Agenda item

Weybourne - PF/22/1885 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions and rendering of property, Heath View, Holt Road, Weybourne


The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He affirmed that the main considerations were set out on p.9 of the report:


1. Whether the proposed development was acceptable in principle;

2.The effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area;

3. The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings;

4. Whether the proposed development would result in a detrimental impact upon the surrounding landscape/AONB, and;

5. The impact of the proposed development on highway safety and parking.


The DMTL noted that the concerns contained in the representations from the public and Parish Council related to over-development, the effect on neighbouring dwellings, light pollution, proximity of the extension to the shared driveway, use of render being different to other buildings in the vicinity, lack of parking and increased traffic with cars having to reverse onto the road.


He advised that Officers were satisfied that the proposal accorded with core strategy and national planning policies and was therefore considered acceptable subject to conditions.


The DMTL proceeded to go through the presentation, establishing the sites location, relationship with neighbouring buildings within the wider context of the built up settlement and AONB, as well as site plans, existing and proposed elevations, proposed floor plans, and photographs of the site.


Cllr M Taylor arrived at 9.45am


Public Speakers

Charlie Harrison – Weybourne Parish Council

Lyndon Swift – Objecting

Christopher Harwood – Supporting


Members Debate and Questions


  1. The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – disagreed with the Officers assessment, and considered that the proposed development did not accord with NNDC Core Strategy Polices HO8, EN1, EN4, EN9 and paragraph 185 of the NPPF. She noted that the extensions would result in a 50% increase in the footprint of the dwelling, which was in conflict with policy HO8, creating a disproportionally large increase to a modest dwelling. Further, the proposed use of glazing would approximately double the glazing on the southern elevation, triple the glazing on the eastern elevation, and would add a roof lantern on the rear extension, which she argued contravened policy EN1 and would result in light pollution, adversely impacting the nearby Kelling Heath Dark Skies Discovery Site.

The Local Member considered the close proximity of the proposed rear extension, 0.8m to the southern neighbour, and argued this was counter to policy EN4, as was the application of render was not commonplace in the village or neighbouring dwellings. Cllr V Holliday further considered the development in conflict with policy CT5, with the number of bedrooms increasing to four, and considered that cars assessing the site would be forced to reverse onto a busy road. With regard to EN9, Cllr V Holliday argued there had been a loss of a biodiversity rich hedge, removed without requirement for planning permission, but with no mention of a replacement planting scheme or another planting scheme which may otherwise mitigate the development. The Local Member stated, if approved, she would expect the conditioned application of reduced visible light transmission factor glass of 0.5 for the large areas of glazing and less than 0.4 for the roof lantern, as recommended in other AONB sites, controls on external lighting, and a planting scheme with biodiverse rich features such as bird boxes.


  1. Cllr A Brown noted on p.9 of the report, that the site was located within Weybourne’s designated settlement boundary, therefore policy HO8 would not apply as this applied dwellings in designated countryside only. Consequently, he contended that extensions of up to 50% of the ground area of the property would be permissible under planning policy, and considered the potential margin of increase between any potential permitted development and the proposed scheme.


  1. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett advised, as Vice-Chairman for Norfolk Coast Partnership (the governing body for the AONB), that she supported the concerns raised by Cllr V Holliday with respect of light pollution, and sought for the inclusion of conditions which would prevent increased light pollution to the sky or over the open countryside to the rear of the site. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett reflected on the hedge removal, though noted this was not a material consideration.


  1. The DM confirmed that the site was not contained in the designated countryside, and therefore affirmed policy HO8 would not be applicable.


  1. The DMTL advised that the proposed parking scheme complied with the core strategy. Further, with respect of permitted development, the DMTL advised under permitted development a rear extension could be erected up to 4m without the need for planning consent (the proposed scheme was 5m deep), though it would not be able to project beyond the side elevation of the property. He noted that a full glazed conservatory could be erected under permitted development.


  1. The Chairman asked if permission was required for the removal of the hedge.


  1. The DMTL advised that permission was not required, and understood that the hedge was not a native species.  


  1. Cllr P Heinrich reflected on the DMTL comments regarding permitted development rights, and the associated risk that this may result in a fully glazed scheme. He noted that the proposal was for a large extension but contended that it was both acceptable and well designed. He considered that the street scene would be improved, and understood the application of render was proposed, drawing on his experience that matching exactly existing brick could be challenging. He considered that the application would bring a non-descript 1970’s bungalow into the 21st century, which would be an overall improvement. Cllr P Heinrich proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation.


  1. Cllr J Toye seconded the Officers recommendation, and noted, with respect of light pollution, that people did not leave Velux windows open during the night emitting light pollution, and the application of ground source heat pumps in the proposal further evidenced that curtains and blinds would be closed for energy conservation. 


  1. Cllr L Withington appreciated the concerns relating to the AONB and light pollution and asked if a condition could be added for the type of glass used, which may serve to alleviate issues.


  1. The DM acknowledged this had been used in the past, and noted the presence of the applicant at the meeting should they wish to respond.


  1. The Applicant indicated they were supportive of the glazing condition requested by Members


IT WAS RESOLVED by 8 votes for a 1 against.


That Planning Application PF/22/1885 be APPROVED subject to conditions to cover the matters listed below and any other considered necessary by the Assistant Director – Planning


  • Time limit for implementation
  • Approved plans
  • Materials as submitted


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


Supporting documents: