BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 07...

BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 07-02-2005

1 AA I D Properties Ltd WEETING 3PL/2004/2036/F Keystone Development Trust Mr C Scutt

2 AC 3PL/2004/1929/F THETFORD

3 AC WATTON 3PL/2004/1961/F 4 AC BANHAMMr Barry Tunmore 3PL/2004/1966/F

P A Bell t/a C W Bell & Son Mr and Mrs J Potter

5 RA MILEHAM 3PL/2004/1757/F

6 RA GREAT ELLINGHAM 3PL/2004/1848/O 7 RA CRANWORTHMr and Mrs N Potter 3PL/2004/1984/O 8 RA SWANTON MORLEYMiss Christine Cade 3PL/2004/1990/F 9 RA KENNINGHALLMr M and Mrs L Porter 3PL/2004/1996/F

10 RA NORTH LOPHAMMs L J Heath 3PL/2004/2000/F 11 RA Mr E Raker THOMPSON 3PL/2004/2008/O 12 RA Mr and Mrs T Moore ROCKLANDS 3PL/2004/2014/F 13 RA Mr and Mrs J Huggins 3PL/2004/2020/O BEETLEY14 RC Mr & Mrs K E Jones 3PL/2004/1869/O WATTON15 RC R H & N J Hughes 3PL/2004/1910/F YAXHAM16 RC Mr J Follows 3PL/2004/1911/F ATTLEBOROUGH

Michael Horley & Jilly Dalton Jean Hill

17 RC 3PL/2004/1978/A WEETING

18 RC 3PL/2004/2003/F BEETLEY19 RC 3PL/2004/2010/F Mr G Smart ASHILL20 RC 3PL/2004/2023/F Mr J Spalding DEREHAM

37


Agenda Type Agreed Approval -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 ITEM

WEETING 1a Pilgrims Way

LOCATION 3PL/2004/2036/F Full In Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N Y N

Ref. No. Appn.Type Policy Allocation Cons. Area T.P.O. L.B. Grade

I D Properties Ltd St Clements House Rushall

APPLICANT

Northfield Solutions Ltd 21 Duxford Road Whittlesford

AGENT

PROPOSAL Demolition of 1a Pilgrims Way and erection of nine new dwellings (re-application)

COMMENTS

Letter(s) of OBJECTION

CLERK TO WEETING P CNO REPLY AS AT 20-01-2005

ASSESSMENT NOTES* A revised proposal for nine dwellings on the site of an existing bungalow at Weeting has been submitted. * Permission for a similar development was refused in September 2004 on grounds of overdevelopment and harmto preserved trees. * Amendments have been made to the layout of the proposed development to better accommodate the existing large beech trees on and near to the site. On this basis, the Council's Tree and Countryside Officer has raised no objection in principle to the revised proposal. * In terms of the character of the surrounding area it is considered that the proposal, which includes a range of cottage style properties, would enhance the appearance of this prominent corner site. * Objections have been raised by local residents who are concerned about the scale of the development, its impact on local services, residential amenities and extra traffic.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning Permission

38


Full Permission Time Limit 3006 In accordance with submitted plans 3046 External materials to be approved 3104 No P.D. rights for extensions, sheds, etc 3304 Fencing/walls - details and implementation 3405 Fencing protection for existing trees 3414 Surfacing - details and construction 3406 Access and car park laid out prior to use 3712 Turning space to be constructed 3722 Precise details of surface water disposal 3802 Precise details of foul water disposal 3804 Contaminated Land - Remediation 3949 Any highway conditions 3740 Non-standard note re: S106 3992

39


Agenda Type Approval subj. to conflicting views-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 ITEM

THETFORD Croxton Road

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1929/F Full In Settlemnt Bndry Open Space N N N


Keystone Development Trust 10 White Hart Street Thetford

APPLICANT

L A Architects LDT The Studio Brighton Road

AGENT

PROPOSAL Erection of 4 storey innovation centre

COMMENTS

CLERK TO THETFORD T CObjection. Comments:- The Committee was strongly opposed to this building on design grounds, believing it to be wholly devoid of architectural merit. At a time when all the talk locally was of enhancing the town, the Committee was extremely disappointed with this proposal, seeing it as a "throwback" to an earlier time, when featureless edifices were the order of the day. The choice of wall materials gave rise to further, pointed comment.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* An Innovation Centre is proposed on land adjacent to the Thetford Leisure Centre at Croxton Road. The Centre, which would be operated by the Keystone Development Trust, would provide office accommodation on four floors, together with a cafe and meeting rooms. * Concerns have been raised by the Town Council about the design of the proposed building. However, it is considered that, given the intended use and the character of the surrounding area, the striking and contemporary appearance of the centre would be entirely appropriate. * Discussions in respect of access and parking issues are on-going.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning Permission

Full Permission Time Limit 3006 In accordance with submitted plans 3046 Non-standard materials condition 3150 Landscaping - details and implementation 3408 Hardlandscaping - details and completion 3410 Access and car park laid out prior to use 3712 Precise details of surface water disposal 3802 Precise details of foul water disposal 3804

40


Agenda Type Approval subj. to conflicting views-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 ITEM

WATTON 1 Canon Close

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1961/F Full In Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N


Mr C Scutt 1 Canon Close Watton

APPLICANT

Clive Warren 18 Gaynor Close Wymondham

AGENT

PROPOSAL Extension to front of bungalow

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policy HOU.17 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. HOU.17 - Extensions to dwellings may be permitted subject to criteria.


