Mobile Infrastructure Project

Installation of 30 metre high telecommunications tower with six antennas and associated group-based equipment At Friary Farm Blakeney. Application No: PF/15/1208

Click for NNDC web page

http://www.northnorfolk.org/planning/19804.asp

This Application from Arqiva has now gone in to NNDC and responses are required before 25/09/2015. This application comes as part of a government initiative called the Mobile Infrastructure Project, which seeks to fill gaps in mobile phone coverage called 'Not Spots'. To use their words " A new base station is needed as part of the MIP to help provide mobile coverage over a 'Not Spot' that affects Blakeney and the wider area". Even if this were true, which it is not - many places in and around the village and Parish have a strong signal with several providers- there is a much better and already thoroughly explored option available in the belfry of Blakeney Church. Arqiva the company promoting this mast have casually dismissed this option, but as beneficiaries of mast construction thats hardly surprising. I believe that before such an application can be approved a thorough and independent exploration of all the options can be insisted upon. With an alternative this is not a contest between pragmatism and landscape. We would all like better mobile coverage but not at the expense of the landscape and the setting of Blakeney Church.

You make your views known here

Planning Department, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road. Cromer Norfolk. NR27 9EN

Scroll down to find grounds for objection

If approved this is the view ( based on the pump up mast) that will greet those leaving Blakeney Church. This image shows the mast with some additional infrastructure, because once these masts are in place they inevitably become utilised for other purposes. Scroll down for further views.

Proposal to erect a 30metre high shared telecommunications tower with six antennas and associated ground-based cabinets. At Friary Farm Blakeney.

Ref: PF/15/1208



I wish to object to the above application on the following grounds

1.         The Landscape impact.

Our principal objection to this application is the major landscape impact that a telecommunications mast of this scale would have in this particular location. A prominent headland that constitutes a significant element in the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and overlooking two Conservation Areas. It would be hard to understate the importance of this particular landscape feature in the north Norfolk coastal scene, visible in both directions east and west this wooded headland with Blakeney Church at its crest it is as familiar and important a landscape feature in this part of Norfolk as Glastonbury Tor is to its part of Somerset.

A recent study showed that tourism is by quite a large margin the largest underwriter of Norfolk’s economy, of that income a significant amount is generated here in North Norfolk, the reason for this is that the people who visit the area do so because of its unspoilt beauty. Again and again surveys show this to be true.

Visible from the Norfolk Coast Path from as far off as Wells in the west and for a similar distance to the east as far as Sheringham it is also very prominent from a number of important visitor centers. The National Nature Reserve of Blakeney Point, the Harbour and departure point at Morston [See picture 1] where every day during the summer hundreds of tourists stand looking at this view as they wait to embark on excursions to see the seals and bird sanctuary. Cley Nature Reserve to the east also has this belt of trees as its western horizon. [See picture 2] So significant is this site that it is the opinion of all three Parish Councils that this mast represents a defining test of the strength of the AONB designation. If this mast were to go up then the AONB designation comes down, probably to a point where it will not be worth all the mountains policy paper it is written on.

2. The option of St Nicholas Church Tower, Blakeney.

Arqiva claim that the space needed for the required cabinets and their combined weight makes this option untenable. Blakeney Church Tower is one of the largest Parish Church towers in the country and has within it not one [The Belfry] but two [The Clock Room] spaces wherein equipment could be accommodated. Arqiva claim to have examined this option, but from their replies to our enquiries regarding its possible use, it seems fairly clear that they have not done this with any rigor. This option was explored as long ago as 2004 and found to be quite suitable, and it seems odd that Arqiva have not looked at what happened then. We feel it would be a great shame to have these views destroyed when a better option is available. The National Planning Policy Framework states that in an AONB, “ The aim should be to keep the numbers of radio and telecoms masts and the sites to a minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for a new site has been justified. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.”

It would seem that Aqiva’s haste to get an application in within the MIP’s limited time frame has resulted in a very superficial assessment of all the other options. This can only produce a result we will regret. Act in haste repent at leisure.

3.      The height of the trees:

The line drawing submitted by Arqiva that shows this mast extending just a small amount above the trees is misleading, the trees have been measured and found to be considerably lower than shown of the plan (see drawings included). This difference means that the mast would extend above the trees by 16 metres not the 7.5 metres suggested by Arqiva. The danger here is that focusing attention on the relationship between the trees and the mast tends to suggest that if that relationship can be improved the mast becomes acceptable, and this of course is not true.   On this site any structure of any kind that extends above the tree line will be conspicuous in the landscape for a great distance. Perhaps the actual height of the trees can be established by NNDC? A further comment that was made by the inspector at the appeal for the previous application was that these trees are tall, thin and ivy covered, such that their health and stability may not be good, and little weight can be placed on their long term screening value.

4. AONB Policies



The site lies within the north Norfolk Coast AONB and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies EN1, EN2 and EN8 are relevant.

Policy EN1 states that proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.

Policy EN2 requires that proposal are informed by the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and that their location, scale and design protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area, including visually sensitive skylines, and seascapes.

Policy EN8 requires that development proposals preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets, in this case the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and their setting through high quality sensitive design.

Policies in the current AONB Management Plan.

Policy C9 Supports the provision of necessary facilities and new development to meet proven needs of local communities and businesses, in ways that maintain the area’s natural beauty, including the provision of fast broadband throughout the area”.

Policy PB3 Ensures that new development, including changes to existing buildings and infrastructure, within their ownership or powers of regulation are consistent with the special qualities of the area and relevant conservation objectives”.
Section 3 A Special Place “There are also pressures for other forms of
development in the countryside and in some cases potential conflict between government and other guidance and AONB protection – for example telecommunications masts and broadband infrastructure – and there may be others, unforeseen at present, in the future. Although development is likely to bring economic benefits, impacts on the areas natural beauty can undermine the natural capital that underpins the tourism industry and makes this an attractive area to live in and visit. We need to manage development so that it is compatible with AONB
designation.”

5. National Planning Policy Framework

Also states that

In National Parks, the Broads and AONBs, which have the highest status of protection, great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. The aim should be to keep the numbers of radio and telecoms masts and the sites to a minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network.

     Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for a new site has been justified. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

National Planning Policy Framework – paragraph 45 requires that:- Applications for telecommunications development (including for prior approval under Part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development. For a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.

·       Decisions should be made in line with the Development Plan unless there are valid and overriding reasons for not doing so, based on the merits of the case.

·       In the absence of up to date Development Plan policies, a decision should be made by consideration of the policies of the NPPF, taken as a whole.

·       Decisions cannot be made solely on the basis of representations for or against a proposal; they must be based on valid planning grounds, weighing all the evidence and on the merits of the case.

Also.

Conservation Principles, English Heritage, 2008, p72

3) “The setting of a heritage structure, site or area is defined as the immediate and extended environment that is part of, or contributes to, its significance and distinctive character. Beyond the physical and visual aspects, the setting includes interaction with the natural environment; past or present social or spiritual practices, customs, traditional knowledge, use or activities and other forms of intangible cultural heritage aspects that created and form the space as well as the current and dynamic cultural, social and economic context.”

6. Blakeney as a ‘Not Spot’.

In order to qualify for inclusion as part of the Mobile Infrastructure Project, Blakeney needs to be a ‘Not Spot’. In Arqiva’s words "A new base station is needed as part of the MIP to help provide mobile coverage over a 'Not Spot' that affects Blakeney and the wider area".

This is not true as a good signal is available from several providers in and around Blakeney and the surrounding area.

Conclusion.

To sum up, I am of the opinion that in their haste to get this mast erected within the tight time scales set by the Mobile Infrastructure Project (and it is not our fault that they are running out of time) the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate, or fully explore the options of the mast being erected in a less sensitive location or the utilisation of an existing building or structure such as within the tower of St Nicholas Church in Blakeney. As a result the proposal fails to accord with the requirements of the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy and NPPF.

      It is my belief believe that short-term pragmatism in respect of mobile phone signals is not a sufficient excuse for destroying important views within an AONB. The necessary improvements to phone coverage can be achieved without doing that. To that end I would like to request that the NNDC insist that a thorough and impartial examination of Blakeney Church Tower be undertaken before it comes to committee . If that process runs on beyond the present phase of the MIP then so be it; the beauty of this coast and its economy are more important than any difference in cost that may result.

