In addition Hart lane
has a poor junction arrangement with Osier Lane resulting in severely restricted
visibility at this intersection.
The minimum carriageway width acceptable for a car and caravan to pass is 4.8m
(Manual for Streets DfT and C and LG 2007).
Furthermore the site vehicular access has negligible visibility to the critical direction
from the required 2.4m setback due to its positioning close to a bend and proximity of
adjacent hedgerows. As Hart Lane is subject to a 60 mph speed limit the visibility
requirement is 215m x 2.4m (Design Manual For Roads and Bridges DETR June
1993). Notwithstanding the actual speed limit Hart Lane is so aligned that it would be
reasonable to assume that 85th percentile vehicle speeds past the site are in the
region of 40 mph this requiring access visibility of 2.4m x 120m. It is considered
highly unlikely from available information that the applicant would be able to provide
this level of visibility from land under his control.
This proposal involving towing vehicles, is likely to result in conditions detrimental to
highway safety and convenience and accordingly I would wish to recommend that
permission be refused.
Gypsy Liaison Officer - Comments in respect of original and amended proposals: I have been unable to talk to the applicant directly. However, from the enquiries that I
have made he does appear to meet the statutory definition of 'gypsy'. Although the
caravan count data for North Norfolk does not show high levels of traveller
movements and residence over the last five years it is recognised that nationally
there is considerable under provision of permanent sites which leads to increased
incidences of unauthorised encampments. Any caravan site would need to comply
with the conditions imposed by the Local Authority site licence.
Strategic Housing Manager - No comment.
Development Control Committee (West)
18
31 January 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 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 68: Residential Caravans (same policies apply as for residential buildings).
Policy 123: Static Caravan Sites (new sites not permitted) (extensions subject to
locational and size restrictions. Need to improve existing appearance and quality)
(proposals to amend existing layouts acceptable where general appearance and
quality of site in enhanced).
Policy 125: Touring Caravan Sites (new sites not permitted in designated landscape
areas. Elsewhere may be permitted if in accordance with other policies).
Policy 147: New Accesses (developments which would endanger highway safety not
permitted).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy HO 4: Sites for Gypsies and Travellers and travelling showpeople (specifies
the criteria to be met for the provision of sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Compliance with policies 5, 68, 123 and 125?
2. Impact on the appearance of the designated Area of High Landscape Value.
3. Highway safety and convenience.
4. Assessment of the applicant’s needs given the under-provision of authorised
transit sites.
APPRAISAL
The application site comprises an enclosed area of farmland with a frontage to Hart
Lane, which is a narrow unclassified road. Notwithstanding the presence of trees and
hedging on the front boundary, the site is visible from the road and the presence of
the caravans and tall fencing that surrounds part of the site presents an alien and
inappropriate feature within the generally open and unspoilt landscape.
Development Control Committee (West)
19
31 January 2008
The site lies within an area of countryside designated in the Local Plan as being of
High Landscape Value. Local Plan Policy 21 seeks to prevent development in the
Area of High Landscape Value that would significantly detract from its appearance or
character. In this respect Members may recall the recent application for the erection
of three agricultural buildings on the adjoining land (reference 20070522) which was
refused at the June 2007 meeting on the grounds that the buildings would
significantly detract from the open and undeveloped character of the area. This
application raises similar issues.
Within the countryside there is a policy presumption against residential development.
Local Plan Policy 68 requires proposals for residential caravans to be considered as
though they were for residential buildings and for such proposals to be considered in
the light of the appropriate policies. Accordingly there is a strong policy objection to
residential development at this location.
Local Plan Policy 123 seeks to prevent the establishment of sites for static caravans
except within specific circumstances none of which apply in this case.
The establishment of a touring caravan pitch at this location would be potentially
acceptable in policy terms (Policy 125) providing the site could be successfully
integrated onto the landscape and providing the site could be safely accessed.
However, the presence of touring caravans could not normally be used to justify a
permanent residential presence on the site.
In this case the applicant's status as a gypsy is an additional material consideration
which has to be taken into account. In broad terms Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights provides the applicant with right to occupy his home
without interference by public authority except where this is necessary in the general
public interest. It is necessary, therefore, in this instance to balance the harm to the
public interest arising from the application proposals against the rights and personal
circumstances of the applicant.
Members will note the applicant's requirements as presented in the letters from the
Planning Aid Caseworker (Appendix 4). Given the applicant’s gypsy status and his
employment locally the need for a site is accepted. However, notwithstanding that
the proposals have been pared down to reflect the applicants actual requirements
there remain concerns regarding this particular location. In the light of the highway
safety concerns and concerns regarding the inappropriate appearance of the site and
the consequent detrimental impact on the appearance and character of this part of
the Area of High Landscape Value it is considered that in this instance the potential
harm that would arise from approval of the application would outweigh the needs and
human rights of the applicant.
If Members accept the recommendation authority will be sought for enforcement
action to remove all caravans and unauthorised structures from the site and return
the land to agricultural use. Given the particular circumstances of this case it is
suggested that a period for compliance of six months would be reasonable to enable
the applicant to find an alternative more suitable site.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse on grounds relating to the harmful impact of the proposals on the
appearance of this part of the Area of High Landscape Value and the
inadequacy of the local road network to accommodate safely the associated
traffic as recommended by County Council Highways.
Development Control Committee (West)
20
31 January 2008
6.
BRISTON - 20071520 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide one-anda-half-storey living accommodation and double garage; Acorn Lodge Macks
Loke for Dr and Mrs Brueggemann
Target Date :27 Nov 2007
Case Officer :Miss J Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion and extension of an existing garage to provide one-and-a-halfstorey additional living accommodation and double garage.
The proposed extension would be located to the east of the existing dwelling and
measure approximately 5.5m in length, 8m in width and 5.8m in height to the ridge of
the roof. The extension would be constructed approximately 1m from the boundary
with the neighbouring dwelling to the east.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the last meeting on order for the Committee to carry
out a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
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 Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to carry
out a site visit.
Development Control Committee (West)
21
31 January 2008
The site is located within the residential policy area of Briston where extensions to
dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle providing they are appropriate
in terms of their relationship to nearby properties and accord with other policies in the
Local Plan.
The proposed garage extension would be located to the east of the existing dwelling,
adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring property of No.25 Macks Loke, which
is also known as The Tin House. There is an existing high hedge along the eastern
boundary of the site which would need to be removed in order to erect the extension
and allow pedestrian access to the rear of the property. There would be a window to
the garage in the eastern elevation of the proposed extension facing the neighbour
who has three windows facing the application site which are to a living room and
bedroom.
The distance between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property to the
east would not comply with the basic amenity criteria. The recommended distance in
the basic amenity criteria is 9m. The actual distance would be approximately 4m,
which is a shortfall of 5m. However, despite this shortfall it is considered that the
relationship between the two properties would be acceptable, as the window facing
the neighbouring dwelling would be to a garage and a 2m high fence could be
erected along the boundary which would obscure views between the properties.
Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling to
the east. The applicants have offered to delete this window from the scheme but
Officers do not consider it necessary.
Furthermore, it is considered that the scale and design of the proposed extension
would be in keeping with that of the existing dwelling.
As the Committee may recall from the last meeting the neighbour confirmed that he
had withdrawn his previous objections to the extension following a discussion with
the applicants.
It is considered that the proposal is acceptable and accords with Development Plan
policy.
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 first floor of the
eastern elevation of the development hereby permitted unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Materials to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
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 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
22
31 January 2008
7.
CORPUSTY - 20071647 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings, five twostorey dwellings and two flats; adjacent 11 Heydon Road for Broadland
Housing Association
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :17 Dec 2007
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of High Landscape Value
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect nine dwellings on a site area of approximately 0.28ha.
The proposed dwellings would consist of two pairs of two-bed semi-detached
properties, a terrace of three properties consisting of one three-bed two-storey
dwelling and two two-bed flats and a pair of single-storey two-bed bungalows.
Access to the site would be gained via three new entrances onto Heydon Road. This
would require the removal of the existing frontage hedge to be replaced by a new
hedge, set-back from the road to provide visibility splays for each access.
Proposed external materials include clay pantile and pin-tiles to the roofs, brick slip
chimneys, timber framed windows and doors and facing bricks to match the adjacent
properties.