41


WATTON TOWN CLERKObjection. Comments: Members felt that the extension would spoil the view of the road due to the length of the extension toother properties.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This application proposes the construction of a lounge extension to the front of a detached bungalow at 1 CanonClose, Watton. * This proposed extension measures approx. 7.25m in width, 3.8m in depth and 4.3 m in height (to the ridge) andwould be located approx. 1.45 m from the boundary. * The design of the proposed extension is considered to be acceptable. The front elevation would have the same appearance as the existing and whilst it would project forward by 3.8 metres there is an irregular pattern of properties in Canon Close and no “building line” or uniform structure to the streetscene. * A letter of objection has been received from neighbouring residents (of 10 Abbey Road) who have raised concerns about the effect on their living conditions specifically in respect of loss of light and views. The distancebetween the two properties is approx. 2.45 metres. * The principal window to both bungalows is positioned in the front elevation which would provide the main source of light to the lounge area of these properties. Both bungalows were constructed with an additional high level window in the side elevation. * The high level window in 10 Abbey Road has been replaced with a full size window and as such the current occupiers now have the benefit of views from this window and additional light. * A beech hedge is located on the boundary between the bungalows, this hedge is owned by the residents of 10 Abbey Road. * Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed scheme would have some impact on the neighbouring property, it is not considered to result in a significant loss of amenity. The objectors window is positioned in the western elevation and as such sunlight would not reach this room until later in the day. In addition, the roof pitch of the bungalow and proposed extension is quite low. * Although the view from the window in the western elevation will be obscured, the neighbouring residents are not entitled to a view across their neighbours land in planning land use terms. * Bearing in mind the applicant is entitled to screen this boundary up to 2 metres in height without any formal planning consent and the low roof height of these bungalows, it is considered that the proposed extension would not unacceptably detract from the residential amenities of the adjoining property. * On balance, taking all the above factors into consideration, it is recommended that the application is approved.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning Permission

Full Permission Time Limit 3006 In accordance with submitted plans 3046 External materials to match existing 3110 No additional windows 3212 NOTE: Reasons for Approval 3998

42


Agenda Type Approval subj. to conflicting views-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ITEM 4

BANHAM Site adjacent to Orchard House



Mr Barry Tunmore White Lodge Farm Fen Road

APPLICANT

Simon Whiteside The Barns Semere Lane

AGENT

PROPOSAL Sub-division of garden for residential development

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.4 and ENV.10 of the Breckland Local Plan (September 1999) are considered relevant to this application:- HOU.4 Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development must enhance the form, character and setting of the village. ENV.10 Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced.


43


RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY3PL/2004/1259 Erection of 4 no. dwellings (Withdrawn)

CLERK TO BANHAM P CStrong objection - letter received 7th January 2005.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This application proposes the erection of 4 no. detached dwellings within 0.225 ha of the applicant’s side garden area. * The site, which lies within the settlement boundary for the village, falls partly within its designated Conservation Area. * Two, well proportioned cottage-style dwellings are included along the site frontage facing onto Heath Road, with a further two dwellings of an alternative design set further towards the rear. The scheme aims to reflect the traditional character of Banham within the front part of the site falling within the Conservation Area and the moremodern style of building evidenced in the recently completed development to the rear, off Scrumpy Way. * A new access is proposed to serve one of the units off Heath Road, with the other frontage unit sharing the existing access to Orchard House. Another existing access, off Scrumpy Way is proposed to serve the remaining2 No dwellings. * Four letters of objection have been received from local residents raising concerns in respect of impact on Conservation Area, highway danger, inappropriate scale of buildings, overdevelopment, loss of trees, traffic generation and precedent. * The Council’s Conservation Officer and Tree Officer raise no objection to the scheme. * The views of the Highways Authority are awaited and will be reported verbally at the meeting. * It is considered that the proposal will provide a high standard of development recognising the character of the Conservation Area and is of an appropriate density, reflecting the context of its surroundings and position in the village.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning Permission

Full Permission Time Limit 3006 In accordance with submitted plans 3046 External materials and samples to be approved 3106 Roof of clay pantiles 3116 Contaminated Land - Desk top study 3944 Window details to be agreed 3131 External joinery to be finished white 3124 Prior approval of slab level 3140 Boundary screening to be agreed 3402 Trees/hedges to be retained 3412 Fencing protection for existing trees 3414 Surfacing of parking etc-details and construction 3404

44


Agenda Type Agreed Refusal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ITEM 5

MILEHAM Linrich The Street

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1757/F Full Out Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation Y N N


P A Bell t/a C W Bell & Son Linrich The Street

APPLICANT

J W M Design 23 Litcham Road Mileham

AGENT

PROPOSAL Proposed replacement of haulage depot with five dwellings and garages

COMMENTS

Letter(s) of SUPPORT

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYPolicy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) is considered relevant to this application. HOU.6 Development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation or tourism.