These drawings show first how Harlequin would like us to think this mast will look, and below how it will actually look based on measurements of the trees, which vary from 42 ft - 52 ft in height.The mast will be 98ft 6in

There are always good reasons put forward for doing these things, and most of us would like a better phone signal. BUT it is the beauty of the north Norfolk Landscape that underwrites our economy. At present there are numerous applications in train that represent significant threats to it. The above is just one of them, the value of the landscape should be fought for by all of us. At just a few feet less than the height of Blakeney Church tower (100 ft) this mast will be visible from Morston, Cley and all of Blakeney Harbour, protruding into one of the most famous and best loved views along this coast. There are statutory designations like AONB status, and Conservation Area status that offer protection from such intrusions, and particular protection through the National Planning Policy Framework for the settings of our priceless listed buildings, and we should do all we can to support them. Blakeney Church, the building in question this time, offers a perfect space within its tower ( at the same height as this mast) for this equipment. Last time an initiative to put it there was thwarted because the phone companies wouldn’t work together. They should be made to. Or at least Harlequin should this time.

MORE EXPLOITATION OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGES

The asking price is £800,000. and it would be over £300, 000 to build such a house. London market strikes again. Just wait until we get the NDR, which we are told will do so much for the North Norfolk economy, and a nice lot of precedents set. Map shows site is at junction of Wiveton and Holt road; probably looks across the valley to Wiveton Church. And is situated just across the road from Cley Church The 2012 date is interesting as regards the timeline with what we know now. The NPPF was introduced in March 2012 and was an opening up of the planning system; but with a decent use of HO 8 NNDC something could have been done about the scale and footprint. The other issue is about design, and the obsession of doing something of its time. This still has to respect what is around it in terms of vernacular build and materials, and the landscape; not least the designations on it; AONB and GVCA; AONB on its own is supposed in landscape terms to have same status as National Park. I don't think that there are many little old stone buildings being replaced with three layers of glass boxes in National Parks. Ian Shepherd CPRE

Details @ http://www.jackson-stops.co.uk/cgi-bin/properties/property-burnham-market.pl?Start=12&Null_Search=N&sort_order=&props_per_pg=

THE TIMING FOR THIS ONE MAY BE INTERESTING AS IT SEEMS THERE ARE PROPOSALS IN TRAIN FOR 10 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADJACENT TO THIS SITE.

A new wave of ambitious developers, keen to exploit the increasing popularity of this coast are putting the villages, and landscape of north Norfolk under threat as never before. The time has come for the Friends of North Norfolk to grow to meet these threats. So please join us now. There are no membership fees, although donations would be most welcome. To join us all you need do is email

art@godfreysayers.plus.com

or telephone 01263 740747

Contributions can be made here

Hayes + Storr Client Account Sort Code 20-30-81

Account Number 70459542

Barclays 17 Market Place Fakenham NR21 9BE

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 17 March 2015
Site visits made on 17 March and 11 April 2015
by Ron Boyd BSc (Hons) MICE
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 April 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878
Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road, Blakeney, Holt NR25 7PD

 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
 The appeal is made by Mrs Kathy Cargill against the decision of North Norfolk District Council.
 The application Ref PF/14/0785, dated 20 June 2014, was refused by notice dated 4 September 2014.
 The development proposed is described as demolition of existing dwelling, farm buildings and barns to be replaced with a dwelling.
Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.
Main issue
2. I consider this to be the effect the proposed dwelling would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the Glaven Valley Conservation Area (the Conservation Area) and the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB).
Reasons

The appeal site comprises an area of 0.912 ha in the north-west quadrant of the appellant’s 16 ha holding which is bounded by Saxlingham Road to the west, the Blakeney Esker at Wiveton Down to the south, and the Langham Road to the east. It lies within the Countryside for planning purposes and is within both the Conservation Area and the AONB.
Adjacent to its northern boundary with adjacent farmland the site currently contains a single-storey storage barn, a three-unit holiday cottage, and a modern open-fronted barn. The remainder of the site is grassland. South of the above buildings, and encircled by the site, is the existing dwelling, a 1950’s bungalow set some 15m back from Saxlingham Road, with a summerhouse to the rear. The two accesses into the site from Saxlingham Road which at present serve the above buildings and the bungalow are located to the north and south of the bungalow. South of the southern access are a poly-tunnel and a greenhouse.
The proposal is to demolish the bungalow, the two barns, the poly-tunnel, greenhouse and summerhouse and construct a replacement dwelling on the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878

grassland some 76m south-east of the existing bungalow. The holiday cottage would remain, served, as at present, by the more northerly of the accesses on to Saxlingham Road. A new driveway would be constructed from the existing southern access to provide vehicular access for the proposed replacement dwelling from Saxlingham Road.

The proposed dwelling would comprise three elements. A main house of three storeys (lower and upper ground floors and first floor) would face south- westwards on to a paved terrace at upper ground floor level. The terrace would be bounded to the west and east by two two-storey wings extending from the south-western elevation of the main house. The more westerly of these wings, described as the outbuilding, would run at right angles to the main house in a south-westerly direction and would include a garage, library and study. The other wing, described as the extension, would be at an angle to the main house, running broadly south-east and would include bedrooms and a family room.
Apart from the north-west-facing gable the first-floor elevations of the main house would slope back at 10 degrees to vertical. The flat roof above would be at 40.1m AOD, 8.9m above the proposed adjoining ground level of 31.2m AOD.
The proposal would represent a significant shift of built form eastwards into the countryside between Saxlingham Road and Langham Road. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned treatment of the first-floor elevations and it being founded below existing ground level, the main house, viewed from the west, (bridleway west of Saxlingham Road) the north, (Saxlingham Road and Blakeney Road) and the east, (Langham Road and across the Glaven Valley from Bridgefoot Lane) would appear as a substantial three-storey flat-roofed building in an exposed position. The area bounded by the above highways together with a length of Bridgefoot Lane at the eastern edge of the Conservation Area broadly comprise the proposed building’s surrounding area of visual influence, identified as such in the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal. From points within this area the building would have a significant visual presence.
This in itself would not necessarily be harmful. However, to my mind, the scale and mass of the building would not relate sympathetically to its surroundings. Its form, notwithstanding the proposed incorporation of familiar materials such as pantiles and Norfolk red brick, would fail to sufficiently reflect the identity of local surroundings or reinforce local distinctiveness. The flat roof above the three-storey element, particularly as seen from the east and north east in conjunction with the north-east elevation of the main house would emphasize the building’s bulk and its contrast with the indigenous built form of the area. Compared with the existing single-storey pitched-roof bungalow, with its roof ridge some 5.2m above adjoining ground level, I conclude that the proposed dwelling would have a materially greater impact on the appearance of the surrounding countryside and, in the light of the above, would be harmful to it.
In the above respects the proposal would conflict with Polices HO 8, EN 2 and EN 4 of the Council’s Core Strategy Adopted September 2008 (the Core Strategy) and paragraphs 58 and 60 of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework.
The harm would, though, be relatively local in extent, and not such as to materially detract from the overall special qualities of the AONB. However the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878

effect of the proposed development on views into and across the Conservation Area, from the bridleway west of Saxlingham Road and Bridgefoot Lane respectively, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the setting of the landscape of the Conservation Area as is required by Core Strategy Policy EN 8. Whilst the harm would be less than substantial it adds to that identified above and falls to be weighed against the material considerations of the public benefits of the proposal.

These would include the removal of the low quality, (although low impact) bungalow and barns along with the poly-tunnel, green house, and summerhouse. There are also comprehensive landscaping proposals which would have the potential to enhance the land within the appellant’s holding and, in time, mitigate, to some extent, the impact of the proposed building. Whilst these are worthwhile measures, I conclude that they would not outweigh the harms I have identified above.
I have taken into account all the matters raised in the evidence, including the comments received from those consulted on the application and those recent planning permissions drawn to my attention by the appellant. All planning applications and appeals must be determined on their individual merits and I have so determined this appeal. I have found nothing in the evidence to outweigh my conclusions in respect of the main issue which have led to my decision. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should fail.
R.T.Boyd
Inspector

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3

Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878

APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
John Litton QC
Tim Schofield BSc (Hons) Stephen Flynn BLArch (Hons) AAILA, ALI
Anthony Hudson MA Cantab, Dip Arch PCL, ARB, RSA, RIBA Keith Schilling

Barrister
Planning Consultant Landscape Architect
Architect - Visiting Professor of Architecture Norwich University of the Arts
Solicitor

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Roger Howe FCILEx
Helen Thompson BSc, MSc, MPhil, CMLI, MRTPI, AIEMA
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Richard Hewitt Chris Wheeler Ian Shepherd Rachel Pryor Tony Faulkner Martin Woodcock
DOCUMENTS

Planning Legal Manager NNDC Planning Consultant
Solicitor – Glaven Valley Protection Group Glaven Valley Protection Group
CPRE
Wiveton Parish Council
Blakeney Parish Council Local resident

1 Schedule of appearances - submitted by the appellant
2 Statement of Common Ground
3 Landscape principles plan - submitted by the appellant
4 Statement for Glaven Valley Protection Group – submitted by Mr Wheeler
5 Statement for CPRE – submitted by Mr Shepherd
6 Statement for Wiveton PC on behalf of Mr Sayers (Chairman) submitted by Ms Pryor
7 Statement for Blakeney Parish Council – submitted by Mr Faulkner
8 Enhanced photo-montages submitted by the appellant, as requested during
the Hearing, and correspondence closing the Hearing.

Three Owls Farm

A Second application to be determined on 23^rd April

An amended second application for Three Owls goes to the Council Development Management Committee on Thursday 23^rd April. It is important to respond to this as any previous response to the first application does not register for the second; and if you have already objected to this second application, then you might want to add some further comment, as three amended documents were added to the NNDC planning web site on the 19^th and 20^th March.

Does this sound complicated, and you needed to read a second time? Probably a ‘yes’ on both counts, a result of the planning process now being so heavily weighted in favour of the developer. The applicant has followed the now common route of making an application, and if it is refused, then appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, while at the same time putting in a second application, with some modifications, to the Council. A further overlay is that the applicant can amend their documents, as has happened here, at any time from the original submission up to the date of the meeting of the Committee which takes the decision, a constant shifting of the goal posts.

The amendments to the second Owls application arise as a direct result of the Hearing heard by the Planning Inspectorate on the refusal of the first application, and the points of criticism made by objectors, and to which they feel vulnerable. In particular those made on what constitutes the boundary in which the development could take place; a mention of a smaller floor space on a technicality, which would give the impression of a lesser bulk and scale; in addition, there was also heavy criticism at the Hearing on the ecological absurdity of claimed landscape mitigations, but this was too complicated to ‘tweak’ within a couple of days after the Hearing.

The Landscape and Visual Aspect Statement accompanying this application makes much of the proposed amelioration for the site, but careful reading of the document shows that there are many proposals included in it which are not ecologically sound, and could in reality be very damaging to the natural features of the landscape as a whole. Its aspirations are in conflict with the environment they are supposed to enhance.

One example is in describing the “woodland planting” around the old gravel workings “a slightly discordant form in the landscape” necessitating its removal and converting it to ‘heathland’ (which would of course be impossible) by presumably filling in the old pit.

So please make your objections to PF/14/1566, and if you have already done so you may want to now protest at the amended documents of the 19^th and 20^th. You can make these to the Planning Officer Gary Linder; or write a short note to members of the planning committee, preferably before a private site visit by them on the 16^th April.

The plans can be seen here http://www.northnorfolk.org/planning.asp

Click Search Planning Applications.

Then Search Comment and type

Policy No PF/14/1566 into the box provided.

It certainly helps to use the online method of objecting, but from our experience last time we know that it is more effective to write. You can of course do both.

North Norfolk District Council
Planning Dept
Council Offices
Holt Road
Cromer􏰙􏰬􏰙

Here below the submission on behalf of the Friend of North Norfolk by our solicitor.

To Head of Planning North Norfolk District Council

15^th January 2015

Dear Madam,

‘Three Owls’ Application 14/1566

I write further to my letter of 10^th January 2015 to which I still await a reply. For the reasons set out in that letter, your urgent reply is again requested.

In the meantime. please note that this letter of strong objection is submitted on behalf of the Friends of North Norfolk, and others.

Depending upon your response to my earlier letter, further representations may be appropriate.

Please also advise which meeting of the Development Committee that this application is likely to be reported to.

Background

The applicant failed in its attempt to secure consent for the site in September 2014, and has now adopted the traditional twin track approach adopted by developers of appealing and applying in tandem.

The decision must be based on a proper consideration of the Core Strategy, all relevant ‘material considerations’ of which the NPPF is pre-eminent and in accordance with related statutory duties.

As would be expected, the considerations that bear on this application are similar to last year when the application was refused. Ref. PF/14/0785

Assessment

National policy considerations

Para 14 NPPF.

This paragraph emphasises specifically (at footnote 9) that those policies that restrict development in precious areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, take precedence over other policies.

Para 55 NPPF.

By common agreement, the proposal lies outside any possible village or settlement designations.

As such the proposal, whatever the design, is for a "new isolated home in the countryside".

Local planning authorities should avoid such development, unless any of the special circumstances as listed in paragraph 55 apply.

None of these possible "special circumstances" apply. Therefore, this application directly breaches national planning guidance and must on this policy alone be rejected.

The decision is even more definite on this point than the previous application, where one of the special circumstances, the last listed, at least needed to be considered. In this present case, there is no debate. The proposal is directly contrary to para 55, reinforced by para 14.

This 1^st reason for refusal would be that the isolated residential development is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 55.

Paragraph 115 NPPF. If further reasons are required, this paragraph 115 states that "great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

There are only just over 30 designated AONBs in the whole country.

On National Guidance alone, NNDC as local planning authority and custodian of the AONB has only one decision available to it, namely to refuse. This isolated home, proposed in the countryside will interrupt the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB and can not be acceptable.

This 2^nd reason for refusal would be that this prominent isolated residential development is unacceptable in the AONB.

Related Statutory Duties.

In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects the setting of either or both of the Grade 1 listed Churches, you shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting.

With regard to any land in the conservation area, you must pay special attention to the desirability of ‘preserving or enhancing’ the character or appearance of that conservation area.

These statutory duties exist alongside and in addition to the statutory duty to assess planning applications in accordance with the Core Strategy, NPPF and other material considerations.

Once again, an isolated, highly visible, large new dwelling in this vicinity is altering - and therefore not ‘preserving’ - the conservation area. Further, it is clear from the level of objection already, that it could not ‘enhance’ it either.

Therefore, on the related statutory duty applicable to conservation areas the proposal also falls.

This 3^rd reason for refusal would be that a prominent isolated large new dwelling neither preserves nor enhances the conservation area.

Core Strategy.

All relevant Core Strategy policies must be considered as with any application

HO8 Replacement dwellings in the Countryside.

The proposal is now presented as being within the curtilage of the existing property, represented by a fence line.

Even assuming, as many objectors will not, that the principle of a potential ‘replacement dwelling’ is achieved by this revised location, this does not help the applicant.

The dwelling as constructed, with the existing dwelling and other buildings then removed, would then be the ‘isolated new dwelling in the countryside’ requiring refusal as explained above under the NPPF.

Either the existing dwelling is not demolished, in which case there can be no replacement; or the existing dwelling is demolished, leaving the new property in splendid isolation contrary to the NPPF.

Para 55 does not allow ‘replacement dwellings’ as an exception to the basic prohibition of new isolated dwellings in the countryside.

Any Core Strategy policy, to be valid, must be consistent with the NPPF. (para 215). The only way that HO8 can exist alongside NPPF 55, is as a Core Strategy Policy restricted to replacement dwellings that would not be isolated.