Eighteen car parking spaces are proposed.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Highway implications.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The site is in an
elevated position that is extremely prominent in the general landscape and lies within
the designated Area of High Landscape Value and Countryside. The existing houses
along Heydon Road can be seen from many directions, and are particularly visible
from Norwich Road. Concerned about the visual impact and whilst the replacement
hedge would provide some screening along the roadside, this will not provide
screening from further a field. A full landscaping scheme to help soften the visual
impact of the development should be submitted and without it, it would be difficult to
see how the scheme would comply with Local Plan Policy 57.
County Council (Highways) - This site is located on the southern extremity of the
built-up area of Corpusty/Saxthorpe on a green field site which is not well served in
terms of the local highway network and has a complete lack of any pedestrian
facilities whatsoever linking the site to the village facilities to the north.
Development Control Committee (West)
23
31 January 2008
In regard to the local highway network, concerns relate to the likely means of
vehicular access to, or from, the south-east, this being Valley Road (C477) which has
a severely substandard junction arrangement with the busy and important Holt Road
(B1149), a designated Main Distributor Route in the County Council Route Hierarchy.
Visibility at this junction is restricted in the critical direction due to the alignment of the
carriageway and the position of the junction close to the brow of a hill. Driver sightline
visibility measuring less than 100m from a 2.4m setback with the requirement for a
60mph speed limit (as in force on this section of Holt Road) being 215m (Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges (DETR June 1993).
Furthermore, Valley Road is of single track construction with no vehicular passing
provision throughout its entire length between its junction with Horseshoe Lane
(C477) and the Holt Road (B1149).
Additionally there are concerns regarding any increased vehicular use resulting from
this proposal of the substandard junction of Heydon Road with The Street (U14256)
and the narrow and poorly aligned Horseshoe Lane (C477).
The site is not one where transport other than the motor car is readily, or safely,
available and no facilities for more vulnerable road users (pedestrians) exist. It is
reasonable to assume, therefore, that the scale of development proposed if likely to
generate an additional 72-90 vehicular movements per day (TRICS database Trip
Rate Information Computer Services Version 2005b) onto the surrounding
substandard highway network.
This level of increase in vehicular use is considered unacceptable and, accordingly, I
would wish to recommend that the application be refused.
Were the applicant able to put forward a proposal suggesting footway links from this
remote site to the facilities of Corpusty/Saxthorpe then further consideration could be
made of the proposed development.
Environmental Health - Condition should be attached in respect of waste disposal
Strategic Housing - Supports this application which will help meet the identified
housing need in Corpusty and the adjoining civil parishes.
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 - saved policies):
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 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Development Control Committee (West)
24
31 January 2008
Policy 18: Light Pollution (aims to prevent insensitive lighting schemes to protect
residents, traffic safety and environment).
Policy 21: Area of High Landscape Value (promotes conservation and enhancement,
prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to appearance and
character).
Policy 57: Affordable Housing in the Countryside (specifies criteria for 'exception'
cases in the Countryside policy area. Sites have to immediately adjoin village
boundaries).
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 HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy 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 affordable housing in this location.
2. Design.
3. Highway safety.
4. Landscaping.
APPRAISAL
Members visited the site on 2 January 2008.
The application site, whilst located in the Countryside policy area, is also located
adjacent to the settlement boundary of the selected small village of Corpusty. As
such the proposal would comply with adopted North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 57 (b)
and, subject to the proposal complying with the other requirements of Policy 57 and
other relevant Local Plan Policies, it would be acceptable in principle.
The affordable housing scheme would, with the possible exception of part c) which is
considered below, comply with the requirements of Policy 57 of the adopted Local
Plan.
Adjacent residential properties to the south-west consist of two narrow-span terraces
of four dwellings (eight in total) set back approximately 15m from Heydon Road with
a ridge height of approximately 7.5m. The proposed dwellings would be set back a
similar distance of 15m with ridge heights of approximately 8.1m for the two-storey
dwellings. Whilst the proposed dwellings would be wider than adjacent properties,
they would be stepped down to follow the contours of the site.
Development Control Committee (West)
25
31 January 2008
In respect of design, the applicant has adopted a traditional approach and, whilst the
scheme is less than ideal in terms of gable width and some areas of detailing, subject
to the use of quality external materials and appropriate landscaping, the proposal is
considered acceptable
In respect of landscaping, concern has been expressed about the visual impact of
the development on the wider countryside. Whilst it is accepted that the dwellings
would be visible from distance in some directions, there is a need to consider how
the development could be improved in terms of boundary treatment to soften the
visual impact The applicant has been made aware of these concerns and has
responded by stating that it is intended to provide 1,800mm privacy screening
between properties and then 1,200mm high chain-link fencing with native species
hedge planting to rear gardens to give properties views across open countryside and
maximise potential credits for Eco-Homes/The Code for Sustainable Homes
compliance. Subject to receipt of appropriate landscaping scheme the proposal is
considered acceptable.
In respect of highway considerations, County Highways have objected to the
proposal based on a number of issues, as detailed above. However, at the time of
writing this report negotiations were being undertaken between the applicant and
County Highways with a view to the provision of a footpath linking the application site
with the village up to the old railway bridge. An offer of £25,000 towards the
construction of the footpath has been made by the applicant as a commuted sum,
although County Highways would prefer the applicant to design and cost the off-site
highway works, with the potential for a commuted sum to pay for the actual cost of
the works, secured by Grampian-style condition and/or S106 agreement.
Negotiations are still taking place and the Committee will be updated orally in respect
of this matter.
In summary it is considered that, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the highway
concerns and the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would comply
with adopted policies and would be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to resolution of highway concerns
raised by County Highways and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including a full landscaping scheme.
8.
FAKENHAM - 20071561 - Erection of twenty-four dwellings; land adjacent 95
Holt Road for Anglian Water Group
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :07 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Outline Planning Permission)
See also 20071788 below. (Adjacent site).
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20050250 - (Full Planning Permission) - Siting of modular buildings to provide office
accommodation
Refused, 05 May 2005
Development Control Committee (West)
26
31 January 2008
20051049 - (Full Planning Permission) - Siting of modular buildings for use as office
accommodation
Temporarily Approved, 19 Aug 2005
20071010 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Erection of forty-two dwellings
Refused, 07 Sep 2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect 24 dwellings on a site measuring approximately 7,250sq.m (0.7ha).
Only means of access is submitted for consideration at this stage, although some
indicative details have been submitted.
Entrance to the site is proposed via a re-positioned entrance currently serving the
existing Anglian Water site from Holt Road. Access would be shared between the
proposed dwellings and the remaining Anglian Water interests.
The proposed 24 dwellings would consist of terraces of ten three-storey town
houses, one two-storey end-terraced property, three pairs of two-storey semidetached dwellings, one detached two-storey dwelling built utilising the existing
smaller northern water tower and a block of six flats, three-storeys high.
An amended plan has been received repositioning and redesigning two blocks on the
western boundary.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of major significance
of development on this site.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection to the amended plans and we approve of the reduction in the number of
dwellings on this site. However, many of our existing concerns regarding the
aesthetic appearance of the buildings remain and the Town Council is enormously
disappointed by the unimaginative design and unsympathetic materials submitted by
the applicant. The Town Council feel that pitched roofs would bring more character to
the buildings.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Awaiting comments.
Building Control Manager - No comment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
imposition of conditions.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to imposition of conditions and
Section 106 agreement to secure funding for public transport improvements and
walking and cycling improvements.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to completion of remediation
recommendations and the taking of validation samples in respect of contamination.
Development Control Committee (West)
27
31 January 2008
Environmental Health - Conditions should be attached in respect of construction
work, waste disposal, contaminated land assessment and advisory notes. Further
information is also required in respect of the submitted contamination report.
Applicant should also confirm that the mobile phone equipment, individually and
cumulatively complies with the standards laid down by ICNIRP.
Planning Obligations Co-ordinator - No contribution required in respect of Education.
No hydrants required in respect of Fire Service. Contribution of £1,200 required in
respect of Library Provision. A commuted sum may be required in respect of any
landscaping required to be maintained following adoption.
Strategic Housing - There is a proven need for affordable dwellings in Fakenham and
whilst the proposal falls below the minimum threshold of 25 dwellings indicated in
Local Plan Policy 56, there are other material factors to consider in relation to this
application, namely Planning Policy Statement 3 which shows that the minimum
national indicative site threshold size is 15 dwellings and the fact that the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy sets an affordable threshold at 10 dwellings.
Both of these documents would trigger the requirement of affordable housing on the
application site and the opportunity should not be lost.