CLERK TO MILEHAM P CNO REPLY AS AT 20-01-2005

ASSESSMENT NOTES* Five detached houses are proposed on the site of an existing haulage yard in Mileham. * The majority of the application site lies outside the Settlement Boundary for Mileham. The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy HOU.6. * The applicant wishes to relocate the existing business to a site with better transport links, where cost savings can be made. * Whilst the relocation of the haulage business would result in benefit in terms of local amenity and traffic conditions, it is not considered that these gains would be sufficient to outweigh the clear policy objections to the development. * A number of letters of support for the proposal have been received from local residents.

RECOMMENDATION

Refusal of Planning Permission

Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages 9042 Policy not met outside settlement 9044 Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. 9046 Non-standard housing reason for refusal 9050

47



GREAT ELLINGHAM Shelavoe 34 Long Street

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1848/O Outline Out Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N


Mr and Mrs J Potter Shelavoe 34 Long Street

APPLICANT

Lucas Hickman Smith Willow Farm Fen Street

AGENT

PROPOSAL Demolition of disused pig shed and construction of three dwellings with private access drive

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies TRA.5, ENV.28 and HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. TRA.5 - New development generating traffic which would exceed the capacity of the highway will not normally be permitted. ENV.28 - Residential amenity will be protected wherever possible. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development must enhance the form, character and setting of the village.


48


CLERK TO GREAT ELLINGHAM P CStrong objection - See E-mail comments received 20/12/2004. Received hard copy today 22.12.04.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* The proposal is to erect 3 dwellings on land behind the existing frontage development. * The rear gardens to the proposed dwellings are outside the settlement boundary, however, the dwellings and access are within the settlement boundary. The proposal therefore falls to be determined within the context of Policy HOU.4. * The proposed dwellings would use the existing access and a separate application has been submitted for a new access and garage to the existing dwelling. * The main issues are whether the proposal enhances the form and character, the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the adjoining residents and whether satisfactory access and parking arrangements can be achieved. * The Parish Council have raised strong objections on the grounds of drainage, inadequate access and driveway, outside the settlement boundary and backland development. * The Highway Engineer has recommended refusal on the grounds of inadequate visibility. * The Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to a condition requiring details of foul water drainageto be agreed. * 6 letters of objection have been received raising issues regarding the close proximity of the dwellings, loss of privacy, noise and disturbance from the access, drainage and close proximity to adjacent trees. * In terms of form, character and land use the proposal is considered in accordance with HOU.4 and PPG3. Issues regarding overlooking can be addressed at the detailed stage. The Trees and Landscape Officer has been consulted and his comments will be reported verbally. * However, the overriding issue in this instance is the access both in terms of impact on the neighbouring properties and highway safety. The achievable visibility to the north of the access (11 metres) is considerably below the required standard of 90 metres and therefore the application is contrary to Policy TRA.5. * The access is close to an adjacent bungalow. It is considered the proposal would lead to nuisance and disturbance to this property due to noise as a result of the increase in traffic, which is likely to result in an unacceptable loss of amenity.

RECOMMENDATION

Refusal of Outline Planning Permission

Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Undue noise and disturbance from traffic 9450

49



CRANWORTH Adj to The Bungalow Southburgh

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1984/O Outline Out Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N


Mr and Mrs N Potter Tollgate Barns Mattishall Road

APPLICANT

Sketcher Partnership Limited First House Quebec Street

AGENT

PROPOSAL Proposed new bungalow

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.6, ENV.3 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. HOU.6 - Development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation or tourism. ENV.3 - The landscape outside of the Areas of Special Protection to be protected from development wherever possible. TRA.5 - New development generating traffic which would exceed the capacity of the highway will not normally be permitted.


CLERK TO CRANWORTH P CObjection - The council feels that this development may further block the view from the junction between river Lane and Cranworth Road. The council feels that adequate vision splay needs to be satisfied for this junction with the redevelopment of this plot.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This outline application proposes a bungalow on land to the side of the applicants' property. The site lies outside the settlement boundary. * Policy HOU.6 of the Breckland District Local Plan states that new residential development outside such boundaries will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that it is essential for the purposes of agriculture or forestry. In this case, no supporting agricultural justification has been provided. * Two letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents raising concerns that the proposal mayaffect access to a borehole and parking on land known as the Driftway, constitute over development, loss of hedges/trees and visual impact. * The Highway Engineer has raised objection to the scheme on the grounds that the proposed new access would be unsuitable to cater for the development by virtue of its restricted visibility onto Church Lane * The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the grounds of policies HOU.6 and ENV.3

RECOMMENDATION

52



Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages 9042 Policy not met outside settlement 9044 Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. 9046

53



SWANTON MORLEY Land adjacent Derwent Woodgate Lane

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1990/F Full Out Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N


Miss Christine Cade Derwent Woodgate Lane

APPLICANT

T P Planning 4a Greens Road Dereham

AGENT

PROPOSAL Demolition of kennels. To be replaced with 5 no. new traditional dwellings

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.6 and ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application:- HOU.6 Development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation or tourism. ENV.3 The landscape outside of the Areas of Special Protection to be protected from development wherever possible.


