OFFICERS REPORTS TO
JOINT MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST & WEST)
15 MARCH 2007
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
LETHERINGSETT - 20061942 – Erection of two-and-a-half-storey and singlestorey extensions and conversion of outbuildings to caretaker’s flat and
construction of driveway; Hall Farm Church Lane for Mr and Mrs Carter
To consider whether to grant planning permission for the erection of a two-and-ahalf-storey and single-storey extensions, the conversion of outbuildings to ancillary
accommodation and caretaker's flat and the construction of driveway.
Background
The application was considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on 1
February 2007 when it was deferred in order to allow Members to visit the site. At the
meeting on 1 March 2007, Officers recommended refusal of the application on the
grounds that (i) the proposed extensions to the farmhouse, due to their scale,
massing, form and design, would not be subordinate to the appearance of the
original building and would be detrimental to the character of the Grade II listed
building; (ii) the conversion of the workshop/store for permanent residential use
would fail to comply with the Local Plan in that it would be tantamount to the creation
of a new dwelling in the countryside; and (iii) the creation of the new access would
bisect the Water Garden, adversely affecting the layout and appearance of the
Historic Park and Garden, whilst the creation of a linear feature across open meadow
would create an uncharacteristic feature (see previous report attached at Appendix
1).
The Committee decided to refer the application to this Committee with a
recommendation for approval on the grounds that (i) the proposed extensions to the
existing dwelling would form part of the continuing evolution of the estate and that the
design merits of the proposal would outweigh the concerns raised regarding the
impact on the listed building; (ii) the use of part of the 19th Century outbuildings as
caretaker’s accommodation would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering
into a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the accommodation remains ancillary to
the main house and is not sold off separately; and (iii) the creation of a new access
would help to frame the development, making for a more attractive approach to the
main house and would not adversely affect the appearance of the area or have a
significant impact on the Historic Park and Garden.
Updates
The applicants’ agent has confirmed that the caretaker’s accommodation would be
ancillary to the main house and would never be sold off separately and if necessary
the applicants would be happy to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to that effect.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
15 March 2007
Key Policy Issues
1. Whether the proposed extensions to the Grade II listed farmhouse can be
considered as being subordinate to the main house. The site lies within the
Countryside policy area, where Policies 13 and 64, require that extensions relate
well to the existing building in terms of design, scale, bulk and materials used and
are subordinate to the original dwelling both visually and in terms of floor space.
2. Whether the proposed alterations to the main farmhouse and range of farm
buildings satisfy the requirements of Policy 37 which requires that alterations and
extensions should not be detrimental to the building's character.
3. Whether the proposed alterations to some of the listed barns to provide ancillary
accommodation to the main house and a separate residential unit of caretaker's
accommodation would satisfy the requirements of Policy 29, which requires that
buildings are soundly built and suitable for the purpose without complete or
substantial rebuilding and or extension and that in the case of conversion for
residential use this should only be for holiday accommodation outside designated
settlement boundaries.
4. Whether the proposed route of the new driveway through the Victorian Water
Garden and across open meadow would satisfy the requirements of Policies 20,
25 and 42 which requires that development proposals should not be significantly
detrimental to the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, detrimental
to the appearance or character of the Historic Park and Garden and should
preserve or enhance the appearance or character of the Conservation Area.
Appraisal
1. As far as the main house is concerned, the principal extension would consist of a
two-and-a-half-storey addition to the north-eastern elevation, resulting in an
increase in the size of the house by approximately one third, with a total floor
area of 630sq.m. In addition the proposed single-storey “L” shaped extension to
the south-western corner, comprising a pool and garden room together with the
link between the farmhouse and the range of farm buildings, would further
increase the floor area by 158sq.m. The ridge height of the 17th Century element
of the house would also be raised by approximately 1m to provide improved
headroom to the attic bedrooms.
Whilst the proposed extensions would result in a significant increase in floor area
it is considered that they would satisfy the requirements of that element of Policy
64 in terms of subordinancy. However elevationally, in terms of its design, bulk
and scale the two-and-a-half-storey extension would result in a significant change
in the appearance of the farmhouse, with the eastern elevation of the 17th
Century element of the building being totally obscured. The form of the building
itself would be dramatically altered from a double to a triple pile building, and the
appearance of the east elevation transformed from a simple linear form to one
with two projecting gables and central entrance. As such, it is considered that the
extension of the farmhouse in the manner proposed would not be subordinate to
the original dwelling visually and would therefore fail to comply with Policy 64.
2. The proposed alterations would have a significant impact on the character of the
listed building, with the original 17th Century house being subsumed between the
Victorian extension and the proposed extension. The raising up of the ridge (for
which there appears to be little justification) would further affect the appearance
of the building. In addition it is considered that the single-storey extension to the
south-western corner would detract from the relatively unaltered appearance of
the southwest elevation, cross cutting this elevation and also obscuring views of
the lower part of the south-eastern gable end of the farmhouse from the village.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
15 March 2007
As far as the range of farm buildings adjacent to the farmhouse are concerned, it
is proposed that these would provide a game store, kennels and boiler room at
ground floor with three rooms above, which in policy terms is considered to be
acceptable as the accommodation would be ancillary to the main house. The
physical alterations to the building would be fairly restrained and utilise existing
openings wherever possible, with the result that the character of the listed
building would be preserved.