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 - saved policies):
Policy T.2: New Development (to be assessed against effect on traffic generation and
alternative modes of access. Adequate access necessary).
Policy CS.5: Whole Settlement Strategies
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 1: Growth Towns (main towns for growth in district).
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 16: Pollution Control (aims to protect public amenity and natural habitats
against potentially polluting developments) (prevents sensitive development near to
existing polluting environments).
Policy 56: Affordable Housing on Large Housing Sites (specifies criteria for affordable
housing provision in residential developments).
Policy 138: Cycling (seeks improvements to cycling facilities as part of development
proposals).
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)
28
31 January 2008
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Developer contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of re-development.
2. Highway safety.
3. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residents/properties.
4. Landscaping.
5. Affordable Housing.
6. Contamination Assessment.
APPRAISAL
The application site is located within the residential development boundary of
Fakenham. As such, there would be no objection to the principle of residential
development on this site subject to compliance with relevant Local Plan policies.
In this instance, whilst the application involves means of access only, the Committee
will need to consider whether, in principle, 24 dwellings can be sited without
detriment to the amenity of adjacent neighbours.
In this respect, the applicants appear to have considered concerns raised by
Committee in relation to earlier application 20071010, which had proposed 42
dwellings on the site, and which was refused. The density of the proposed
development would be approximately 33 units per hectare which is above the
suggested minimum of 30 units per hectare for the efficient use of land in PPS3
"Housing".
Development Control Committee (West)
29
31 January 2008
In respect of means of access, vehicular access is proposed via a revised entrance
off Holt Road 4.8m wide with a 6m radii entrance and associated 1.8m wide
pedestrian footpath. County Highways have raised no objection to the proposed
means of access and therefore, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
and completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure a commuted sum to the value
of £3000 for public transport infrastructure improvements and a commuted sum to
the value of £10,000 to enable improvements to the walking and cycling network in
Fakenham, the proposed means of access is considered to be acceptable.
Adjacent residential properties consist primarily of single-storey dwellings on the
western boundary (Waterfield Avenue) with two-storey properties on Holt Road and
Greenway Lane. Immediately to the north-east is a Doctors Surgery and to the east
are two single-storey dwellings, which have outline permission to be replaced with 16
dwellings.
Neighbouring buildings to the west are, in the majority, single-storey and the
amended indicative layout has increased the separation distance between existing
and proposed dwellings. Subject to careful design regarding room layouts and
position of relevant associated windows, it is considered likely that the proposed
development would be able to comply with the basic amenity criteria. A number of
units have been amended on the indicative plan to improve the relationship further by
reason of re-siting and reorientation.
There are considered to be a number of constraints on site that limit the possible
siting and position of buildings. Notwithstanding the need to relate satisfactorily to
surrounding properties the applicant has advised that the adjacent larger water tower
has extensive underground infrastructure that requires a number of service area
easements to allow any necessary future maintenance by Anglian Water. This has
the effect of preventing buildings from being built on them. In addition, the 27m high
water tower at the front of the site casts a significant shadow, the length and direction
of which varies across the day and throughout the year. Clearly these issues restrict
possible site layout arrangements and limit the potential to deviate from the indicative
site layout.
Whilst it is difficult to ascertain exactly how the buildings would be finished and where
key windows would be positioned, particularly as these are maters reserved for
subsequent approval, the prime consideration is whether Committee is satisfied that
24 units can be sited without detriment to the surrounding area. It is considered that,
on balance, it would be possible to erect 24 dwellings without causing significant
detriment to amenity. These relationships could be further improved given the
increased amount of space available to provide additional landscaping to soften the
impact of development.
In respect of affordable housing provision, the proposal falls below the minimum
threshold of 25 dwellings indicated in Local Plan Policy 56. Therefore no affordable
provision is required in this instance. However, the Strategic Housing Enabling Team
Leader considers that there are other material factors to consider in relation to this
application, namely Planning Policy Statement 3 which shows that the minimum
national indicative site threshold size is 15 dwellings and the fact that the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy sets an affordable threshold at 10 dwellings.
Both of these documents would trigger the requirement of affordable housing on the
application site. Officers do not consider that these documents currently outweigh the
saved policies (Policy 56) of the current adopted Local Plan. However, further legal
advice has been sought to confirm that this approach has a firm legal basis.
Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
Development Control Committee (West)
30
31 January 2008
In respect of contamination issues, the Environment Agency has raised no objection
subject to completion of remediation recommendations and the taking of validation
samples. However, Members will note that Environmental Health have asked for
confirmation of a number of factors before commenting further. The applicant has
been made aware of these issues and will respond. Committee will be updated orally.
In summary, it is considered that 24 dwellings can be satisfactorily accommodated on
the site without detriment to the amenity of existing adjacent residents. Means of
access would comply with Highway Authority requirements and all other matters
relating to layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping, will be considered in
detail at the reserved matters stage.
Subject to further advice on the affordable housing issue and no objections from
Environmental Health to further details to be submitted the proposal would accord
with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Legal
Services Manager in respect of affordable housing requirement, satisfactory
resolution of contamination issues raised by Environmental Health, completion
of a Section 106 Agreement to secure off-site improvements and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
9.
FAKENHAM - 20071780 - Erection of 2 single-storey dwellings; Copper Beech
Lodge Heath Lane for Mr D Coles
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :10 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Linder
(Outline Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Wensum Valley Project
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19961251 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of existing bungalow and
erection of two bungalows off Heath Lane and four houses and four bungalows off
Warren Avenue
Refused, 27 Dec 1996
19970426 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of bungalow, carport and garage
Approved, 15 May 1997
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of two detached bungalows with means of access only for
consideration.
The dwellings would front Heath Lane and be sited to either side of the existing
access to Copper Beech Lodge. Each bungalow would have an integral garage with
car parking and turning area to the frontage with direct access off Heath Lane.
An amended plan has been received which shows the rear garden depth of each
property increased in length.
Development Control Committee (West)
31
31 January 2008
REASON FOR REFERAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Towers having regard to the concerns of local residents
in respect of the intensive development of the site and highway concerns.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds that it would result in a cramped form of
development which would have an undesirable environmental impact on the
character of the surrounding area.
REPRESENTATIONS
A petition signed by 23 local residents has been received which raises the following
concerns (summarised):1. Any more dwellings would destroy a lovely, peaceful environment.
2. The road is unadopted and residents are responsible for its upkeep, and should
have a say in respect of any additional traffic.
3. Residents of properties to the south of the site use Heath Lane as their access and
not Warren Avenue as stated in the Design and Access Statement.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 1: Growth Towns (main towns for growth in district).
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 SS 8: Fakenham (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 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
3. Access and highway safety.
Development Control Committee (West)
32
31 January 2008
APPRAISAL
The site lies situated within the development boundary for Fakenham where Policy 6
would permit residential development providing it complies with other Development
Plan policies.
Heath Lane, which is accessed off the Norwich Road, is an unadopted road, which is
surfaced for the first 140m, with the remainder of the roadway consisting of a
compacted gravel surface.
The majority of properties, which are predominately single-storey, are situated on the
west side Heath Lane, with the area immediately opposite the site forming part of a
large area of conifer woodland.
At the present time the site forms part of the garden area of Copper Beech Lodge, a
large single-storey dwelling set in mature grounds, which is situated some 55m back
from Heath Lane. The frontage to the site is defined by a thick laurel hedge some
2.5m in height, as is the southern boundary with the neighbouring single-storey
dwelling.
The two plots would be sited to either side of the existing central access to Copper
Beech Lodge and each would have a separate access formed through the laurel
hedge. It is proposed that the hedge to the southern boundary would be maintained
at a height of 2m. Plot 2 which would be adjacent to a single-storey dwelling to the
north and would be separated from that property by an existing 1.8m high closeboarded fence.
Given the existing boundary treatment it is not considered that there would be any
amenity issues in terms of the potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties.
However the proposed rear garden of Plot 2 falls short of the recommended garden
depth of 10m by approximately 1m, but would be compensated for by a plot width of
14m. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would have satisfactory
amenity space.
As far as the access is concerned, Heath Lane is an unadopted road, the upkeep of
which is the responsibility of residents. The Highway Authority has indicated that it
has no objection to the proposal and there would be adequate car parking on each
plot for two vehicles, which would comply with the Local Plan car parking
requirement.