54


RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY3PL/1993/1070/CU: Temporary Planning Permission Change of Use from agricultural to breeding/training gun dogs 3PL/1998/0077/F Temporary Planning Permission: Continued Use for breeding/training of gun dogs 3PL/2001/1515/F Refusal: Erection of insulated building to house dog kennels 3PL/2002/0821/F Planning Permission: Acoustically insulated building to house dog keenels and continued use of site for dog breeding 3PL/2004/0448/F Refusal: Removal of Condition 5 on planning permission 3PL/2002/0821

CLERK TO SWANTON MORLEY PCObjection - please see attached comments from Councillors.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This application seeks the demolition of a range of dog kennels and outbuildings on land adjacent to “Derwent”, the applicant’s home, and their replacement with 5 no. 2 storey dwellings. * The 0.5 ha (approx) site which is located to the west of Woodgate Lane, lies outside the settlement boundary for the village. Having a length of 115m and average width of 45m the site is relatively well screened from Woodgate Lane by a high hedge. Separated by open agricultural land, the site is however, clearly visible from the principal residential part of the village, to the west. * Whilst acknowledging that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the local plan, the applicant considers that the removal of the buildings and kennels will result in an amenity benefit to the village given the history of complaints lodged against the enterprise. * Three letters of objections have been received from local residents raising concerns in respect of increased traffic and highway safety, the impact on the rural character of the area, light pollution and policy. * Notwithstanding the history of the site it is considered that the proper management of the kennels, at a scale that accords with the applicant’s breeding licence and operation of the unit in accordance with existing conditionsshould not result in any significant amenity issues. * The scheme is therefore considered contrary to policy HOU.6 of the Local Plan as no agricultural justification has been provided demonstrating the need for the dwellings in terms of an agricultural or similar enterprise. In addition it does not make provision for affordable housing provision required by Policy HOU.13. * Given that the development would extend development into the rural landscape the proposal is also considered to be contrary to Policy ENV.3 of the Breckland District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION


Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages 9042 Policy not met outside settlement 9044 Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. 9046 D.W.L.P. - ENV.3 - Protected for its own sake 9110 Unwarranted intrusion in rural setting 9150 Non-std reason for refusal 9900

55



KENNINGHALL Dam Green Farm Fersfield Road



Mr M and Mrs L Porter Dam Green Farm Fersfield Road

APPLICANT

CSA Design Studio Wilby Norwich

AGENT

PROPOSAL Replacement of barns with 2 holiday cottages

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies TOR.8, TRA.5, TRA.9, ENV.3 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan (Adopted September 1999) are considered relevant to this application. TOR.8 Outside an Area of Important Landscape Quality new Tourist Accommodation in permanent buildings may be permitted subject to criteria. TRA.5 New development generating traffic which would exceed the capacity of the highway will not normally be permitted. TRA.9 Developers will be required to make or fund car parking provision for new development. ENV.3 The landscape outside of the Areas of Special Protection to be protected from development wherever possible. ENV.28 Residential amenity will be protected wherever possible.

Letter(s) of SUPPORT

59


RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYPlanning permission was recently granted to convert an adjacent barn to a residential dwelling (Reference: 3PL/2004/1288/F).

CLERK TO KENNINGHALL P CNO REPLY AS AT 20-01-2005

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This full application proposes two semi-detached holiday cottages on land adjacent to the applicants' property. Each unit would comprise of three bedrooms, bathrooms, living/dining and kitchen accommodation. The units would have a maximum height to the ridgeline of 8.4 metres, and would be situated in a relatively remote location some distance from the main village of Kenninghall. * A letter from the owners of the adjacent property has been received. Whilst the principle of holiday units is supported, concerns have been raised in respect of loss of privacy and traffic generation. * Policy TOR.8 of the Breckland District Local Plan states that new permanent holiday accommodation outside protected areas will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. In this case, the scale of the accommodation proposed is considered excessive to meet the needs of holiday accommodation, and would appear to be more comparable with the requirements of a permanent dwelling. * Furthermore, due to their overall height and bulk, it is considered that the units would detract both from the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape, and be a dominant, as opposed to subservient feature when viewed in context with the existing dwellings. * It is also considered that the scheme would detract from the amenities of the adjacent properties, by virtue of overlooking from the windows in the west elevation. * The units would be accessed by a shared access off Fersfield Road. The Highway Engineer raises no objectionto the scheme subject to appropriate conditions. * Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that there may be an element of visual enhancement resulting from the removal of the existing buildings as stated by the agent, the scale of the development is such that the application is considered contrary to policy TOR.8 and recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION


Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900

60


Agenda Type Agreed Refusal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 ITEM

NORTH LOPHAM Plot at Ashes Farmhouse 9 The Green

LOCATION 3PL/2004/2000/F Full In Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation Y N Adjacent Grade 2


Ms L J Heath c/o Agent

APPLICANT

Anna High Period Property Consultant Rouen House

AGENT

PROPOSAL Erection of 1 no. dwelling

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies ENV.8, ENV.10 and HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. ENV.8 - Important spaces in the built form will be protected from development. ENV.10 - Conservation Areas will be preserved and enhanced. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development must enhance the form, character and setting of the village.