‘Replacement’ given its natural meaning, means that planning considerations on a qualifying HO8 proposal - such as connection to existing service centres and facilities, and assessing changes in levels of impact on the ‘appearance of the surrounding countryside’ - are directly related to how close the new location and building match the existing. A direct replacement, on the same footprint as an existing dwelling, would not by definition, change any impacts or planning considerations and would be the most likely form of development to be properly approved.

With this proposal, if you were to conclude that policy HO8, in principle, applied, you must then also be satisfied, on two further tests:

Will there be any material increase in impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside? The policy test merely states that, if the impact will be greater, the proposal fails this test. And:
Will it result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale compared with the bungalow?

As the applicants own Planning Design and Access Statement makes clear, in the Executive Summary, ‘the scale and massing of the property is not dissimilar to the … previous application’ and even has a higher ridge line than the previous scheme.

The Refusal Notice for the previous proposal PF/14/0785, of a “not dissimilar” scale and massing, states:

‘In the opinion of the LPA the replacement dwelling by reason of its scale massing and siting would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside’.

Therefore logically, consistently and on proper analysis, the identical reason for refusal applies to the current similar scheme (which is actually slightly higher and larger!) as it did last year.

This 4^th reason for refusal is that the (assumed) replacement dwelling by reason of its scale massing and siting would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside

A “not dissimilar” scale and a higher roof line is linked with the other limb of the HO8 policy test. The Applicant’s statement admits that the new proposal is larger (526m2 against 515m2 in 2014, the bungalow being 160m2). An increase of 3 times the existing scale of development must, as before, be ‘disproportionate’, leading inevitably to:

The 5^th reason for refusal. That the proposed new dwelling will result in a disproportionately large increase in height and scale compared with the existing bungalow

Design

Good design is an obvious pre-requisite for the grant of permission. The planning assessment of this proposal by your Council is not altered, certainly not in favour of the scheme, by a change in design. Indeed, by adopting an apparently “traditional” design the proposal falls entirely outside the possible scope of para 55 NPPF exceptions, as confirmed earlier.

Why, therefore, does the application concentrate so much on just promoting the design of the building?

Firstly, to draw the Council’s scrutiny away from those policy based matters upon which the decision must be made, under statute, and on which proper analysis as set out above, the application so clearly fails.

Secondly, to try to shift the whole decision making process from how this planning application should be decided, to a competition between 2 designs, where ‘the winner’ should receive the prize of a planning permission!

Please do not be side-tracked. The decision is not about design, or the comparison between designs. It is about planning policy, national guidance and material planning considerations.

Precedent

To restate the position in law, as established last year by the Court of Appeal:

‘Holder and Gedling BC [2014] EWCA Civ 599: Lord Justice Maurice Kay states: ‘It is not disputed that, in principle, a grant of planning permission may set a precedent for further developments of the same character: Collis Radio Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1975) 29 P & CR 390. In particular, where development is proposed in the Green Belt, the grant of planning permission based on very special circumstances may create a precedent for future applications in the same area: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [2002] JPL 1509. Risk of creating precedent is therefore a potentially material consideration.’

‘Whilst, of course, no two planning applications are exactly the same, a grant of planning permission in the present case would undoubtedly be advanced as a precedent in relation to a similar application in the same area and, unless other matters such as greater visual impact rendered it distinguishable, it would have real precedent value.

In my judgment, in a case where the bar is set as high as “very special circumstances”, the advice that precedent was incapable of achieving material consideration status was simply wrong.’

The highlighted section from the Court of Appeal judgment should be in the forefront of your concerns.

Summary

The application should be firmly refused.

5 distinct and compelling reasons for refusal apply to this application, as detailed above:

the isolated residential development is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 55.

2. this prominent, isolated, residential development is unacceptable in the AONB.

this prominent, isolated, large new dwelling neither preserves nor enhances the Conservation Area.
the proposed new dwelling by reason of its scale massing and siting would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside.
the proposed new dwelling will result in a disproportionately large increase in height and scale compared with the existing bungalow.

The strength of these reasons for refusal would mean that if this scheme were to be approved, it would signal that NNDC has absolutely no regard either for its own policies or for the requirements of National policy and landscape designations.

As such, it would then be ‘open season’ for applicants and the destruction of the very environment that the policies and designations are there to protect.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Richard Hewitt 15^th January 2015

Solicitor

HAYES + STORR

In tandem with this application an appeal has been lodged with NNDC in respect of the first application, if it succeeds we could end up with what we fought so hard to stop the first time round. NNDC are bound by process to submit all the original objections to the Planning Inspectorate. Nevertheless, and at the risk of distracting you from the current application, please consider resubmitting your original submission to the Planning Inspectorate, particularly if was by email.

Here further letter to NNDC that may assist you in constructing your objection

Mrs Nicola Baker

Planning Department 5th January 2015 December 2014 2014

North Norfolk District Council

Ref : PF /14/1566 | Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling | Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road, Blakeney.

Dear Mrs Baker,

Further to my letter dated 3rd January 2015. I am writing to supplement the objection lodged on behalf of myself, and, the Friends of North Norfolk (formerly The Glaven Valley Protection Group). The contents of this letter have been discussed with our legal adviser.

Seemingly, this application is intended to overcome the Council members’ refusal of the previous planning application (PF/14/0785). However, in substance, it is a re-packaging of that scheme albeit with an attempt at a different external treatment. This is acknowledged in the Planning, Design & Access Statement (PDAS) which, in its Executive Summary, remarks:

The scale and massing of the property is not dissimilar to the house that was proposed in the previous application, the ridge line is slightly higher, although it is not possible to maintain the architectural proportions of a threshing barn with appropriate roof pitches without designing the building to this scale.

However, the fact that the architectural concept of a threshing barn is now used to justify such a large residential building within the open countryside does not in itself justify its appropriateness. There are no such buildings within or anywhere near the application site of this type, let alone size. It will be new-build rather than conversion and will read as such. It is also of note that none of the examples given at para. 6.5.3 of the PDAS, of which two are residential conversions, are geographically referenced or explained as to why it would be appropriate in the particular circumstances.

The PDAS is also manifestly deficient in that there is no proper, let alone adequate, Heritage Statement. Indeed, as there is no mention, let alone any consideration of the application of the statutory tests under ss.66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the Council would be justified in refusing the application simply on this basis.

In any event, this is the type of scheme which could not have a neutral effect so it cannot “preserve”. Nor could the scheme “enhance” due to its bulk, height and massing and, now, the use of architectural pastiche to deliver such a large building within the open countryside.

Accordingly, both as a matter of logic as well as consistency, we strongly recommend that the same principles for refusal should apply to this new dwelling as to its predecessor i.e.

(1) that its scale, massing and siting would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside;

(2) that its location would result in a detrimental intrusion into the open countryside;

(3) that its overall appearance and location would detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adversely effect the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.

Furthermore, given the way in which this application has come about we would reiterate our previous concerns about the risk of creating a precedent. The continuing promotion of this site for such a large and inappropriate dwelling reinforces that legitimate planning concern.

We trust that your Officer’s Report and recommendation will accurately reflect the contents of this letter.

Example 2

Blakeney: Three Owls Farm Application PF/14/1566

We object to this application: the proposed building is excessive in bulk, in contravention of planning law for AONBs:
The proposed building is three, not two and a half, storeys high: the roof space is man-high and lit by windows (not simply roof lights).
Above all, it is not on the same footprint as the extant dwelling, again contravening the planning law for AONBs. It does not, in short, constitute a ‘replacement dwelling’.
The Planning Department has a responsibility to ensure the rules governing this AONB and Conservation Area are adhered to.
Unsightly and invasive developments of this kind, would wreck the still unspoilt beauty of this coastal AONB. The process of blighting can already be seen all too clearly nearby on the coast road at Blakeney with the so-called ‘Bliss House’ a vast eyesore – allowed by the Planning Department. In a recent editorial (Dec. 9.14) the EDP highlighted North Norfolk ‘s wildlife as ‘one of the jewels of the county’s tourism crown, attracting visitors from far & wide’.
The Department and its officers now have a chance to put a stop to such developments: we request that this application at 3 Owls Farm should be refused.

Timing: this application was announced close to Christmas, when developers knew that most people would be preoccupied with other matters. NNDC 's planning dept apparently received notice of the application on December 1, but notice was not given of it till 10 December. Nor apparently was notice given of there being an appeal lodged against the rejection of a previous application for development of the same site.

ConclusionWhat is at issue here is the protection of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty , the focus of a thriving tourist trade and affording a unique natural environment special to Britain . The developers have brushed aside the protection given by AONB status. Their declaration of intent to improve the environment of the site (if given permission to build as they wish) is irrelevant to an application to build on an AONB .

Yours sincerely,

The following planning policies apply

Policy HO 8

House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside

Proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal:

· Would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling, and

· Would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.

In determining what constitutes a ‘disproportionately large increase’ account will be taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been extended or could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of the area.

For the purposes of this policy ‘original dwelling’ means the house as it was built, or as existed on the 1st July 1948, whichever is the later.

Policy EN 1

Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads

The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted where it;

· is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;

· does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads; and

· seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan objectives.

Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise.

Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.

Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted.

Policy EN 2

Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character

Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.

Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:

· the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical, biodiversity and cultural character)

· gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting

· distinctive settlement character

· the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of wildlife

· visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological features

· nocturnal character

· the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens.

1.1 Designation and management

How the area was designated

Those involved

Facts and figures

Reedbed - Maree Limpus/NCP

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), along with National Parks, make up our finest landscapes. Together they are a family of designated areas in England and Wales, which came into existence through the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. AONBs are recognised as being equal to National Parks in landscape quality, although arrangements for their management and provision for outdoor recreation are different. There are currently 41 AONBs in England and Wales.

In 2000, the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act reaffirmed the objectives of designation of AONBs and gave a 'duty of regard' towards these objectives to all public bodies ('relevant authorities').

How the area was designated

The Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was designated in 1968. The final area confirmed (174 square miles, but re-measured in the 1990s as 451 square kilometres) includes the greater part of the remaining unspoiled coastal areas between the Wash and Great Yarmouth. The western outlier, coming within two miles of King's Lynn, takes in part of Sandringham Estate including Sandringham House, and also about six miles of the south-eastern corner of the Wash. The holiday resort of Hunstanton, and the coast immediately to the south of it, is not included, but from nearby Old Hunstanton a continuous coastal strip, varying in depth between three to five miles, extends eastwards to a point near Bacton, excluding the built-up areas of the resorts of Sheringham, Cromer and Mundesley. The eastern outlier stretches from Sea Palling to Winterton, including the magnificent dune system of Winterton Dunes.

Though there are minor instances where boundary features have changed or disappeared, the statutory boundary remains as originally designated. Review of AONB boundaries is under control of Natural England and is a complex, time-consuming and expensive administrative process requiring approval by the Secretary of State. Natural England has no plans for a boundary review at present.

The designation helps to protect not just the natural features - the trees, fields and open spaces - but also settlements and working environments that are distinctive characteristics of the countryside. The designation allows for the sustainable† development of the communities and economic activity, including rural businesses, in ways that further enhance the character of the area.

The statutory purpose of designating an area of land as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area, comprising the area’s distinctive landscape character, biodiversity and geodiversity, historic and cultural environment. For the Norfolk Coast AONB, this includes the wider non-statutory objectives for the North Norfolk Heritage Coast*.

Two secondary non-statutory purposes of AONBs are also recognised

To take account of the needs of agriculture, forestry, fishing and other local rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities, paying particular regard to promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development that in themselves conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty; and
To seek to meet the demand for recreation so far as this is consistent with the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the area’s natural beauty - and which preferably supports this purpose by increasing understanding, valuation and care for the area - and is also consistent with the needs of rural industries.

Those involved

Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a duty on relevant authorities and public bodies, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or which affect, land in the AONB to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB.

The term, 'public bodies' includes all arms of both central and local government:

Environment Agency (EA);
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);
English Heritage (EH);
Regional Development Agencies (locally the East of England Development Agency - EEDA);
Forestry Commission (FC);
Natural England (NE);
Parish councils and joint committees of local authorities; and
Regulatory bodies of statutory undertakers such as Oftel (Office of Telecommunications), Ofwat (Office of Water Services), Ofgem (Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets), etc.

There are also other organisations and interests who do not have a formal statutory duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act but who have been part of the partnership for management of AONBs prior to the Act and have long had a significant and valuable role in conserving and enhancing the area's natural beauty.

People who live and work in an AONB or who visit it and other organisations can also play an important part in conserving and enhancing the character of the area.

Facts and figures
Item	Statistics
Date of designation confirmation	8th April 1968
Area	453 square kilometres
Local Authorities	Norfolk County Council (AONB is entirely within Norfolk) North Norfolk District Council (245.5 sq. kms) Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk (203.6 sq. kms) Great Yarmouth Borough Council (6.9 sq. kms) Broads Authority (7.2 sq. kms)
Length of coastline	Total length for AONB – 90.8 kms 44.8 kms in NNDC 42.8 kms in BCKLWN 3.2 kms in GYBC
Length of Public Rights of Way	287 kms
Highest point	Roman Camp 102 metres above sea level
No of parishes partly or wholly in the area	69

* Objectives for Heritage Coasts

a) to conserve protect and enhance the natural beauty of the coasts, including their terrestrial, littoral and marine flora and fauna, and their heritage features of architectural, historical and archaeological interest;

b) to facilitate and enhance their enjoyment, understanding and appreciation by the public by improving and extending opportunities for recreational, educational, sporting and tourist activities that draw on, and are consistent with the conservation of their natural beauty and the protection of their heritage features;

c) to maintain, and improve where necessary, the environmental health of inshore waters affecting Heritage Coasts and their beaches through appropriate works and management measures; and

d) to take account of the needs of agriculture, forestry and fishing, and of the economic and social needs of the small communities on these coasts, through promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development, which in themselves conserve and enhance natural beauty and heritage features.

† The term 'sustainable' is sometimes used to replace the term green as in 'green' tourism or to refer to economic sustainability of a project or scheme without consideration of the social and environmental elements. True sustainability combines the three elements of society, economy and the environment. Where the term 'sustainable' or 'sustainability' is used in relation to the management of the AONB in this plan, it has the meaning above.

Policy HO 8

House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside

Proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal:

· would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling, and

· would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.

For the purposes of this policy ‘original dwelling’ means the house as it was built, or as existed on the 1st July 1948, whichever is the later.

Clearly this application is in breach of this policy, further more the new dwelling is to be sited in a different location to the existing. Also the so described ‘farm barns’ are of a temporary nature and should not be included as footprint for further development.

Policy EN 1

Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads

The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted where it;

· is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;

· does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads; and

· seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan objectives.

Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise.

Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted.

Policy EN 2

Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character

Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:

· the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical, biodiversity and cultural character)

· gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting

· distinctive settlement character

· the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of wildlife

· visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological features

· nocturnal character

· the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens.

PROPOSAL FOR A REVIEW OF NNDC CORE STRATEGY POLICY H0 8; AND A CASE FOR MONITORING DELEGATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS. A NOTE FROM CPRE NORFOLK

BACKGROUND

This note is written on behalf of CPRE Norfolk, but also reflects a widespread concern within the local campaign group, the Glaven Valley Protection Group (now re-named as Friends of North Norfolk). The concern centres on what is considered to be a re-interpretation of Policy HO 8, House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside. This was triggered by Three Owls application PF/14/0785 at Saxlingham Road, Blakeney. In particular the officer response in a pre-application meeting with the applicant that a stated distance of 76m of the proposed new building from the footprint of the existing dwelling left them ‘content’ on this point. The applicant’s minute of a meeting on the 5^th November 2012 made this point, and subsequent discussions dealt only with the bulk and scale of the proposed replacement, and setting in the landscape.

This caused great concern as it unfolded that HO 8 was now being interpreted in a way that the distance between the existing and replacement dwelling was not a factor for consideration in respect to HO 8, and in principle this is entirely open-ended. Objectors remain convinced that an approval of this application would not only be extremely harmful in its own right, but open the door to widespread use by developers as a precedent in the determination of other applications hinged on HO 8, and in turn encourage more of the same.