It is therefore considered that, whilst the plots would be fairly small, they would be
adequate to accommodate dwellings of a size commensurate with the character and
appearance of other properties in the immediate area of the site and the proposal
would therefore accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) These reserved matters shall relate to the appearance, landscaping, layout and
scale 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 (drawing
number 07/52/01 Rev C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 12 December
2007, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development Control Committee (West)
33
31 January 2008
4) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed onsite parking areas shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled and surfaced in accordance
with the approved plan. It shall be retained thereafter for those specific uses.
5) The existing laurel hedgerow to the eastern boundary of Plots 1 and 2 and the
southern boundary of Plot 1, as indicated on the approved plan (drawing number
07/52/01 Rev C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 12 December 2007,
shall be retained and maintained, at a minimum height of 2m from ground level, to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of not less
than ten years from the date of this permission.
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 the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) 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.
5) To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy
13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
10.
FAKENHAM - 20071788 - Erection of two four-storey blocks to provide eighteen
flats; 107-109 Holt Road for Fairstead Homes
Target Date :15 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
See also 20071561 above. (Adjacent site).
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20041808 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of two single-storey dwellings
and erection of two three-storey blocks comprising of twelve flats
Approved, 24 Dec 2004
20070949 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two four-storey blocks to provide
twenty flats
Withdrawn, 15 Nov 2007
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of two single-storey dwellings and erection of two detached four-storey
blocks in a tandem arrangement, separated by a landscaped parking accessed from
Holt Road with a parking area to the rear served by a central driveway passing
through the centre of the two buildings.
The two blocks have been designed in a modern style with a mix of brick, render and
cedar cladding to the external walls and window frames of grey powder coated
aluminium.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Towers having regard to the following planning issues:
Design/appearance of the proposed buildings, in the light of strong objections from
the Town Council.
Development Control Committee (West)
34
31 January 2008
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to this application, and implores the members to consider the impact of this
urban development on a Market Town and must reinforce our comments sent on the
previous application, namely, Object strongly to the urban outdated design more
suited to an inner city than a Market Town. Design similar to tower blocks which are
now being demolished in other towns.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control Manager - No comment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
County Council (Highways) - As with the earlier similar application on this site
(20070949) there are concerns regarding the suitability of the proposal namely:
1) The proximity of the north-eastern block of flats and the bin stores to the highway
would suggest that the driver sightline visibility from the access onto Holt Road would
be obscured from the required 2.4m setback. The application should be suitably
amended to avoid any obscuring of access visibility or access visibility splays of 59m
x 2.4m x 59m clearly demonstrated on a suitably scaled plan.
2) The access driveway should be widened to provide 4.5m width for the at least the
first 6m into the site from the nearside edge of the adjacent highway carriageway to
allow for satisfactory shared vehicular use. The above should be addressed to allow
further comment.
County Council (Planning) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Append standard conditions/notes regarding waste disposal,
external lighting and possible ground contamination.
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 1: Growth Towns (main towns for growth in district).
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 SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Development Control Committee (West)
35
31 January 2008
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 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 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Design and appearance of the proposed buildings
APPRAISAL
The site comprises a roughly rectangular plot approximately 13m wide with a depth
of approximately 76m. It is bounded to the east by an open site used for commercial
sales/storage, to the west by the Anglian Water water tower site and to the north by
Fakenham Medical Practice and the rear garden of a single dwelling fronting
Greenway Lane. Given the previous use of the site as two dwellings it is not
considered that residential development would be inappropriate. Indeed outline
planning permission for sixteen flats was granted in 2005 in a similar configuration to
the current proposal.
This application follows the withdrawal of proposals for twenty flats on the site
(20070949). The current proposals which have resulted from negotiations with the
applicants' agent incorporate modifications to the design and external materials
which have resulted in a modern appearance which, although at variance with the
neighbouring buildings, would not detract from the appearance of the locality. The
proposals still envisage two more units than approved under the outline application.
Despite this high density (approximately 180 units per hectare) on-site parking
accords with the adopted standards and adequate provision is made for refuse
storage whilst providing limited but adequate communal amenity space.
The comments raised by County Council Highways have been forwarded to the
applicants' agent. It is hoped to have a response in time for the meeting.
The Town Council's comments are noted. It is, nevertheless, considered that the
design is acceptable and that the development offers an opportunity to enhance the
appearance of this part of the town. However, it is accepted that considerable care
will have to be taken in the choice of external materials and finishes and the
permission will have to be carefully conditioned in this respect.
In respect of affordable housing provision, the proposal falls below the minimum
threshold of 25 dwellings indicated in Local Plan Policy 56. Therefore no affordable
provision is required in this instance. However, in respect of the proposed
redevelopment of the adjoining site (20071561), the Strategic Housing Enabling
Team Leader considers that there are other material factors to consider, namely
Planning Policy Statement 3 which shows that the minimum national indicative site
threshold size is 15 dwellings and the fact that the Local Development Framework
Core Strategy sets an affordable threshold at 10 dwellings. Both of these documents
Development Control Committee (West)
36
31 January 2008
would similarly trigger the requirement of affordable housing on the application site.
Officers do not consider that these documents currently outweigh the saved policies
(Policy 56) of the current adopted Local Plan. However, in view of Government
advice contained within PPS3 - “Housing”, further legal advice has been sought to
confirm that this approach has a firm legal basis. The Committee will be updated
orally at the meeting.
Subject to resolution of the highway issues the development will accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to no objections from outstanding consultees,
further legal advice and receipt of amended drawings to the satisfaction of
County Council Highways, and subject to appropriate conditions.
11.
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
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
dwelling 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 deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee to enable
negotiations concerning the earlier terraced scheme to take place.
Development Control Committee (West)
37
31 January 2008
PARISH COUNCIL
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.
Awaiting comments on amended proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters have been received to the original scheme, two from the same address.
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
38
31 January 2008
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.
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 affect 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 - Comments awaited.
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 - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
39
31 January 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998- saved policies):
Policy 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
The application was deferred on 8 November 2007 to seek to negotiate a reduction in
the number of dwellings on the site, which has been achieved.
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).
In respect of impact on the form and character of the Conservation Area, an
application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing property is
reported below. The Conservation Design and Landscape Manager considers that
the building is not worthy of retention and that the proposed re-development would
enhance this part of the village.
English Heritage previously considered a request to list the building and responded
orally that it was not of listable quality.
Development Control Committee (West)
40
31 January 2008
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 enhance 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 been re-consulted
in respect of the amended plans and Committee will be updated orally.
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.
The development as proposed would be in accordance with adopted Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection
following re-consultation and re-advertisement and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
12.
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
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070723 - (Demolition in a Conservation Area) - Demolition of dwelling
Withdrawn, 14 Jun 2007
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the demolition of a dwelling.
Development Control Committee (West)
41
31 January 2008
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee pending design
amendments in respect of application 20071248.
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
11 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.
See Appendix 5 for detailed copy of letter of objection received outlining the history
of the site.
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.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
42
31 January 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 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
The application was deferred pending design amendments in respect of application
20071248.
Representations received have 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.
The proposal is considered to be in accordance with adopted Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
43
31 January 2008
13.
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
At the request of Councillor Combe having regard to the following planning issues:
Density of development and need for Committee to visit the site.
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
44
31 January 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 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
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
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
45
31 January 2008
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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
46
31 January 2008
14.
LANGHAM - 20071789 - Erection of seven dwellings; land at Holt Road/ Swans
Close for Hastoe Housing Association
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :11 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19950507 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of cottage and garage
Approved, 31 Jul 1995
19980076 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of pitched roof over existing flatroofed rear extension
Approved, 23 Feb 1998
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect seven dwellings on a site area of approximately 0.3 ha.
The proposed seven dwellings would consist of a pair of two-bed semi-detached
properties, a terrace of three properties consisting of one four-bed two-storey
dwelling and two two-bed dwellings and a pair of two-bed flats.
Access to the site would be gained via two new entrances, one off of Holt Road to
serve the pair of two-bed semi-detached dwellings and a link off Swans Close to
serve the five other properties.
Nineteen car parking spaces are proposed.
Proposed external materials include clay pantile to the roofs, painted timber framed
windows and doors, and a mixture of facing bricks, flint and fibre-cement
weatherboarding.
Amended plans received re-positioning Units 1 and 2 approximately 1.2m east.
Revised elevational details received. Access position on the Holt Road revised in
response to comments from the Parish Council.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Trett having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Local concerns regarding the siting of the dwellings in relation to neighbouring
properties.
