Agenda item

The Chairman vacated the Chair and Vice-Chairman for the meeting took the Chair at 9.34am.

The PO introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval, and advised that 12 representations had been received; 7 supporting, 5 objecting and that a late representation had been received from Norfolk Wildlife Trust which made no objection to the proposal subject to proposed conditions. The PO commented that the application had been called into Committee by the Chairman, Cllr P Grove-Jones citing concerns regarding the size of the extension and compliance with NNDC Core Strategy Policies HO8 and EN4.

The PO reflected on the wider context of the site located next to Stalham Fen, and introduced the Officers presentation detailing site plans, floor plans and elevations, an aerial view of the site as well as photographs. She informed Members that the key issues for consideration were; the principle of development, design and amenity, landscape impact, environmental matters and highways impact.

The PO advised that the development was considered by Officers to be acceptable in principle and accorded with NNDC Policies SS1 and SS2, as the proposal was considered to be in a sustainable location and extensions to existing properties was permissible.

With respect of design, the PO informed Members that the extension for an internal attached annexe was intended to provide additional occupation to enable the applicant to care for their elderly relatives. The proposal was ancillary to the main dwelling with plans revised to reduce the size of the extensions and to improve the relationship with the host dwelling through its roofline. The proposal comprised of two elements; a single story pitched roof extension to the east of the elevation, and a two-storey extension on the north elevation. The use of pallet materials were considered to be acceptable and were sympathetic to the existing property. The PO affirmed that the height, scale and materials used were in keeping and proportionate with the host dwelling and sites location.

The PO advised that the development was set within a large plot and although concerns had been raised that the proposed first floor window on the north elevation would result in overlooking on neighbours property, Officers determined that there was a significant separation distance to the existing boundary, which consisted of mature hedging and that this would not result in any significant impact to amenity. Concerns had been raised regarding the landscape impact, however Officers considered the visual impact on landscaping to be localised, noting that the proposal sits close to the residential boundary with Stalham, with large elements of development confined to the rear garden. The PO advised there had been no objection from landscaping officers subject to conditions.

In conclusion, the PO stated that the issues raised by objectors would not justify reason for refusal and reiterated Officers recommendation for approval.

Public Speakers

Mr Fiske – Supporting

Written submissions were provided by Mr Fiske (supporting) and Mr Clementson (objecting) respectively. Members were afforded a few minutes by the Vice Chairman to read through these representations.

Members Debate

      i.        Local Member – Cllr M Taylor – stated that he could not find fault with the applicant’s desire to house their elderly parents, but reiterated the concerns of Stalham Town Council and of objectors. He highlighted two specific areas of concern and sought clarification on these matters. First, the siting of a cart-lodge, detailed in a January 2022 report, which he considered may be unenforceable. Second that the size of the extension was too large.

In response to Cllr M Taylor’s questions, The PO advised that the cart-lodge formed part of a previous application when the tree report had been commissioned, and this had been subsequently revised with reference to a cart-lodge removed. She affirmed that a cart-lodge had not been applied form, nor had it formed part of submitted plans, further the siting of a cart-lodge in this location would require planning permission. She commented that this was a generous sized plot which could support a larger scale property and would not constitute as over-development.

     ii.        Cllr P Grove-Jones – Local Member- asked that the floor plans, provided by Mr Irving be displayed to Members, these demonstrated the overlays between the original and proposed application. The Local Member affirmed that she had brought this item to Committee as it had been a difficult matter ongoing since 2020. She expressed her disagreement with the Officers assessment and considered the proposed extensions contravened policy HO8 and was overbearing and overlarge compared to the original 19^th century house, noting that the proposal sits within a prominent position within the plot. She affirmed that development existed within the countryside setting as designated by the current Local Plan, and should be considered within this context. Further, policy HO8 stipulated that extensions which are disproportionately large should not be permitted, and the increase in scale of 44% was disproportionately large even when accounting for the size of the plot. Cllr P Grove Jones considered that the proposed extensions contravened policy EN4, which states that extensions should preferably be 1 story, or 1 ½ stories in height. She advised she would le4ave this matter to Members considered judgement.

    iii.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle noted the differences in opinion between the Local Ward Members and Officers, and asked Officers how they came to their determination with regards to policy HO8, in that the proposal was not disproportionately large in its height or scale, and whether the development if granted would be considered the largest in the area, or if there were other equivalent properties with large extensions.