There is evidence on the ground already that we are seeing more applications of this type, with each having a precedent platform to move from by those that came before. We elaborate on this issue below, but add that the precedents are also being set on the bulk and scale of the replacement dwelling, and whether the increase is excessive or not. Further that the scope for ‘policy drift’ is raised by the fact that replacement dwellings are generally set for determination by delegation to officers.

Precedents were quoted for the Three Owls application, in for particular Bliss, Morston Road, Blakeney. Here the issue of concern was not so much a displacement from footprint but the scale and bulk of the replacement, which in our view is excessive, and in retrospect should have gone to committee, albeit there was little objection at the time; partly because of the low profile of applications going to delegation, and perhaps a general perception that anything new will be better than what it replaces – albeit the latter view is rapidly changing.

The refusal of Three Owls by the Development Committee on the 4^th September 2014 led to both an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal, and the submission of a second application (PF/14/1566) to the Council. The Hearing on the refusal, against officer recommendation, was held on the 17^th March. While the Inspector handled the process well in our view, this further raised concerns regarding HO 8. The third party objectors argued that ‘replacement’ essentially means replacement, and as such that HO 8 should not be interpreted as being open-ended and indeterminate in distance of displacement; and in doing so it became a ‘new isolated home in the Countryside’, then it has to be considered under paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

This was not the view of the applicant and Council, see the Statement of Common Ground, where it was said at point 21 that paragraph 55 did not apply; and at 29 two statements, but leaves ‘open’.

Further the legal advisor to the objectors’ campaign group pointed out a legal decision that precedents do become a material planning consideration, to which the legal representative of the applicant played down the importance, it could be a factor of some weight, but essentially, to paraphrase, no big deal. However this was not entirely consistent with the site visit held in the afternoon. The itinerary and viewpoints covered a wide area, and was determined by the applicant and their selection of a number of viewpoints as set out in the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. However the applicant team of four included in the tour a stop at Bliss (PF/12/1162) and Longfield at Wiveton (PF/14/1016), both delegated approvals, so that the Inspector could see these. With Bliss it was clearly the bulk and scale of the building now being erected.

At Longfield the replacement building sits at a diagonal on the site, clear of the bungalow about to be demolished in the corner by the Sandy Lane access. I asked the applicant legal person what was being demonstrated here, but he said he did not know. It might however have been to show that it would not impinge on the setting of Wiveton Church, the top half of the tower being visible from the site. A subsequent look at the application, both on the Council web site and the Officer working file, shows the house to have seven bedrooms, and while the application form on the web site states that the name on the agent is withheld, the working file showed it was the same (Tim Schofield) as for Three Owls and Bliss. Another example of a replacement application was picked up on the 22^nd March. This is Larkfields (PF/15/1069), like Bliss on the Morston Road Blakeney. This application has been made by a different agent.

CHARACTERISTICS OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING APPLICATIONS ON HIGH VALUE SITES

There are some examples of replacement dwelling where the existing building is beyond economic repair, particularly taking into account building regulations; and these may well be replaced with something different, but still close to the existing footprint and relatively modest in terms size of increase in size. What we are concerned about is the type of application mentioned above, both for the impact on designated landscapes and the wider precedents both for these in the AONB and the Countryside in general. An expensively shod foot in a door which will in time be kicked wide open.

The applications we discuss here are all in AONB. The Balkeney/Wiveton/Cley area have the highest land values in the District. The 20thC has seen a settlement pattern where a 50’s or 60,s bungalow or other modest house, sits on a large site/landholding, whichoriginally may have been related to some kind of smallholding activity. As such they are an attractive proposition to a developer or applicant a build a large house in an architectural style of their choosing if they can establish if it could be judged to be compliant with a Policy HO 8, a policy which can be ‘stretched’ by an expanding precedent factor. All show the replacement to be 2 or 2.5 storey building, with extensive views, large increase in massing and scale, and some movement of the footprint of the dwelling by virtue of the scale and design; and as for Three Owls, also combining this is with a large movement in the positions of the existing and proposed replacement dwelling.

Claims are made for an architectural influence which reflects something locally, but can be very diverse, both from the local vernacular and each other. Bliss has elevations which form three sides of a rectangle, the frontage looking over the coastal marshes and the sea. The design is a Frank Lyod Wright inspiration, prefabricated units with eco claims (but PF/14/0783 meant that the condition that construction in accordance with Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes has been waived).

Three Owls is likened to a Norfolk Farmhouse, with a central section, and two long wings set at a diagonal to this. Longfield has two joined sections to make a ‘butterfly’ shape, and the Arts and Crafts design refers to Kelling Hall and Voeward in design terms (but not scale). Larkfields has some similarity with Three Owls in that outbuildings will be demolished along with the residential building to be replaced (and also one other building to be retained, Larkfield Cottage; compare the Owls holiday cottage). The replacement dwelling is some distance to the west of that to be demolished, and the remaining Cottage. The new house ‘is designed to be in a traditional seaside villa style, with a main corps de logis and a subservient service wing’ (the architect/agent is based in Burnham Market). The building is L-shaped. There appears to be no data on floorspace of the dwelling (or outbuildings) to be demolished, or the prpoosed replacement. However the north elevation plan drawing of a rectangular building, complete with loggia and balconies, gives an indication of the increase in size and scale, and impact from the A149 and coastal path.; it compares with Bliss in this respect. The only ‘numbers’ detail is that car parking will increase from 3 to 8 vehicles.

There is a general trend in these replacement applications that with time there is less and less hard data and numbers presented, vanishing to zero with Longfield and Larkfields. This puts an unreasonable burden on the officer to calculate floorspace from the plan drawings, and obtain any quantitative comparison with the building to be demolished.

THE CASE FOR POLICY HO 8 REVIEW

The case for requiring a figure for the distance between an existing dwelling and its replacement is set out in the representations on behalf the GVCG and CPRE Norfolk, along with other issues, at the Three Owls Hearing held on the 17^th March. These were accepted by the Inspector, also those made by Wiveton and Blakeney Parish Councils; evidence is also presented in the letters of objections sent to the Council on consultation on the planning application. We add CPRE some observations as follows;

- It is difficult in Policy terms to be prescriptive that the replacement be precisely on the footprint of an existing dwelling, and it would not be reasonable to say that it should. In the past there have been deviations of 20-25m for some good reason; it could be combined with an change of access to improve highway safety; it can literally lift a property out of a flood risk zone; for a ‘wrap-around’ design it can allow for an existing bungalow to be retained for living space until such time the replacement building is finished, with a linked condition that the existing building will then be demolished.

- The issue is further complicated by the allowance for permitted development, and the increases in these in recent years. Further the scale of what might be considered as excessive increases, and complicated geometry of the building, makes it more difficult to be definitive in being quantitative in the degree of displacement from the existing footprint. For Bliss for example, the officer Planning Application Assessment states not unreasonably that the replacement building sits on the foot print of the existing. While the front north frontage does, the east and west wings do not. With Three Owls, the stated distance accepted by the officer appears to be the shortest distance between the bungalow and the nearest part of the proposed replacement dwelling.

- In spite of these difficulties we continue to argue that the distance between existing and new cannot be left ‘open’ and unlimited in principle, and an accurate distance should be provided and measured from centre to centre; and also to the furthest extremities of the building, whether in a regular shaped single block, or with wings incorporated . This would give a measure of both the extent of the overall displacement; and also another insight in to the bulk and scale of the building, and overall space it encompasses, including that area ‘captured’ within the geometry of the new building. However the main purpose would be to put the onus on the applicant on provide their reasons for the degree of displacement, and is this intrinsically acceptable; also together with the degree of impact in bulk and scale, and in the context of the impact on the surrounding countryside.

- It is important also to determine what the red-line boundary is that defines the ‘Site’. In the case of Three Owls the officer seemed to accept what the applicant has offered at various times. At Inquiry we argued that that was confusion in describing the whole land holding as the Site, and variations on red line (which carries on into the amendments just made to the second application) and no clarity or justification on what curtilage might mean. We argued that the Owls ‘Site’ was the rectangular block defined by mature trees and hedgerow, and within which all permanent buildings are contained. Poly tunnels and greenhouses and other such structures outside this do not alter the situation. No part of the replacement, including the drive, should come out of a properly defined red-line boundary. The evaluation of the extent of displacement is limited in this particular case by such a red-line boundary in our view; but more generally the red-line boundary might be more difficult to define, likewise curtilage, and the Policy HO 8 should be framed to leave an ‘open-ended’ distance between existing and replacement dwelling. If it does it leads to NPPF 55 and discussion on what constitutes an ‘isolated new home in the Countryside’, having demolished the existing.