2. Effect on appearance and character of the area.
3. Need for affordable housing.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection but would suggest that the entrance off Holt Road is moved to reduce
the impact of lights from cars entering from shining on the dwellings and that no cars
be parked on the grass verge to the front.
Development Control Committee (West)
47
31 January 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters have been received, two of which are from the same address. Summary
of comments:1. The proposal would be detrimental to the tone, character and aesthetic nature of
the village.
2. Will result in excessive noise.
3. This is not the best site for affordable housing and the landowner should be asked
to re-consider other more suitable sites nearer to the centre of the village and the
proposed shop.
4. The proposal would be a highway danger.
5. The proposal should enhance the character of the village.
6. Unit 1 would overlook adjacent dwellings.
7. The land is not wide enough to accommodate the dwellings.
8. The dwellings would be over-bearing upon us and will affect our privacy and
quality of life.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection in principle subject to further agreement and/or conditions regarding design
details.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
County Council (Highways) - It has been previously stated that preference would be
given to the whole of this site being served from the existing estate road, Swans
Close. The two dwellings, proposed to be served from Holt Road are, however, to be
provided with access visibility splays to requirements given in 'Manual for Streets'
(DfT) for the likely vehicular speeds on the adjacent section of carriageway which is
subject to a 30mph speed limit. This therefore overrides any sustainable concerns on
this aspect of the application. I therefore have no objection to the proposal subject to
the imposition of conditions.
Re-consulted in respect of amended plans regarding the access position onto Holt
Road.
Environmental Health - Condition should be attached in respect of waste disposal
and external lighting.
Strategic Housing - Supports this application which will help meet the identified
housing need in Langham and the adjoining civil parishes.
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)
48
31 January 2008
POLICIES
Norfolk Structure Plan (Adopted 29 October 1999 - saved policies):
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 - saved policies):
Policy 5: The Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with
specific exceptions).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
Policy 18: Light Pollution (aims to prevent insensitive lighting schemes to protect
residents, traffic safety and environment).
Policy 57: Affordable Housing in the Countryside (specifies criteria for 'exception'
cases in the Countryside policy area. Sites have to immediately adjoin village
boundaries).
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 HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy 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. Highway safety.
4. Landscaping.
APPRAISAL
The application site, whilst located in the Countryside policy area, is adjacent to the
settlement boundary of the selected small village of Langham. As such the
application would comply with adopted North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 57 (b) and,
subject to the proposal complying with the other requirements of Policy 57 and other
relevant Local Plan Policies, it is acceptable in principle.
It is considered that the affordable housing scheme would comply with the
requirements of Policy 57 of the adopted Local Plan.
In respect of design, the applicant has adopted a traditional approach fronting onto
Holt Road and a more modern approach at the rear of the site. Subject to the use of
quality external materials and appropriate landscaping, this is considered acceptable.
Development Control Committee (West)
49
31 January 2008
In respect of highway considerations, County Highways have been re-consulted in
respect of amendments to the access onto Holt Road, which had been suggested by
Langham Parish Council. Committee will be updated orally in respect of this matter.
Adjacent residential properties are of mixed character, ranging from C20 singlestorey bungalows to the west, one-and-a-half storey dwellings and two-storey
properties on the opposite side of Holt Road.
The relationship with neighbouring properties is considered acceptable. In respect of
landscaping and impact on the wider countryside, it is accepted that the dwellings
would be visible from distance in some directions and there is a need to consider
how boundary treatment would soften the visual impact of development. Subject to
receipt of appropriate landscaping scheme the proposal is considered acceptable.
In summary it is considered that, subject to no new grounds of objection from County
Highways and the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would comply
with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
County Highways and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
including a full landscaping scheme and materials schedule.
15.
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
Referred 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
50
31 January 2008
REPRESENTATIONS
7 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.
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.
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
Development Control Committee (West)
51
31 January 2008
it is recognised that siting is not a matter to be considered as part of this application it
has to be pointed out that if 22 flats are ultimately to be considered acceptable they
would need to be provided in a far more compatible, additive way. Certainly the
rather functional indicative elevations do little to convince us that the scheme would
preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
In the event of the other consultees being happy with this proposal Conservation and
Design would welcome the opportunity to devise a note for any approval advising
that the units would need to be delivered in an altogether different form.
County Council (Highways) - You will be aware that the Highway Authority has
previously expressed a preference for a car free development on this site.
The provided details of the existing uses and vehicular movements associated with
those uses indicates that this proposal would not be likely to increase the vehicular
use of the poorly located access/egress points onto High Street. Accordingly, and
notwithstanding the above preference, subject to vehicular access only being from
between no’s 37A and 37B High Street and egress being from the south of no.47
High Street I can have no objection to the granting of permission.
The above access/egress arrangement should be suitably conditioned and I would
welcome the opportunity to comment further at the reserved matters stage.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
52
31 January 2008
The site is currently used as garage/workshops and therefore residential
development would not detract from retailing as the prime function of that area.
Residential development on the scale proposed would, however, prejudice future
retail redevelopment of the site. Emerging policy in the LDF Core Strategy includes
Policy SS12, Sheringham. This states that between 500 to 750sq.m of new
comparison goods retail floorspace will be accommodated in Sheringham. Suitable
sites for development of new retail floorspace will be allocated in the Site Specific
Proposals document and a suitable central site for a market will be safeguarded.
This need for additional comparison goods floorspace in the Sheringham area was
identified in the DTZ North Norfolk Retail and Commercial Leisure Study, 2005,
which has been adopted for the purposes of informing planning policy and
development control decisions. The study found capacity for new comparison goods
floorspace of 3,700 to 7,700sq.m net (depending on trading efficiencies and other
variables) in the Cromer/Holt/Sheringham zone. The Core Strategy divides this up
between Cromer (5,000sq.m) and Sheringham (500-750sq.m).
The Central Garage site and surrounding area is one of few areas in Sheringham
town centre that would appear suitable to accommodate substantial new comparison
goods floorspace. Core Strategy policy EC5 directs new retail and leisure proposals
to Primary Shopping Areas or the next best sequentially available sites in towns. This
site is adjacent to the proposed Primary Shopping Area in Sheringham and is
therefore considered one of the most appropriate sites to accommodate such
development. Development of this site for other purposes could result in sequentially
less preferable sites being allocated/developed. It should be demonstrated that loss
of the site will not prejudice Policy SS12 objectives of expanding the comparison
goods offer in Sheringham.
The LDF Site Specific Proposals preferred options document that was consulted
upon in September 2006 identified the site and surrounding land as a 'retail
opportunity site'. It stated that this is a valuable town centre location and
redevelopment for a range of commercial and other uses would expand the
opportunities available in the town centre and improve the townscape. The retail
opportunity site included the telephone exchange, library and shops to the south as
well as the builder's yard to the rear and other land in the area (see page 101). Work
on the Site Specific Proposals document is, however, at an early stage and there can
be no certainty that this site will come forward as an allocation.
The form and design of the proposal is a relevant concern and it is considered that
the proposal as submitted would not comply with existing and emerging polices
seeking high quality design and development that harmonises with the townscape
and general character of the area in which they are sited. Existing Local Plan Policies
13 and 42 are relevant here, along with emerging Core Strategy policies EN4 and
EN8. National guidance in PPS3 and PPS1 also requires high quality inclusive
design. PPS1 states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to
take the opportunity to improve the character and quality of an area should not be
accepted (paragraph 34). PPS3 states that good design is fundamental to the
development of new high quality housing which contributes to the creation of
sustainable mixed communities.
Emerging Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires 45% affordable housing provision on
schemes of 10 or more dwellings. PPS3, Housing, sets a national indicative minimum
site size threshold of 15 dwellings until local thresholds are set (paragraph 29). There
is a high local need for affordable housing and the 2007 Strategic Market Housing
Assessment prepared for the Authority by Fordham Research suggests that in
excess of 900 affordable dwellings are needed per year. Further details are provided
in paragraphs 3.2.6 to 3.2.12 of the Core Strategy. The proposal does not seem to
incorporate any such requirements.
Emerging Core Strategy Policy EN6 also requires that all proposals demonstrate how
energy use and resource consumption have been minimised and that proposals of
Development Control Committee (West)
53
31 January 2008
more than 10 dwellings include on-site renewable energy technology to provide for at
least 10% of predicted total energy usage. These considerations need to be
integrated from the outset rather than 'bolted on' at the end and we would expect to
see more details on this aspect in an energy consumption statement. This is
supported by PPS22 which states that Local Planning Authorities may require a
percentage of the energy to be used in new residential, commercial or industrial
developments to come from on-site renewable energy development (paragraph 8).