Taken as a whole, however, the alterations to the main house are such that the
development would be detrimental to its character and setting and therefore in
conflict with the requirements of Policy 37.
3. A further proposal is the provision of a caretaker’s flat which would be converted
from the existing store/workshop to the eastern end of the range of listed farm
buildings, adjacent to the existing farm access to the site. The submitted Design
and Access Statement comments that this is an important part of the application
as in preserving the large number of buildings within the farm complex as
ancillary buildings to the farmhouse there are security issues which clearly are
the responsibility of the occupants. It is suggested that it is very unlikely that the
current or any future owners of the site would have time personally to oversee the
security of such large range of domestic buildings on an hour-by-hour basis
without a caretaker.
Whilst the need to ensure the security of the site is recognised, given that the
range of farm buildings and the farmhouse itself are contained in a relatively
small area, (which is currently served by a single access) it is not considered that
there is sufficient justification to warrant the permanent residential use of the
building. This part of the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 5 and 29. This
is notwithstanding the offer to control the occupancy.
4. The final part of the scheme would involve the creation of a new access and
driveway from Garden Lane, through the Victorian water garden and across the
pasture to the main barns, where a gravelled parking area would be provided
adjacent to the ancillary accommodation. The existing cart doors through the barn
would serve an inner courtyard to the farmhouse.
The submitted justification for the new entrance is that the existing access road
via Water Lane between farm buildings is an undignified approach to the house.
The new access would provide an elegant entrance with fine views of Hall Farm
against the backdrop of rising ground.
Whilst the Highway Authority has no objection to the creation of the access
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the Council's Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager considers that the driveway would have a
negative impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area, and the Registered Historic Park and Garden and as such
should be refused.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed alterations to the main farmhouse
would fail to accord with Local Plan Policies 13, 37 and 64, whilst the introduction of
a separate dwelling for a caretaker would be tantamount to the creation of a new
dwelling in the countryside which would be contrary to Policies 5 and 29.
Furthermore, the creation of a new access driveway, which it is considered would
have a negative impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area, and the registered Historic Park and Garden (Ungraded),
would fail to accord with Policies 20, 25, and 42 of the Local Plan.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
15 March 2007
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST):Approve, on the grounds (i) that the proposed extensions to the existing
dwelling would form part of the continuing evolution of the estate and that the
design merits of the proposal would outweigh the concerns raised regarding
the impact on the listed building; (ii) the use of part of the 19th Century
outbuildings as caretaker’s accommodation would be acceptable subject to
the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the
accommodation remains ancillary to the main house and is not sold off
separately; (iii) the creation of a new access would help to frame the
development making for a more attractive approach to the main house and
would not adversely affect the appearance of the area or have a significant
impact on the Historic Park and Garden.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:Refuse, on the grounds (i) that the proposed extensions to the farmhouse, due
their scale, massing, form and design, would not be subordinate to the
appearance of the original building and would be detrimental to the character
of the Grade II listed building contrary to Local Plan Policies 13, 35, 37 and 64;
(ii) that the conversion of the workshop/store for permanent residential use
would fail to comply with Local Plan Policies 5 and 29, in that it would be
tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside and (iii) that the creation of
the new access would bisect the Water Garden adversely affecting the layout
and appearance of the Historic Park and Garden, whilst the creation of a linear
feature across open meadow and would not preserve or enhance the
appearance or character of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area or Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Local Plan Policies 20,
25 and 42.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference: 20061942)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
LETHERINGSETT - 20061944 – Erection of two-and-a-half-storey and singlestorey extensions, unblocking window openings and conversion of workshop
to caretaker’s flat; Hall Farm Church Lane for Mr and Mrs Carter
To consider whether to grant listed building consent for the erection of a two-and-ahalf-storey and single-storey extensions, unblocking window openings and the
conversion of outbuildings to ancillary accommodation and a caretaker's flat.
Background
The application was considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on 1
February 2007 when it was deferred in order to allow Members to visit the site. At the
meeting on 1 March 2007, Officers recommended refusal of the application on the
grounds that the proposed extensions to the farmhouse, due their scale, massing,
form and design and elevational treatment would be detrimental to the character and
setting of the Grade II listed building. See previous report attached at Appendix 2.
The Committee decided to refer the application to this Committee with a
recommendation for approval on the grounds that the proposed extensions and
alterations to the farmhouse would form part of the continuing evolution of the estate
and that the design merits of the proposal outweigh the concerns raised regarding
the impact on the listed building.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
15 March 2007
Key Policy Issue
Whether the proposed alterations to the main farmhouse and range of farm buildings
satisfy the requirements of Policy 37 which requires that alterations and extensions
should not be detrimental to the building's character.