The DMTL advised that Officers considered the proposal within the context of the plot and the size of the existing dwelling, commenting that the size of the plot was substantial. He acknowledged that the proposal was for a large extension but Officers considered that the plot could easily accommodate the size of the extension, which offered a degree of subservience to the existing dwelling as demonstrated through submitted plans. The DMTL noted that there were two tests for policy HO8 and summarised that Officers did not believe the proposal to be detrimentally large, nor have a wider detrimental impact on the wider landscape. He advised he was uncertain whether proposal, if granted, could be considered the largest in the area, and advised that applications were considered by Officers on a case-by-case basis.

   iv.        Cllr N Lloyd stated that he was pleased that the Applicant had worked with Officers to amend plans resulting in a satisfactory outcome for both parties, promoting the collaborative approach taken for the common good. He considered that it was a very large plot which could easily accommodate the proposed extensions without affecting neighbours, noting that the distance between the property and neighbouring dwellings was large and spoke favourably of the submitted planting scheme. Cllr N Lloyd asked for clarification over the annexe condition.

The PO advised that the restrictive condition for the annexe, as recommended by Officers, was to ensure that the extension remains ancillary to the main dwelling and to restrict the occupancy to family members of the owners.

Cllr N Lloyd advised he was satisfied with this condition and so proposed acceptance of the Officers Recommendation for approval.

     v.        Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted that within the emerging Local Plan consideration had been made towards the provision of elderly care, and reflected on the personal circumstances of the applicant and their own elderly relatives. She acknowledged representations made by Officers and Members and seconded the Officers Recommendation for approval. 

The DMTL advised that limited weight could be afforded to the emerging local plan till adopted. The ADP acknowledged the significant elderly demographic within the district and the need to accommodate these residents. He reflected on Members debate, and of Officers comments and advised that planning policies did offer some flexibility, identifying occasions in which the Planning Inspectorate had granted appeals for dwellings in a countryside location, as they considered that there was little or no harm caused to the landscape, and that the size of the plot could accommodate the scale of the extension. The ADP informed members that the determination of the application was a matter of planning judgement, and affirmed that Officers has carefully considered the proposal, its relationship with neighbouring properties and the context of the site and had applied the relevant policies and supplementary guidance. He stated it was understandable that there was local concern when a development may be considered the biggest on its street or area, but it was for Members to determine if the application was agreeable and if its size and scale were in keeping with the tests set out in HO8 and design policy EN4.

   vi.        Cllr R Kershaw commented that whilst there would be a sizeable increase to the property, the frontage would remain broadly the same, this he considered to be sensitively done. He expressed his support for the application, specifically the condition for the annexe, and was satisfied that the applicant and Planning Officers had worked positively together.

  vii.        The substitute Vice-Chairman, Cllr A Brown, affirmed that there were elements of mitigation within the proposal as the extension was located at the rear of the property. He stated that Policy HO8 was a subjective test for the Planning Authority and for the Officers concerned, and that the scale of an extension was not subject to specific mathematical restrictions limiting its size. He commented that he was reassured that the dwelling would remain in family use and that it would therefore be unlikely to be used as a holiday let or second home.

 viii.        Cllr A Yiasimi thanked Officers for their excellent report, and stated that the photos supplied were especially helpful for understanding the context of the site, particularly the tree coverage.  He commented that he respected the Local Member for calling in the application to Committee.

IT WAS RESOLVED by 10 votes for and 2 abstentions.

That application PF/21/3389 be approved in accordance with the Officers recommendation subject to the following conditions:

1. Time limit – 3 years

2. Accordance with approved plans

3. Materials as submitted

4. Annexe restriction (remaining ancillary to main dwelling)

5. Incorporation of ecological mitigation/enhancement measures

6.Accordance with Arboriculture Impact Assessment to include replacement planting

7. Soft Landscaping Scheme

8. Replacement of new trees & shrubs

Final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning.

The Chairman resumed her role from the substitute Vice Chairman at 10.11am.