OFFICERS REPORTS TO
JOINT MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST & WEST)
26 OCTOBER 2006
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.
SHERINGHAM - 20060606 - Conversion and extension of garage/games room
to provide residential annexe; The Piggeries Weybourne Road for Mr K Lowe
To consider whether to grant planning permission for the conversion of an existing
double garage/games room into a one-and-a-half-storey annexe on the site for an
agricultural worker.
Background
The application was originally submitted in respect of a dwelling and was first
considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on 25 May 2006 when a
decision was deferred in order to allow time for the applicant to commission a report
which assesses the functional need together with a financial test in respect of the
proposal. At the meeting on 14 September 2006, notwithstanding the receipt of the
additional information, Officers recommended refusal of the application on the
grounds that there was insufficient justification to warrant an additional permanent
dwelling on the site, within an area designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk
Local Plan, and also on the grounds of highway safety.
The decision of the Committee was to refer the application to this Committee with a
recommendation for approval on the ground that a functional need for two dwellings
on the site had been established and also that the proposal would not result in an
intensification in traffic movements to and from the site.
Following a joint meeting at the site on 27 September 2006 this Committee at the
meeting on 28 September 2006 considered that the use of the building as additional
residential accommodation would be unlikely to generate any significant increase in
traffic movements due to the fact that that at the present time the applicant, due to
his disabilities, which negate him from driving, has to be driven to and from the farm
to his home in Sheringham on a daily basis. However, Members resolved to defer the
application in order to allow Officers time to establish whether the applicant would be
prepared to enter into an agreement restricting the use of the buildings to a
residential annexe to be used in association with the main dwelling on the site and for
it to be occupied solely by the applicant and his dependents.
Updates
A letter has been received from the applicant’s agent which confirms that his client
would be willing for the use of the building to be restricted to a residential annexe to
the main bungalow and for it to be occupied solely by the applicant and his
dependents, and not sold off separately.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
26 October 2006
Key Policy Issues
1. Justification for second dwelling on the site.
The site is within the Countryside policy area where Policy 5: The Countryside
would permit development for agricultural purposes providing it accords with
other Development Plan policies, including Policy 66: Agricultural and Forestry
Workers Dwellings in the Countryside.
Appraisal
As outlined in the report to the Joint Development Control Committee on 28
September, attached as Appendix 1 and as reported to the West Area Committee
on 14 September 2006, report attached as Appendix 1, the proposal as originally
submitted involved the conversion of the garage/games room on the site into a
dwelling which would be occupied by the applicant, who together with his father (who
occupies the existing bungalow), breeds livestock and poultry on land, which has a
total area of just under 1.1ha. This would allow the applicant, whose illnesses and
disabilities negate his ability to drive, to satisfactorily undertake the full range of farm
duties which at the present time he is unable to fulfil from his home in Sheringham.
As also reported at the meeting on 28 September 2006, and attached as Appendix
1, Development Committee (West), at the meeting on 14 September 2006,
considered a report prepared by Acorus Rural Property Services which elaborated on
the background to the operation of the farm and reported that a high degree of care
was required in the management and welfare of the livestock. The financial test,
attached as exempt Appendix 3 suggested that the unit was viable and sustainable
but cast doubt that the holding was capable of providing sufficient profit to sustain
two full time workers. The report however did not conclude that it was essential for
two workers to be resident at all times.
As reported above, following the deferral of this application at the last meeting of the
Joint Development Control Committee, a letter has been received from the
applicant’s agent confirming that his client is prepared to enter into an agreement
which restricts the use of the built to that of an residential annexe to be used in
association with the main dwelling on the site and for it to be occupied solely by the
applicant and his dependents.
In view of this response it is therefore the view of Officers that, although situated
some distance from the existing bungalow on the site, the two buildings have a visual
relationship and that on balance the use of the building as an annexe is acceptable. It
is therefore considered that the proposal accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:Approval, subject to the imposition of the following conditions:2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no enlargement of or other alteration to the annexe hereby
permitted shall take place unless planning permission has been first granted by the
Local Planning Authority.
4) The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for
purposes ancillary to the use of the main bungalow, situated immediately to the north
of the annexe, as an agricultural worker’s dwelling.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
26 October 2006
5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order) no fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected
between the annexe and existing bungalow, unless planning permission has been
first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
REASONS
2) To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy 11 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
3) In order to safeguard the character of the countryside in accordance with Policy 5
of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
4) In the interests of the residential amenities of the area, and in accordance with
Policies 16 and 17 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan as amplified by
paragraphs 5.21-5.33 of the explanatory text.
5) In order to retain the two properties within a single curtilage and in order to accord
with Policy 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference: 20060606-1)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
Development Control Performance
This report sets out Development Control performance figures for the quarter ending
30 September 2006 and comments on matters relating to the Planning Delivery
Grant.
At the meeting on 3 August 2006 the Committee received the previous quarterly
report and continued to support efforts to maintain high performance levels for the
development control service.
Table 1 (Appendix 2) indicates that during the most recent quarter 446 decisions
were made, an increase of approximately 5% on the previous quarter and of some
10% on the quarter which ended six months ago. Delegated decisions dropped
slightly to 83.6% and approvals decreased slightly but still remained at just over 90%.
Table 2 (Appendix 2) 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. The quarter shows that all seven major
decisions were made within 13 weeks and that minor and other decisions, whilst
being well above the Government target, were slightly below the Council’s own
target. This is to be expected following a drop in performance during July, but
improved performance in the two months since then.
As Members will recall from recent discussions concerning the Government’s
proposals for allocation criteria for the final year of Planning Delivery Grant the Grant
for 2007/08 is proposed to be based on two tranches, the first concerning the year
ending 30 June 2006, the figures for which are recorded in Table 2, and the second
of which will cover the period from 1 July 2006 to 31 March 2007. This means that it
is important to maintain high levels of performance to maximise the reward for
2007/08, prior to the consideration of any new regime which may be instituted from
April 2007 onwards.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
26 October 2006
Table 3 (Appendix 2) sets out the Council’s performance on planning appeals and
indicates that during the most recent quarter 3 appeals out of 10 were allowed, i.e.
30%. Whilst this is above the Council’s target of 20%, it is still below the national
average and it should be pointed out that 2 of these decisions related to the same
planning case concerning a development at Horning which involved planning
permission and a Conservation Area consent. The cumulative figure for the six
months ending 30 September 2006 shows that 5 out of 21 appeals were allowed, i.e.
a 23.8% success rate for appellants.
In terms of staffing, Members will be pleased to note that John Williams has recently
returned to work and whilst the service has suffered some short-term illness
problems in recent weeks the general picture concerning Development Control
staffing is stable.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Committee notes the latest quarterly performance figures and
continues to support efforts to maintain high levels of performance.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Extn: 6135 - File Reference: DC Performance-14)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
26 October 2006