PPS3 says applicants should bring forward sustainable, environmentally friendly new
housing developments and should reflect the approach set out in the forthcoming
PPS on climate change and the Code for Sustainable Homes (paragraphs 12 and
15).
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
54
31 January 2008
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Developer contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appropriate use of town centre location?
2. Prejudicial to future options for retail development in the town centre?
3. Impact upon surrounding properties.
4. Impact on the Conservation Area.
5. Highway safety and off-street parking provision.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the December meeting to enable Members to visit
the site. It was again deferred at the last meeting 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.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
55
31 January 2008
The agent has, therefore, been asked to respond to the requirements of Policies HO2
(Affordable housing) and EN6 (Sustainable construction). It has also been requested
that his client consider the introduction of an element of retail development on the
ground floor as this site would be appropriate for a mixed development, lying within
the town centre (Local Plan Policy 7) and adjacent to the Core Retail area (Local
Plan Policy 79).
The buildings which currently occupy the site are of no special quality and the
application presents an opportunity to enhance the appearance of this part of the
Conservation Area. Members will note the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager in this respect. Clearly the present indicative proposals
would have to be substantially reworked in order to achieve this objective. Care
would also have to be taken at reserved matters stage to ensure that the
development relates satisfactorily to all neighbouring residential properties, particular
care being needed with regard to the adjoining dwelling to the north which is set at a
lower level than the application site.
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.
At the time of writing this report further comments from the agent were awaited in
response to the formal request for the inclusion with the proposals of an element of
commercial floorspace.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
16.
SHERINGHAM - 20071735 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of three flats;
18 New Street for B S F Norfolk Limited
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :02 Jan 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19780792 - Change of use from guest house to three flats
Approved, 10 Jul 1978
20000435 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from guesthouse to
residential dwelling
Approved, 12 May 2000
20071052 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of first floor residential apartment
with parking beneath and erection of two-storey dwelling (Adjacent site)
Approved, 04 Jan 2008
Development Control Committee (West)
56
31 January 2008
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of three-storey house on corner site and erection of replacement building
comprising two three-bed and one one-bed self contained flats on three floors. The
proposed building has been designed in a traditional form but with a contemporary
slant featuring bays, balconies and triangular dormers. Externally the building would
be finished in a mix of red brick, render and red plain tile cladding, joinery and barge
boards in grey stained timber and a roof of red clay pantiles. The building would
occupy a similar footprint to the present building with a small front garden to the road
frontages.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Impact on neighbouring property.
2. Design of proposed building.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter from the owner of the adjoining property in New Street (summarised):1. Concerned for the stability of adjoining house when the existing building is
demolished.
2. Although the application property was last used as bed and breakfast
accommodation it was originally constructed and designed as a dairy with stables to
the rear. My property was the dairy man’s house with the current party wall originally
serving a function only as an internal partition.
3. Possible overlooking/loss of privacy arising from use of proposed balcony on front
elevation.
4. How is the windowless bathroom at ground floor to be ventilated?
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - The proposal involves the demolition of an existing
large dwelling (believed to have been seven bedroomed) and its replacement with
three flats providing a similar level of accommodation. I also understand the existing
premises was previously used as a guest house.
I assume that at least one parking space will be allocated to this development from
the recently approved scheme on the neighbouring site (20071052). However, even if
this is the case the on-site parking provision is only 60% which suggests that a
degree of on-street parking is likely to occur in the adjacent area.
Although aware of on-street parking difficulties that can occur in this locality; with
consideration of the previous use of the site, location and Government advice given
in PPG13 I can have no objection to the granting of permission.
Environmental Health - No comment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8 : The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
57
31 January 2008
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Local Plan - (Adopted 2 April 1998 - saved policies):
Policy 6: Residential Areas (areas primarily for residential purposes).
Policy 13: Design and Setting of Development (specifies design principles required
for new development).
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 HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design and appearance of proposed development.
2. Impact on adjoining dwelling.
APPRAISAL
The site is designated as residential in the Local Plan. Planning permission was
recently granted for the redevelopment of the adjoining site to the east. The approved
scheme (application ref. 20071052) provided for the erection of a first floor flat on the
Melbourne Road frontage with parking beneath and the erection of a dwelling to the
rear. The replacement building proposed on the current site would link into the
approved development.
The existing building is of no particular architectural merit or quality. The proposed
replacement building, although of a similar bulk and scale, would result in a more
interesting building to the benefit of the street scene.
The comments of the adjoining property owner are noted. Considerable care would
clearly need to be taken, particularly when the existing building is demolished, to
ensure that no damage occurs to the internal wall separating the two properties. The
applicant is, however, aware of the requirements of the Party Wall legislation and the
neighbour's concerns in this respect do not provide a material ground to justify a
planning refusal. With regard to the potential overlooking it is not considered that the
proposed balconies would afford views which could significantly detract from any
neighbouring properties given the distance from the site boundaries and minor
projection forward of the building line.
The window-to-window distances to
neighbouring properties do not meet the Design Guide’s basic amenity criteria but
are no worse than the existing situation.
Development Control Committee (West)
58
31 January 2008
The adopted parking standards dictate a minimum provision of three off-street
spaces in connection with the proposed development. However, in the light of the
previous (lawful) use of the property as bed and breakfast accommodation and given
the response from County Council (Highways) it is not considered that a refusal of
planning permission based on this shortfall alone would be reasonable or justifiable.
The proposal does not significantly conflict with Development Plan policy and is
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:CONDITIONS:-
APPROVE,
SUBJECT
TO
THE
FOLLOWING
2) No development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be
used in the construction of the external walls and roofs 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.
3) The balcony balustrades on the front and side elevations of the building hereby
permitted shall be constructed in accordance with precise details which shall have
been submitted to and approved, in writing by the Local Planning Authority
beforehand.
REASONS:2) In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings,
in accordance with Policy 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) 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.
17.
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 for John Aston’s Children’s
Settlement
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :12 Dec 2007
Case Officer :Mr G Lyon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Residential
Selected Small Village
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20030593 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey extension and
conservatory
Refused, 12 May 2003
20030974 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey extension and
conservatory
Approved, 20 Nov 2003
20050636 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Change of use of barn to public house
Approved, 2 Feb 2006
Development Control Committee (West)
59
31 January 2008
20051834 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of public house to two dwellings
and erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Refused, 11 Apr 2006
20070735 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extension and conversion of barn to public
house (including manager's flat) with guest accommodation
Approved, 9 Oct 2007
THE APPLICATION
Permission sought to convert the existing public house to form one two bedroom
dwelling and one three bedroom dwelling and erect a detached two-storey two
bedroom property to the rear of the pubic house. The works to the existing building
would require internal alterations and the erection of 1.25m high brick and flint walls
to the rear in order to create small garden areas. The dwelling to the rear would be
6.7m wide with a maximum depth of 6.2m thus giving an overall footprint of
approximately 41sq.m. The dwelling would have a height to eaves of 4.5m and a
height to ridge of 6.7m. Entrance to the detached property would be on the eastern
side with a rear amenity area to the west surrounded by a new 1.25m high brick and
flint wall.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning issues:
Compliance with Local Plan Policy 87 and to ensure that Ushers Barn is operational
as a public house prior to the first occupation of the proposed dwellings.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection subject to condition requiring new public house at Ushers Barn being
made operational as a public house, prior to the implementation of this permission.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Existing
windows must be retained and repaired. Materials on new dwelling shall match those
of the existing Red Lion building, samples to be agreed. Size and finish of new
flintwork shall match the existing as seen at the Red Lion.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to provision of car parking spaces
in car park opposite.
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).
Development Control Committee (West)
60
31 January 2008
Policy 42: Development in Conservation Areas (developments should preserve or
enhance character).
Policy 87: Country Pubs (only allows change of use to other purposes if there is
another public house nearby or retention is proven to be unviable).
Policy 153: Car Parking Standards (specifies parking requirements for different use
classes within different Local Plan policy areas).
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Submission Document):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development/compliance with Local Plan Policy 87 - Country Pubs.
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
3. Impact on the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. Residential amenity.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
Given that the Red Lion public house and site of the proposed detached dwelling lie
within the development limits of Upper Sheringham, the principle of residential
development is acceptable subject to compliance with other Local Plan policy criteria,
including Policy 87.