61


CLERK TO N LOPHAM P CVery strong objections by all of the Parish Council. One of the objections relates to additional sewage, bearing in mind the inherent problems we have since the erection of three new dwellings and the barn conversion on the adjacent site. The drawings do not reflect the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the existing one.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This is an application for full planning permission for the erection of a detached two storey, 3 bed dwelling set within the front garden of 9 The Green, North Lopham. The existing dwelling is set some 55 metres back from the road frontage. * The garden forms part of the former village green and remains an important green space within the existing street scene. The site is also within North Lopham Conservation Area. It should be noted that land immediatelyto the north of the application site was recently developed for residential dwellings. * A number of mature trees on the site which make a significant contribution to the appearance of the site. The applicant proposes to remove a number of existing trees, including a highly visible Weeping Willow, to make way for the new dwelling. The Tree and Countryside Officer has raised objection to removal of this tree. * The proposed dwelling reflects a traditional cottage style and would be considered acceptable in design terms. * The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. * In this case the application should be judged against the policies for protection of important open spaces and Conservation Areas. The application site and land immediately to the south represents one of the few remaininglocations within the village which have an open character and make an important contribution to the existing street scene and to the setting of the Conservation Area. * Development would therefore be contrary to policy ENV.8 and ENV.10 of the Breckland Local Plan. ENV.10also states that removal of healthy trees within Conservation Areas will be resisted. The existing Willow Tree tobe removed is of significant value to the street scene and should be retained.

RECOMMENDATION


Loss of open area 9250 D.W.L.P. - Policy ENV.8 9200 D.W.L.P. Policy ENV.10 9570 Non-std conservation reason for refusal 9585 Adopted D.W.L.P. - (September 1999) Policy HOU.4 9012 Failure to enhance form, character and setting 9014

62



11 ITEM

THOMPSON Red Brick Farmhouse

LOCATION 3PL/2004/2008/O Outline Out Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N Adjacent Grade 2


Mr E Raker Park Cottage Croxton

APPLICANT

Terence Povey Chartered Town Planner and Architect

AGENT

PROPOSAL Erection of dwelling to replace existing (to be demolished)

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.9, ENV.3, ENV.13, ENV.28 and TRA.5 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered toapply:- HOU.9 Replacement dwellings in the countryside may be permitted subject to criteria. ENV.3 The landscape outside of the Areas of Special Protection to be protected from development wherever possible. ENV.13 Statutory Listed Buildings will be protected. ENV.28 Residential amenity will be protected wherever possible. TRA.5 New development generating traffic which would exceed the capacity of the highway will not normally be permitted.


63


CLERK TO THOMPSON P CObjection. Comments:- The above council object to the demolition of one of our oldest farmhouses to be replaced with a new building of which we have no idea of the type of dwelling and which will also be outside the building area. Others have tried before to demolish our old buildings without success and we feel that the main part at least could be restored.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This outline application proposes the erection of a dwelling and detached garage to replace an existing propertyknown as ‘Red Brick Farmhouse’. All matters other than access and siting have been reserved for future consideration. * Policy HOU.9 of the Breckland District Local Plan permits replacement dwellings in principle, providing that the scheme complies with other criteria including siting, highway safety and landscape impacts. *Two letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents on the grounds of disturbance from traffic using the shared access passing between Tao Barn and The Granary, whether the building is listed, and if not, whether it should be retained, in full or part. *Two accesses currently serve the property; one shared with the barns, and another access further along Tottington Road. Comments are currently awaited from the Highway Engineer in respect of the suitability of theuse of the access between the barns to serve the dwellings. Notwithstanding this, given that the proposal would not alter the number of dwellings served off the existing drive, it would be unreasonable to require the use of an alternative access. *Whilst the dwelling to be demolished is not listed or of listable quality, it lies within the historic curtilage of theadjacent grade II listed barns, and therefore Policy ENV.13 requires the scheme to be assessed in terms of its impact on the setting of these buildings. The Council's Historic Buildings Officer has raised objection to its demolition and re-siting on the basis that it would fail to preserve the context and character of this group of buildings. The building, in particular the front section, is also considered worthy of retention. *Furthermore, the new dwelling would be contrary to Policy HOU.9 in part, as it would be sited some distance from the footprint of the original dwelling, on land outside the historical curtilage. *The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the grounds of policies HOU.9 and ENV.3 and ENV.13.

RECOMMENDATION


Non-std housing reason for refusal 9035 D.W.L.P. Policy ENV.13 9700 Non-std reason for refusal 9900

64



12 ITEM

ROCKLANDS Site adjacent Linden Cottage The Street



Mr and Mrs T Moore Linden Cottage The Street

APPLICANT

David Cumming CSA Studio Wilby

AGENT

PROPOSAL Erection of semi detached dwellings (1 pair)

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.4, ENV.28, TRA.5 and TRA.9 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development must enhance the form, character and setting of the village. ENV.28 - Residential amenity will be protected wherever possible. TRA.5 - New development generating traffic which would exceed the capacity of the highway will not normally be permitted. TRA.9 - Developers will be required to make or fund car parking provision for new development.