- The support text on HO 8 needs to be more explicit not just on relocation distances, and the bulk and scale issues, but within the latter say something as regards outbuildings, and whether some claimed usage of these for garage or storage, should then be incorporated in the floor space of the new build, including double story wings in the new building. We have argued that it should not in the case of Three Owls, where it looks to casual/occasional

MONITORING OF THE OUTCOME OF DELEGATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS

There is a case for some monitoring of applications which have been delegated and approved at regular intervals. Part of the problem is the much higher level of delegation to officers than in the recent past, moving from about 50% to 90% of all applications. While this has produced some benefits, it makes it more difficult to engage with the public before a decision has been made; much information gathered by officers goes under the radar but could be used to help monitoring to be carried out. This could be used to detect any ‘ policy drift’ in the determination of applications in any specific areas; and be more sensitive to areas in which developers look to extend policy limits or interpretation. There is also the opportunity to use existing information, and improve on it with little effort; and make this much more available. I am thinking in particular of the officers’ Planning Application Assessment (PAA) in particular. These can be viewed by looking at the officer working file, but otherwise are not available.

There are potential benefits to the Council as well as the general public, namely:

1. The delegation process would be welcomed as more transparent

2. It could make for better recording and easier monitoring

3. This would help to avoid any potential policy drift or re-interpretation

4. In turn this should curb the ‘precedent extension’ pressure coming from developers in some areas

5. A better and more defendable definition and adherence to policy would reduce the number of developer appeals against refusals; and a lessened potential for any legal challenge from residents.

The PAA can contain much useful information in a concise way, see that for Bliss and Longfield. It is clear that the officer has calculated for example floor space for existing (Bliss) and new dwelling from plans, and compared with what the applicant states, if any is provided by them. Fellow fficers have made comment in a series of written exchanges, and there may be a series of pre-application discussions prior to the decision be determined. It would be helpful if the PAA were extended to include a simple time-line with single line statement of key meetings or correspondence with name/position, date and topic. This could embrace the applicant, fellow officers and statutory consultees. While primarily for a monitoring process, it would add greatly to the value if these could be placed on the web-site somewhere within documentation for the application so the information is available to the public as well.

The decision notice for delegated applications does of course appear on the web site. It should be checked for consistency against a PAA which should include a list of CS policy numbers which have been considered in determining the application, with the significant ones underlined, eg EN 1. I mention this because the decision notice for Longfield Wiveton shows signs of imbalance. It does not mention HO 8 at all, nor EN 1 or EN 2. However it does mention EN 4 on nine counts. SS 2 receives a mention in the context that it is not normal practice to build a dwelling in the countryside, and to satisfy this policy the bungalow, etc should be cleared within three months after building the replacement. CT 6 is also quoted, although no prior mention anywhere else it would appear. CT 6 is related to parking, and requires a levelled and drained area for the parking of three family vehicles; and allow sufficient space so they are all in the forward position for departing from site to public highway.

Ian Shepherd, on behalf of CPRE Norfolk,

Cardinal House, 86 St Benedict’s

Street, Norwich NR2 4AB. 24^th July 2015.

To North Norfolk District Council:

Nicola Baker, Head of Planning

Cc Cllr Sue Arnold, Chairman Development Committee; Roger Howe, Legal Officer.

THE LANDSCAPE AROUND THREE OWLS FARM

From a historical perspective

JW 30.03.14 3 Owls

John Wright

1 Settlement pattern

The settlement pattern in the vicinity of the Glaven Valley is neither unique nor accidental. It is typical of the western parts of Norfolk and the north coast in that it consists of ‘nucleated’ villages with little or no residential building in between. In the eastern parts of Norfolk and the SE in particular ‘dispersed’ settlement is the norm. This contrast between nucleation and dispersal arises from soil type and agricultural practice developed over the centuries. On the light sandy soils of NW and N Norfolk ‘open field’ agriculture concentrated on arable crops and sheep rearing, and many large estates were created. On the heavier clay soils of central and SE Norfolk there was more emphasis on woodland, greens and pasture for cattle, with early enclosure and small farms. The maps below compare the settlement pattern of the Glaven area with a typical area in S Norfolk (from Faden’s map of 1797; green denotes residential areas).

2 Village form

Morston is clustered near its church, itself situated on a small mound beside the head of a former tidal creek - where water still reaches on the highest tidal surges. Here boats would have been kept in the early medieval period. The same applies at Wiveton and Cley where the earliest landing places would have been near the church, and in both villages settlement has progressed downstream as the Glaven shallowed and boats became larger, leaving church and green at the southern end of each settlement. At first Wiveton was the more important but the village is probably now smaller than it was, resulting in a village form more straggle than nucleation. Cley followed a similar pattern, with development in the present ‘centre’ accelerating after the fire of 1612 before siltation of the Glaven estuary and embanking by manorial landlords transferred the focus of marine activity to Blakeney.

The origins of Blakeney village are less clear. The Domesday Snitterley was a typical village with church and farm land and it is unlikely that it lay on an ‘eye’ later swallowed by the sea. It is much more likely that the harbour was known as ‘Blakeney’ and that this name was gradually transferred to Snitterley, the nearest village. Blakeney church is not by a medieval creek but on Howe Hill, the name suggesting the site of a barrow, a former burial place. The first churches were usually sited close to the community they served so it is possible that the centre of the Anglo/Saxon village lay nearer the church than the creek. A map of 1769 shows a low density High Street; the development of the characteristic tightly-packed yards is a product of the last 250 years as maritime trade and population reached a 19^th century peak.

3 Landscape features

The main features of the landscape derive from its glacial history and from the creation of the Glaven valley. The river is a short one but it flows from some of the highest ground in Norfolk so is relatively fast-flowing down through an attractive valley. It has been very important to the parishes through which it runs initially as a source of water and then for powering numerous watermills, principally at Glandford and upstream beyond the tidal reach. Aside from its scenic value, perhaps its main importance today is that of a chalk river in good condition. Chalk rivers are surprisingly rare and at their best carry a distinctive flora and fauna easily destroyed by mismanagement. The Glaven is fortunate to be under the care of the River Glaven Conservation Group.

Blakeney and Wiveton Downs are an important feature of the local landscape, providing a largely natural southern skyline, with bracken, gorse and trees atop a north-facing slope. The Downs also have a national importance as one of the best-known eskers in the country, an esker being a long sinuous ridge of sand and gravel formed by a river flowing under an ice sheet or glacier. Other deposits left by the retreating ice include the Holt / Cromer Ridge, the sands under the heathlands stretching west towards Salthouse and Cley, and small isolated hills of sand and gravel, including Howe Hill, Rubery Hill and Joe’s Hill. These glacial deposits have been much quarried for their sand and gravel content.

4 Archaeology

With the ending of the last Ice Age some 12,000 years ago, people returned to this area, leaving behind evidence of their activities. The Norfolk Historic Environment Record shows that Blakeney, in common with many other Norfolk villages, has produced Mesolithic flint flakes, Neolithic axe heads, Beaker pottery, a Bronze Age spear, Roman coins and metal work, and Anglo/Saxon pottery, including some pieces from the churchyard. In addition to these fortuitous discoveries a substantial amount of material has been obtained by metal detecting from an area close to the Wiveton boundary between the church and the Downs (the exact location is confidential). Two articles in the Glaven Historian (2001 and 2002) described just the tokens and jettons selected from some 1,200 metal objects found between 1997 and 2000. Detecting continued during the following six years and much more was found. The NHER records show that at least 260 coins, of all ages, were recovered in the area, in addition to tokens, jettons and a wide variety of other metal finds. It seems this area was used for some function other than just agriculture, perhaps it was a market area.