Subject to conditions relating to finish and detailing, the proposals are considered to
comply with the requirements of Local Plan Policy 42, in preserving the appearance
of the Conservation Area.
Upper Sheringham lies entirely within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) within which the prime planning consideration will be the conservation and
enhancement of the beauty of the area. Given the fact that the proposal would be
viewed against the backdrop of existing development, it is not considered that the
proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the AONB.
Although there is a close relationship with adjacent residential properties and the
Design Guide basic amenity criteria are not met, it is considered that the proposal is
unlikely to affect significantly the residential amenity of occupiers of surrounding
dwellings. The proposed dwellings themselves would be closely-knit with some
degree of mutual overlooking. However, it is considered that this would not be so
materially harmful as to warrant refusal in its own right. Both gables of the detached
unit are blank and the orientation of the building would result in no direct window-towindow relationships. The units only have small rear gardens/yards but this is in
keeping with the character of the area.
Development Control Committee (West)
61
31 January 2008
There are no highway objections to the proposed development subject to retention of
use of car park opposite for parking and turning. The applicant has confirmed that the
existing car park opposite would be retained for car parking purposes.
In respect of Policy 87, the principal concern is that, in the worst case scenario and
without proper safeguards, Upper Sheringham could be left without a public house.
The applicants have planning permission to convert nearby Ushers Barn in the
village to a public house. An appropriate safeguard would be the imposition of a
Grampian style condition or Section 106 Agreement preventing commencement or
occupation of the new dwellings until such time as the Ushers Barn public house is
commenced or fully completed and operational in accordance with planning
permission 20070735.
Whether such a restrictive condition should be imposed only on the two cottages to
be created within the former Red Lion is a matter for debate. Officers consider that
such a condition should only be imposed where there are clear reasons for doing so
that are relevant to the development proposed, in accordance with Circular 11/95.
The applicant has asserted that the new dwelling at the rear of the site should not
have a restrictive condition because it is not used in connection with the former Red
Lion. However, it is understood that there were some ancillary storage elements and
the gentleman’s toilets were also located in this building on the rear part of the site.
On that basis officers consider that a restrictive condition or Agreement should apply
to all three units.
At the time of writing this report discussions are taking place with the Council’s Legal
and Enforcement Manager as to the preferred course of action in respect of
conditions or Section 106 Agreement. The views of the agent have also been sought
on this matter.
Subject to agreement on either safeguarding conditions or a Section 106 Agreement
and the imposition of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposal would
accord with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION
Delegated authority to approve the application subject to either an Agreement
under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended)
or conditions restricting works or occupation of the dwellings until such time
as a contract has been let for the development and works have been carried
out/completed and other appropriate conditions.
18.
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
Development Control Committee (West)
62
31 January 2008
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
At the request of Councillor Sweeney having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Visual Impact
2. Impact upon Conservation Area
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
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 neighbours 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.
Development Control Committee (West)
63
31 January 2008
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).
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
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
64
31 January 2008
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Parish
Council and the imposition of the following conditions:
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.
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.
19.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071932 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site rear
of 18 Church Street for Mr J Starns
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :05 Feb 2008
Case Officer :Mr M Gannon
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Residential
Conservation Area
Development Control Committee (West)
65
31 January 2008
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19840029 - Proposed chalet style bungalow of traditional design to be used as
dwelling
Refused, 06 Mar 1984
20071931 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of three one and a half storey
terraced dwellings
Withdrawn, 08 Jan 2008
THE APPLICATION
Subdivision of residential curtilage and erection of two-storey detached two-bedroom
house on tandem plot to rear. The proposed dwelling is of a traditional appearance
with walls of red brick with eaves dentil course, a roof of clay pantiles and painted
softwood joinery. The proposed dwelling would have an enclosed rear garden with a
depth measuring approx. 5m and width 11m. The garden space to the rear of the
existing property would be of a similar depth but with a narrower width of approx.
9.5m. Off-street parking for existing and proposed dwellings is proposed to the side
of the existing dwelling with access from Church Street to the north.
An amended site plan has been submitted clarifying the extent of the proposed offstreet parking area.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Savory having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Cramped nature of the site.
2. Awkward vehicular access across area frequently obstructed by parked vehicles.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects. We have concerns over the parking arrangements. It would appear to be
unlikely that two cars can be parked beside No. 18 Church Street without blocking
access to the footpath to Waveney Close. Whilst this is obviously a better plan than
the alternative for three dwellings on the site it still appears to be overdevelopment
(Policy 13).
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection from nearby residents (summarised):1. Unrealistic off-street parking layout. Too cramped for two vehicles and reliant upon
access through public parking area in Church Street.
2. Further on-street parking in Waveney Close is likely to result. Thoughtless parking
in Waveney Close, particularly in the turning head adjoining the application site
already causes problems for residents. This problem will be exacerbated by the
current proposals.
3. Ugly timber fencing has been installed on the site.
4. Overdevelopment of site.
5. Vehicles accessing the parking area will endanger pedestrians using the public
footpath.
6. Tandem development does not reflect the pattern of development in the town.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Awaiting
comments.
County Council (Highways) - Whilst I would have preferred to see this proposal take
vehicular access directly from Waveney Close I do not believe a Highway objection
to be sustainable.
Development Control Committee (West)
66
31 January 2008
Although providing parking space within the curtilage of the existing dwelling, 18
Church Street, it should be noted that any additional vehicular parking is likely to
occur adjacent to the site on Waveney Close.
Should your Authority be minded to approve the application the standard condition
should be appended requiring provision and maintenance of the access and on-site
parking area indicated on the submitted drawing.
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 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 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 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. Relationship to neighbouring properties.
2. Highway safety and convenience.
3. Character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
This site is designated as residential in the Local Plan and lies at the southern edge
of the Conservation Area. The site is enclosed by high brick walls on the south and
east boundaries and has a frontage to Waveney Close on its west boundary.
However, there is no right of access from the site onto Waveney Close since a strip
of land in third party ownership separates it from the public highway.
Development Control Committee (West)
67
31 January 2008
Garden sizes for the existing and proposed dwellings fall well short of the minimum of
10m required by the Local Plan basic amenity criterion. However the garden sizes
are similar to others fronting Church Street in the vicinity of the site and the
relationship to neighbouring properties is considered acceptable. In these respects
the proposals reflect the character of the surrounding area and, accordingly, it is not
considered that this conflict with the Basic Amenity Criteria provides a reason to
refuse permission.
The comments of the Town Council and surrounding residents regarding issues of
highway safety and convenience are noted. However, Members will note that County
Council Highways are raising no objection to the proposals.
At the time of writing the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager’s comments
are awaited. Subject to no objections being raised in respect of impact on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the application will be
recommended for approval.