CLERK TO ROCKLANDS P CObjection - see attached letter

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This full application proposes two three-storey semi-detached dwellings on garden land to the side of the applicants' property, on land partly within the village settlement boundary. Each dwelling would comprise of four bedrooms and associated living accommodation, and would be accessed by a shared access off The Street. * One letter of objection has been received on the grounds that further residential development would worsen existing drainage and flooding problems experienced by properties in The Street and Low Lane. * Although the land on which the two dwellings would be sited lies within the village settlement boundary, wherethe principle of residential development is acceptable under Policy HOU.4, the proposed scheme is considered unacceptable. In particular, the dwellings, by virtue of their number, orientation on sites, and the relationship with surrounding properties, would result in a form of development which would be out of keeping with the linear character of this part of the village. * The Highway Engineer has also raised objection to the scheme on the basis that the existing access is unsuitableto cater for any further development, due to its restricted visibility onto The Street. * With regards to the concerns raised in respect of local drainage and flooding problems, no objections have beenreceived from the Environment Agency or the Council's Environmental Health department in respect of the scheme. * The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policies HOU.4, TRA.5 and ENV.28, and recommended for refusal.

65


RECOMMENDATION


Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std Environment reason for refusal 9260 Non-std reason for refusal 9900

66



13 ITEM

BEETLEY Land adjacent 26 Fakenham Road

LOCATION 3PL/2004/2020/O Outline In Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N


Mr and Mrs J Huggins 26 Fakenham Road Beetley

APPLICANT

David Gipson Architect Melrose Trunch Road

AGENT

PROPOSAL Erection of single storey dwelling (amended)

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policy HOU.4 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. HOU.4 - Within the Settlement Boundaries of villages identified for Individual dwellings or small groups of houses, development must enhance the form, character and setting of the village.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYRefusal - 3PL/2004/0868/O - Outline planning permission for the erection of a single storey dwelling.

CLERK TO BEETLEY P CObjection:- Members expressed concern about the access on to the Fakenham Road with it close proximity to an already busyjunction and the potential impact on the proposed road safety scheme agreed by St Mary's School and Norfolk County Council, work on which has just started. Also, local knowledge has identified a spectacular walnut tree on the site.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This outline application proposes the erection of a single storey dwelling in the side garden area of 26 Fakenham Road, Beetley. * The 0.025ha, roughly triangular site which is located at the junction of Elmham Road and Fakenham Road is currently well screened from the road by a 2m high mature beech hedge. * Members will note that a previous outline application for a dwelling on this site has been refused. * Whilst the application site details remain the same as that previously considered, the applicants have provided asiting plan for a 2 bedroom bungalow, showing access and parking arrangements. * Notwithstanding this additional information, it is considered that similar issues arise and that a dwelling thereonwould appear cramped in an area of relatively spacious development.

RECOMMENDATION


Adopted D.W.L.P. - (September 1999) Policy HOU.4 9012 Cramped development 9240

68


Agenda Type Refusal subj. to conflicting views -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14 ITEM

WATTON Ockleigh Merton Road

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1869/O Outline In Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N Y N


Mr & Mrs K E Jones Ockleigh Merton Road

APPLICANT

Sketcher Partnership Limited First House Quebec Street

AGENT

PROPOSAL Proposed demolition of Ockleigh and replacement with 3 no. new dwellings

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.2, HOU.6, TRA.5, ENV.28 and ENV.32 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered to apply:- HOU.2 Housing development within the Settlement Boundaries for the towns will be permitted subject to criteria. HOU.6 Development will not be permitted outside of Settlement Boundaries unless it is justified for agriculture, forestry, recreation or tourism. TRA.5 New development generating traffic which would exceed the capacity of the highway will not normallybe permitted. ENV.28 Residential amenity will be protected wherever possible. ENV.32 Where development will create a new edge to a settlement special regard will be had to layout, design and landscaping.


69


RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY3PL/2004/1458/O - Planning permission refused for four dwellings. 3PL/1997/0325/F - Planning permission granted for annexe extension to bungalow. 3PL/1997/0034/F - Planning permission refused for a dwelling/garage on the site and subsequently dismissed on appeal.

WATTON TOWN CLERKNo objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This outline application proposes the demolition of an existing 1960’s bungalow and annexe, and its replacement with three two-storey dwellings and garages on land currently forming part of the applicants' property/garden. * Four letters of objection have been received raising concerns that part of the site lies outside the settlement boundary, has been subject to previous refusals, may set a precedent, disturbance, house types inappropriate withthe character of the area, pressure on existing services, and highway safety issues including the road being unsuitable to cater for increased traffic, proposed garages impairing visibility, and proximity to school. * The site lies partly within and partly outside the settlement boundary for Watton. Therefore, whilst policy HOU.2 permits residential development in principle, the development of the unit outside the settlement boundary(plot 1) would be contrary to policy HOU.6 of the Breckland Local Plan. * Members may recall that an application for four dwellings on the site was recently refused (Ref: 3PL/2004/1869/O). In this case, the four houses were all positioned within the settlement boundary. An earlier application for one dwelling on the land outside the settlement boundary was also previously refused, and dismissed on appeal (Ref: 3PL/1997/0034/F). * Furthermore, it is also considered that the construction of houses as proposed would be out of keeping with the character of the edge of the town, which consists primarily of bungalows. * The Highways Authority have raised concerns in respect of restricted visibility at both accesses serving the development. * Whilst a mature oak tree on the site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order, subject to it being adequately protected during construction works, the Landscape Officer does not raise objection. * The application is considered contrary to policies HOU.6 and ENV.32, and is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION


Structure Plan Policy H.8 - Outside Villages 9040 Adopted D.W.L.P.(September 1999) HOU.6 - Outside villages 9042 Policy not met outside settlement 9044 Proposal not connected with agriculture etc. 9046 Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900

70



15 ITEM

YAXHAM Carrington Wood Norwich Road



R H & N J Hughes Carrington Wood Norwich Road

APPLICANT

Beteq Planning 1 Fiennes Road Norwich

AGENT

PROPOSAL Alterations and extension to existing house

COMMENTS



CLERK TO YAXHAM P CNo objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES* The proposal involves the erection of a 1½ storey building to the rear of an existing bungalow. * The building would be connected to the existing bungalow by a single storey link. The proposal also includes the rebuilding of a glazed sunroom to provide an en-suite. * The bungalow has been previously extended and converted to provide accommodation in the roof. * Policy HOU.17 requires extensions to dwellings to be of a size, scale and design in keeping with the existing dwelling and not result in the overdevelopment of the site or result in a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. * The Parish Council have raised no objection. * 2 letters of objection have been received regarding the size and scale of the extension, overlooking and the possible use of the extension as a separate dwelling. * It is considered that the proposal is out of keeping with the existing bungalow in terms of size, massing and external appearance and as such represents the over development of the site. * The scheme as proposed is contrary to Policy HOU.17 and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION


Non-std reason for refusal 9900

71



16 ITEM

ATTLEBOROUGH 5 Whitworth Avenue



Mr J Follows 5 Whitworth Avenue Attleborough

APPLICANT

N H Building Design 18 Plasset Drive Besthorpe

AGENT

PROPOSAL Erection of dwelling and garage

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policies HOU.2, TRA.5, TRA.9 and ENV.28 of the Breckland District Local Plan are considered relevant to this application. HOU.2 - Housing development within the Settlement Boundaries for the towns will be permitted subject to criteria. TRA.5 - New development generating traffic which would exceed the capacity of the highway will not normally be permitted. TRA.9 - Developers will be required to make or fund car parking provision for new development. ENV.28 - Residential amenity will be protected wherever possible.


CLERK TO ATTLEBOROUGH TCNo objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This proposal is a full application for a bungalow and detached garage on a triangular piece of land to the side of the applicant’s property, situated within the settlement boundary. * The plot would be accessed by a shared access off Whitworth Avenue. * Two letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents on the grounds that the access to the new dwelling would be shared in part by three properties and across land owned by an adjoining property, and the road being unsuitable to cater for more traffic due to its restricted width. * Notwithstanding the requirements of PPG3, due to the restricted size and shape of the plot, it is considered that the proposal would result in a cramped form of development, which would be uncharacteristic of the surroundingarea. A dwelling in this location may also be detrimental to the amenities of nearby properties. * Furthermore the Highways Authority raise objection to the scheme on the basis that Whitworth Avenue, by virtue of its restricted width, is unsuitable to cater for any further development. * Therefore, the proposal is recommended for refusal on the grounds of Policy HOU.2, TRA.5 and ENV.28.

RECOMMENDATION

72



Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Cramped development 9240 Adverse effect on amenities 9330 Setting a precedent 9300 Non-std reason for refusal 9900

73



17 ITEM

WEETING Mundford Road

LOCATION 3PL/2004/1978/A Advertisement Out Settlemnt Bndry No Allocation N N N


Michael Horley & Jilly Dalton Weeting Fish and Chips Hereward Way

APPLICANT

Michael Horley & Jilly Dalton Weeting Fish and Chips Hereward Way

AGENT

PROPOSAL Non-illuminated swinging A- board

COMMENTS

POLICY NOTES Policy ENV.34 of the Breckland District Local Plan is considered relevant to this application. ENV.34 - Advertisements and signs will only be permitted where they are not harmful to local amenity or road safety.


CLERK TO WEETING P CNo Objection. Comments: This sign is not on the Mundford Road but the Lynn Road, Weeting

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This retrospective application seeks the retention of an advanced warning directional sign positioned on highway verge adjacent to the junction of the B1106 with Hereward Way. * The non-illuminated sign advertising the Weeting Fish and Chip Shop is located in a detached location, some distance from the premises to which it relates. * One letter of objection has been received raising concerns that the application is retrospective; the number of signs already in the village; impact on highway safety and visual amenity. * Due to the scale and prominence of the sign in this unrelated location, it is considered that it would represent anunnecessary feature in the landscape, which would detract from the visual amenities of the area. * The Highway Authority raise objection on highway safety grounds. * A further concern relates to the precedent that could be set by the granting of this application. * The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the grounds of policy ENV. 34. Furthermore, as this application is retrospective, authority to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the sign is also sought.