Appraisal
As far as the main house is concerned, the principal extension would consist of a
two-and-a-half-storey addition to the north-eastern elevation, resulting in an increase
in the size of the house by approximately one third, with a total floor area of 630sq.m.
In addition the proposed single-storey “L” shaped extension to the south-western
corner, comprising a pool and garden room together with the link between the
farmhouse and the range of farm buildings, would further increase the floor area by
158sq.m. The ridge height of the 17th Century element of the house would also be
raised by approximately 1m to provide improved headroom to the attic bedrooms.
Elevationally, the two-and-a-half-storey extension would result in a significant change
in the appearance of the farmhouse, with the eastern elevation of the 17th Century
element of the building being totally obscured. The form of the building itself would be
dramatically altered from a double to a triple pile building, and the appearance of the
east elevation transformed from a simple linear form to one with two projecting
gables and central entrance. As such, it is considered that the extension of the
farmhouse in the manner proposed have a significant impact on the character of the
listed building, with the original 17th century house being subsumed between the
Victorian extension and the proposed extension. The raising up of the ridge, (for
which there appears to be little justification), would further affect the appearance of
the building. In addition it is considered that the single-storey extension to the southwestern corner would detract from the relatively unaltered appearance of the
southwest elevation, cross cutting this elevation and also obscuring views of the
lower part of the south eastern gable end of the farmhouse from the village.
As far as the range of farm buildings adjacent to the farmhouse are concerned, it is
proposed that these would provide a game store, kennels and boiler room at ground
floor with three rooms above. The physical alterations to the building would be fairly
restrained and utilise existing openings wherever possible, with the result that the
character of these listed buildings would be preserved.
It is therefore considered that the proposed extensions and external alterations to the
main farmhouse would fail to accord with Local Plan Policies 37 due to their scale,
massing, form and design and elevational treatment which would be detrimental to
the character and setting of the Grade II listed building.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST):Approve, on the grounds that the proposed extensions and alterations to the
farmhouse would form part of the continuing evolution of the estate and that
the design merits of the proposal would outweigh the concerns raised
regarding the impact on the listed building.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:Refusal, on the grounds that the proposed extensions and external alterations
to the farmhouse, due their scale, massing, form and design, and elevational
treatment would be detrimental to the character of the Grade II listed building
and contrary to Local Plan Policy 37.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference: 20061944)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
15 March 2007
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
Development Control Performance
This report sets out Development Control performance figures for the quarter ending
31 December 2006 and comments on matters relating to the Planning Delivery
Grant.
At the meeting on 26 October 2006 the Committee received the previous quarterly
report and continued to support efforts to maintain high levels of performance.
Table 1 (Appendix 3) indicates that during the most recent quarter 367 decisions
were made, the lowest number in 2006. Delegated decisions increased slightly to
84.7% and approval levels increased to 91%.
Table 2 (Appendix 3) sets out the figures for the quarter and enables comparisons to
be made with previous years, coinciding with the relevant periods for the calculation
of previous Planning Delivery Grant awards. It also enables comparisons to be made
with the Council’s own targets for 2006/07. Performance in relation to major
decisions continued at a very high level, at 92.3% over the six months from 1 July
whilst performance in minor decisions improved to 70.8%, only 1.2% below the new
Council target. Performance on other decisions slightly exceeded the Council target
at 89.3%.
By way of an update, taking into account the two months since the end of the quarter,
current figures in respect of the present Planning Delivery Grant period are 82.4% for
major decisions, 71.7% for minor decisions and 89.8% for other decisions. Thus,
major and other decisions are above target and minor decisions are only 0.3% below
target.
The final Planning Delivery Grant assessment period ends on 31 March when
performance will inform Grant awards for 2007/08. It is therefore hoped that every
effort will be made to maximise performance during March. The Government has not
yet announced its intentions for any successor to the Planning Delivery Grant
although, as Members will recall, a consultation paper was issued in 2006 concerning
a possible Housing and Planning Delivery Grant which would replace the current
regime.
Table 3 (Appendix 3) sets out the Council’s performance on planning appeals and
indicates that during the most recent quarter 3 out of 13 appeals were allowed, i.e.
23.1%. The cumulative figure for the nine months ending 31 December 2006 shows
that 8 out of 34 appeals were allowed, i.e. a 23.5% success rate for appellants.
In terms of staffing, Members will be pleased to note that Paul Took has recently
returned to work and that at the time of writing this report it was hoped that John
Williams would return shortly, restoring the Development Control team to a full staff
complement.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Committee notes the latest performance figures and continues to
support efforts to maintain high levels of performance, particularly in the
period up to the end of March 2007.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Extn: 6135 - File Reference: DC Performance-15)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
6
15 March 2007