The proposal does not significantly conflict with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated approval subject to appropriate conditions subject to no objections
from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
20.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BARSHAM - 20071819 - Erection of garden room and stables; Red House Green
Way North Barsham for Mr and Lady Chapman
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - 20071820 - Erection of stable block and garden room; Red House
Green Way North Barsham for Mr F Chapman
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BINHAM - 20071695 - Construction of dormer window; Apple Garth Langham
Road for Mr and Mrs J Hill
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071240 - Erection of first floor extension and ground floor
covered area; Flintwell Lodge Coronation Lane for Mr P Millward
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071730 - Erection of porch; New Barn Farm Saxlingham Road
for Mr E Cubitt
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071769 - Retention of annexe with revised materials, gable
window position and rooflight; Ruberry Cottage Back Lane for Mr and Mrs
Pemble
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - 20071860 - Erection of front extension and attached double
garage; 22 Kingsway for Mr N E Buckingham
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
68
31 January 2008
BLAKENEY - 20071900 - Internal alterations and alterations to dormer
windows; 2 The Granary High Street for J Cary and C Barnard
(Alteration to Listed Building)
BRINTON - 20071915 - Erection of replacement orangery; Lantern Barn Lower
Hall Lane Sharrington for Mr and Mrs R Dubbins
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20071710 - Erection of single-storey side/front extension; 42 The
Lanes for Mr T Turner
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20071724 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 25 Mill
Lane for Mr and Mrs S Kennedy
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - 20071825 - Conversion and extension of garage/workshop to
provide holiday accommodation; Copper Beech 63a Church Street for Mr and
Mrs S Chapman
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071351 - Conversion of barn to three units of holiday
accommodation and construction of new building as a fourth unit of holiday
accommodation; Swan Lodge Barns Cley Road Holt for Swan Lodge Barns
Developments LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071703 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Thornhill Farm Bridgefoot Lane for Mr and Mrs McDonald
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY - 20071741 - Erection of single-storey side extension/conservatory,
porch and detached double garage; Norwood Cottage Briston Road Saxthorpe
for Mr J Redman
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071450 - Change of use from recreation area to residential
garden in connection with adjoining property; land at North Park for Fakenham
Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071569 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 26
Southgates Drive for Mr B Howard
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071781 - Erection of two-storey front extension and rear
dormer extension; 22 North Drive for Mr and Mrs I Greenaway
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071827 - Erection of single-storey extension; 49a Wells Road
for Mr and Mrs White
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
69
31 January 2008
FAKENHAM - 20071977 - Erection of front extension; 10 North Drive for Mrs P
Riseborough
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071979 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 28 Field
Lane for Mr and Mrs Sherwood
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071666 - Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and
erection of two dwellings; 17 Smiths Lane for Mr and Mrs James-Allison
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071668 - Installation of replacement automated teller machine
(ATM); Barclays Bank PLC 17 Market Place for Killby and Gayford Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071669 - Replacement of automated teller machine (ATM);
Barclays Bank PLC 17 Market Place for Killby and Gayford Limited
(Alteration to Listed Building)
FAKENHAM - 20071675 - Display of illuminated advertisement; Barclays Bank
PLC 17 Market Place for Killby and Gayford Limited
(Illuminated Advertisement)
FAKENHAM - 20071707 - Erection of first floor side extension; 21 Gwyn
Crescent for Mr S Clare
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071714 - Continued siting of portable building; Fakenham
Town Gasworks Museum Trust Hempton Road for Dr E M Bridges
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071756 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Bridge Farm
Hempton Road for Mr H Broughton
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071862 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Co-op
Pharmacy Holt Road for C W S Retail Financial Services
(Illuminated Advertisement)
FULMODESTON - 20071665 - Erection of single-storey side extension; George
Barn The Street Barney for Mrs J Hopkins
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - 20071792 - Conversion and extension of outbuildings to
domestic accommodation; Wood Farm The Street Barney for Mr D T H Astley
(Alteration to Listed Building)
GRESHAM - 20071115 - Conversion of outbuilding to three units of holiday
accommodation and erection of detached garage; Church Farmhouse Cromer
Road Lower Gresham for Mr Windley
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - 20071726 - Erection of detached garage with annexe
accommodation above; Hawksmere Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Hunt
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
70
31 January 2008
HEMPTON - 20071719 - Erection of rear extension to garage; Vine Lodge 23a
Shereford Road for Mr and Mrs Steade
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - 20071746 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
6 Pineheath Road for Mr and Mrs A Humphries
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20071803 - Erection of first floor side extension; 67a The
Street for Mr and Mrs M Howes
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20071886 - Retention of conservatory; 7 The Street for Mr
Patel
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071546 - Erection of garage/stable with storage above; The Laurels
Norwich Road for Mr and Mrs A Eke
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071591 - Retention of partially constructed garage with games room
above; Barn 7, Holt Lodge Norwich Road for James Brown Developments LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071729 - Erection of single-storey extension; 1 Lodge Close for Mr C
H Fountain
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071799 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 9 Coronation Road
for Mr J Rix
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071846 - Erection of rear conservatory; 12 Norman Cockaday Court
Peacock Lane for Mr D A Culmer
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - 20071800 - Installation of two rooflights and window; White
House Barn The Street for Mr R Ansell
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20071658 - Erection of replacement agricultural
storage building; Dairy Farm House Melton Park Hindolveston Road for Mr B
Lockhart
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - 20071785 - Conversion of dwelling into two houses
and erection of two semi-detached dwellings; Hastings Arms Briston Road for
Mrs R Wilson
(Outline Planning Permission)
MORSTON - 20071815 - Erection of replacement dwelling; North Down
Blakeney Road for Mr and Mrs Burton
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
71
31 January 2008
RYBURGH - 20071656 - Installation of bay window and erection of detached
garage/store; 146 Fakenham Road Great Ryburgh for Mr and Mrs D Bunting
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - 20051033 - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of land for
the storage of caravans; land rear of The Firs 21a Moor Lane for Mr B H
Woodhouse
(Certificate of Lawfulness)
SHERINGHAM - 20071793 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
detached garage; 6 Suffolk Road for Mr and Mrs S Poole
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20071659 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation; Grove Farm Barns Guist Bottom Road for Mr and Mrs
Spencer-Ashworth
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - 20071660 - Alterations to barns to provide two units of holiday
accommodation; Grove Farm Barns Guist Bottom Road for Mr and Mrs
Spencer-Ashworth
(Alteration to Listed Building)
STIFFKEY - 20071767 - Retention of re-instated first floor partition wall; River
House 1 Bridge Street for Mr and Mrs Bradley
(Alteration to Listed Building)
STIFFKEY - 20071784 - Conversion to holiday dwelling; The Treatment Room
80-82 Wells Road for Mr W Hickey
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - 20071651 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to four holiday
units; Wicken Pond Farm Tattersett Road Syderstone for Townsfolk Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071506 - Continued use of land for siting storage
container; Pinewoods Holiday Park Beach Road for Pinewoods Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071801 - Erection of rear conservatory; 34 High
Street for Mr H Purchas
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071832 - Installation of door and window to
reception centre; Pinewoods Holiday Park Beach Road for Pinewoods
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071892 - Erection and extension of dormer
windows; Oaklands Bases Lane for Mrs R Burns
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20071933 - Retention of bicycle and dinghy store; 17
Mill Court for Mr I Curtis
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
72
31 January 2008
WEYBOURNE - 20071783 - Installation of brick infill to 2 redundant windows in
north elevation of garage; Crown House The Street for Mr D Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - 20071770 - Erection of side conservatory; Rose Bank Hall
Lane for Mr P Mead
(Full Planning Permission)
21.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - 20071773 - Erection of two semi-detached bungalows; land rear of
Hastings Court for Mr R Eggleton
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - 20071772 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 14 Thorpland Road
for Executors of The Late Mr R Lane
(Outline Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - 20071697 - Change of use from chapel to residential;
Thursford Castle Thursford Road for Mr Grigg
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - 20071661 - Demolition of garage/workshop and erection of
two dwellings; land adjacent 57 The Street for Mr and Mrs Parker
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOLT - 20071682 - Demolition of outbuildings and erection of single-storey
dwelling and double garage; 19 Peacock Lane for Mr and Mrs Perrett
(Outline Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - 20071725 - Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of
two-storey rear extension; 5 The Drove West Raynham for Mr D Elfleet
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071683 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; 43
Nelson Road for Mr A Holbrook
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071779 - Continued use of ground floor flat as 2 separate
residential units; 17 Waterbank Road for Mr C Simpson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071681 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and double garage;
land at 10 Abbey Road for Mr and Mrs P Francis
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071699 - Erection of rear conservatory and extension and
conversion of outbuilding to provide annexe accommodation; 2 The Rise for
Mr P Ratcliffe
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - 20071796 - Formation of vehicular access; 51 Holway Road for
Mr and Mrs J Olsen
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (West)
73
31 January 2008
APPEALS SECTION
22.
NEW APPEALS
SHERINGHAM - 20070217 - Demolition of buildings, including dwellings, and
erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car parking and
servicing and provision of footpath link to Station Road; land at Cromer Road
for Tesco Stores Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
23.
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
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20070922 - Demolition of summerhouse and erection of
annexe; Umgeni Coast Road for Lady Rathcavan
PUBLIC INQUIRY
MATLASKE - 20061840 - Conversion of former forge to ancillary residential
accommodation; The Forge The Street for Mr and Mrs Kokelaar
INFORMAL HEARING 08 Jan 2008
SHERINGHAM - 20030991 - Demolition of buildings, including dwellings, and
erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car parking, servicing
and landscaping; land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
PUBLIC INQUIRY
24.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
EDGEFIELD - 20070871 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Green Farm
Norwich Road for Mr D Sands
STIBBARD - 20070195 - Demolition of conservatory and garage and erection of
replacement extension; Moor End House Moor End Road for Mr and Mrs
Pierce-Roberts
SITE VISIT :- 07 Jan 2008
25.
APPEAL DECISIONS
None.
Development Control Committee (West)
74
31 January 2008
Development Control Committee (West)
75
31 January 2008