RECOMMENDATION

Refusal of Consent to Display Advertisements

74


D.W.L.P. - Policy ENV.34 9400 Unacceptable advertisement board 9420 Setting a precedent 9300 NOTE - Enforcement Notice Authorisation requested 9800

75


Agenda Type Refusal subj. to conflicting views -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ITEM 18

BEETLEY Toad Hall Holt Road



Jean Hill Toad Hall Holt Road

APPLICANT

Jean Hill Toad Hall Holt Road

AGENT

PROPOSAL Erection of boundary wall

COMMENTS


76


RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYAdjoining site:- 3PL/2004/0328/F – Barn adjacent to Toad Hall, Holt Road – conversion of barn to dwelling. Planning permission granted 19th April 2004, however, the Council would not agree to a solid brick wall or close boarded timber fence at the front along this boundary

CLERK TO BEETLEY P CNo objection:- Members assume that the proposal will be in the same material as existing end wall.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This application seeks approval for the erection of a boundary wall to be positioned at the front of Toad Hall, a converted barn in Beetley. * The barn lies in a prominent location on Holt Road, Beetley (the B1110) and has been sub-divided into 2 separate units. Toad Hall, the subject of this planning application, is located in the southern end of the barn and has been converted to a residential dwelling. Woodsend adjoins and lies north of Toad Hall and currently has planning permission for residential use. * The proposed wall would be 6 metres in length and located on the eastern boundary between Toad Hall and Woodsend. The highest part of the wall would be 1.8 metres (where it adjoins Toad Hall) reducing to 1 metre in height towards Holt Road. * It is considered that the proposed brick wall would create an undesirable hard edge along this boundary and detract from the character of this attractive barn. The solid brick wall would result in a significant visual break inthe front elevation of the barn and would give undue emphasis to the sub-division of the barn into two units. * The applicant has been advised that screening which is less obtrusive/dominant would be more acceptable in visual terms, such as a timber post and rail fence which would have a softer and less urban appearance. * The applicant is unwilling to amend the proposed scheme and feels that a wall in matching brickwork covered by some planting would be more in keeping than a timber fence. * It should be noted that consent was recently sought to erect a brick wall or close- boarded fence along this boundary as part of the application for the adjoining barn conversion (ref. 2004/0328). However, this request wasdeclined as it was considered that a solid fence or wall would not be acceptable due to the visual impact on the building. * It is recommended that this application is refused on the basis that the proposed wall would result in detriment to the character of the barn and the visual amenity of the area.

RECOMMENDATION


Non-std reason for refusal 9908

77



19 ITEM

ASHILL 12 The Oaks



Mr G Smart Green Farmhouse Watton Green

APPLICANT

Mr R G Larby 29 Bellmere Way Saham Toney

AGENT

PROPOSAL Extensions

COMMENTS


RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY3PL/1984/0805 – Planning permission granted for rear/side extension.

CLERK TO ASHILL P CNo objection

ASSESSMENT NOTES* This application proposes a first floor front and side extension, with a rear single storey extension to a detacheddwelling at 12 Oaks Avenue, Ashill. * The property is located on an existing residential estate of similar sized and designed dwellings. Other dwellings are located either side of the application site. * The dwelling has already been extended with a large, irregular shaped side and rear single storey extension. * Policy HOU.17 states that planning permission will be granted for extensions provided they are in keeping withsize, scale and design of the existing dwelling. * In this case the applicant proposes to place a large first floor extension to the front of the property over the existing garage and hall. In addition the front wall to the existing ground floor side extension is raised to over 6.5 metres in height and forming part of the first floor front extension. The result is an incongruous design whichcompletely overburdens the front elevation to the dwelling. * The proposal takes little account of the existing scale or character of the dwelling and is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION


Incompatible design of extension 9370

78



20 ITEM

DEREHAM 70 Norwich Road

LOCATION 3PL/2004/2023/F Full In Settlemnt Bndry Redevelop. Opport N N N


Mr J Spalding 70 Norwich Road Dereham

APPLICANT

Mr J Spalding 70 Norwich Road Dereham

AGENT

PROPOSAL Extension (re-submission)

COMMENTS

CLERK TO DEREHAM T CNo objection subject to the preservation of the horse chestnut tree.

ASSESSMENT NOTES* A previous application to extend this property was refused on the 8th November 2004 and is now the subject ofan appeal. * There are no objections to this proposal in respect of its design, however it is adjacent to a tree covered by a preservation order (TPO 1985, no.3). It is considered that the tree could have an adverse impact on the amenitiesof those occupying the extension which would be likely to result in requests for it to be felled or severely pruned.* Should this happen the amenity value of the tree would be severely diminished. * The applicant has written that there is no intention to carry out any lopping or felling of the tree other than standard pruning that may be required.

RECOMMENDATION


Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900 Non-std reason for refusal 9900

79

BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 07...

Documents

Transcript of BRECKLAND COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 07...