5 Agricultural landscape

The 1769 map shows a landscape in which an echo of the old ‘open field’ system can still be seen. Much of the arable land is still divided into small strips although there are also blocks of land, occasionally hedged. The southernmost part of the parish was managed as brecks by the Lord of the Manor, and sheep were still important: sheep walks and drove ways feature on the map. This was a largely treeless landscape, the land in and around the village being more valuable for crops. The sketch by Cotman (c.1818) of the view from Cley towards Blakeney church, Blakeney mill and Wiveton Hall is completely devoid of trees. The Blakeney & Wiveton Parliamentary Inclosure Award of 1824 continued, and largely completed, a process which had been going on for centuries. The remaining strips were swept away, larger fields laid out, bounded by thorn hedges, ownerships were consolidated, new roads made and old ones stopped or realigned. A few old boundaries were retained, though some may have been lost during the hedgerow removals of the 20^th century. So the landscape between Blakeney village and the Downs, though hedged now, still retains in essence its ancient open appearance.

Below is a section of the 1769 map, traced from the original and re-coloured to show the roads and tracks as well as the tenurial boundaries existing at the time. The main features include Rubery Hill, the Old Rectory and the church.

The following section of the 1824 Inclosure Map covers a similar area to the 1769 map above; the church is in red and Rubery Hill is coloured green. The new roads and field boundaries are drawn over the features of the 1769 map, shown in faint dotted lines. In Blakeney, a New Road has been created (never since re-named) and a section of Wiveton Road re-aligned. (The illustration has been tilted slightly to accord with the orientation of the 1769 map.

6 Recent development

The absence of residential buildings between villages in the Glaven area continued through the 19^th century. The 6 inch OS map of 1886 shows that in Blakeney there had only been development in the Greencroft area and at the Butts (if that building was residential). Otherwise the only houses situated a little apart from the main village remained the Old Rectory and Friary Farm - both of them very old buildings. A 6 inch map issued in 1958 shows only two additional buildings between Wiveton Road and Langham Road: at ‘Pye’s Farm’ and at Rubery Hill, both of them agricultural buildings, not houses. The village itself was extended up Langham Road by the addition of council houses - often built on the outskirts of villages rather than within (as also at Wiveton).

Planning policies developed since 1947 have often attempted to limit building in the countryside to farm houses needed for the management of the farms, and conditions could be attached to planning permissions to restrict the occupancy of these houses to agricultural workers. Since 1947 houses have been built at both Pye’s Farm and Joe’s Hill, initially for the two farmers - one of whom still resides at Joe’s Hill.

7 The built landscape

As a result of economic and social history, and later planning polices, there are no buildings in the immediate vicinity of Three Owls Farm except for the single-storey dwelling at Joe’s Hill, the brick shed opposite at Rubery Hill, and the remains of a corrugated-iron shed close by. Further afield lies a new agricultural building just under the Downs to the west, and further still the buildings that make up Wiveton and Cley villages, the nearest being J Ramm’s farm complex by the road from Wiveton Green up to Blakeney. Viewed from the south the buildings in Blakeney are well screened by trees. Even the medieval church is mostly hidden - only the top of its 15^th century western tower is visible.

Below is a section of the 6 inch map published in 1958.

8 Conservation

Because of the former importance of the Glaven ports there are large numbers of Listed Buildings in all three villages - c.100 in Blakeney alone. Many of these buildings lie within designated Conservation Areas within which planning policies are more strictly applied in order to conserve architectural and historic character. In Norfolk there are also a few rural Conservation Areas designed to protect areas of particular natural beauty and landscape importance. Of these the Glaven Valley Conservation Area is the largest. The marshland coast of north Norfolk also has a number of designations intended to protect visual landscape and wildlife habitats.

The combination of maritime history and settlement form in an attractive and valued coastal setting has encouraged the conversion of many buildings to holiday and second homes. The age structure of the permanent population is heavily skewed towards the elderly as people of retirement age move in. The result has been higher house prices than in most inland areas, prices which younger people can rarely afford. The three Glaven villages are fortunate that the Blakeney Neighbourhood Housing Society owns 39 houses which it lets to local people, although most of these houses are old and very difficult to maintain from rents alone.

Summary

The land around Three Owls Farm is not just ‘fields’. It is a many-layered landscape with glacial landforms and a long agricultural history integrated with the long maritime history of the adjacent Glaven villages.

Publications

T Ashwin & A Davison, Eds, An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, 3rd edition, Phillimore 2005.

The atlas contains text and maps covering 93 topics, including:

2 Geological Background

4 Soil Landscapes

56 Norfolk Agriculture 1500 - 1750

62 Great Estates in the 19^th century

92 Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings

J C Barringer, An Introduction to Faden’s Map of Norfolk, Norfolk Record Society

Vol XLII 1975.

This volume contains Faden’s map of 1797 in 6 sheets at a scale of 1 inch to 1 mile with an introduction by J C Barringer. It was republished in 30 (A4) sheets by Larks Press as ‘Faden’s Map of Norfolk’ in 1989. The county was surveyed by Donald & Milne 1790 - 1794; William Faden was the publisher.

A McNair & T Williamson, William Faden and Norfolk’s 18^th Century Landscape, Windgather Press 2010.

A detailed study of Faden’s map with a digitised version on DVD (Windows 97 or later).

J Hooton, The Glaven Ports, Blakeney History Group 1996.

Covers the maritime history of Blakeney, Cley and Wiveton, with some comment on the physical development of these villages.

P Carnell, Trade Tokens recovered in Wiveton, The Glaven Historian Issue No. 4, Blakeney Area Historical Society 2001.

P Carnell, Medieval Jettons discovered in Wiveton, The Glaven Historian Issue No. 5, Blakeney Area Historical Society 2002.

The Glaven Historian is the Journal of the Blakeney Area Historical Society. All articles in the first 6 issues can be read on line at www.history-blakeney-area-org.uk.

Other Sources

1769 Map of Blakeney

William & Corba Cranefield produced a plan of Blakeney parish at a scale of 20 inches to the mile. For many years a tracing (not entirely complete) was held in the Norfolk Record Office but recently the original coloured map has been deposited there. Website www.archives.norfolk.gov.uk.

1824 Inclosure Map of Blakeney and Wiveton

Copies can be seen at the Norfolk Record Office. There is also a tithe map for Wiveton (1842) but no tithe map was prepared for Blakeney.

J S Cotman, ‘Blakeney Church and Wiveton Hall’, An engraving included in Kitson and Cromwell’s Excursions in the County of Norfolk Vol I, 1819.

This sketch, with Eson’s Bridge in the foreground, is reproduced in Hooton’s The Glaven Ports.

Norfolk Historic Environment Record

Database of the county’s archaeological sites and historic buildings which can be searched by parish and by period at www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk. The Record is maintained by the County Council’s Historic Environment Service at Gressenhall, where aerial photographs can also be consulted by appointment.

River Glaven Conservation Group

The Group aims to protect the river, improve water quality and restore wildlife habitats, and produces regular Newsletters which can be read on line at www.riverglaven.co.uk.

JW 30.03.14 Owls 2

Friends of North Norfolk

Total Pageviews

Tuesday 16 December 2014

Mobile Infrastructure Project

Installation of 30 metre high telecommunications tower with six antennas and associated group-based equipment At Friary Farm Blakeney. Application No: PF/15/1208

Click for NNDC web page

These drawings show first how Harlequin would like us to think this mast will look, and below how it will actually look based on measurements of the trees, which vary from 42 ft - 52 ft in height.The mast will be 98ft 6in

Contributions can be made here

Hayes + Storr Client Account Sort Code 20-30-81

Account Number 70459542

Barclays 17 Market Place Fakenham NR21 9BE

Then Search Comment and type

Here below the submission on behalf of the Friend of North Norfolk by our solicitor.

Here further letter to NNDC that may assist you in constructing your objection

The following planning policies apply

Policy HO 8

House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside

Policy EN 2

Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character

1.1 Designation and management

Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a duty on relevant authorities and public bodies, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or which affect, land in the AONB to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB.

Policy HO 8

House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside

Policy EN 2

Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character

From a historical perspective

John Wright