11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

DEVELOPMENT 

CONTROL BOARD 

AGENDA 

Monday 25th July 2011 

10.00 am for the Willows Power and Recycling Centre item 

1.30 pm for the remainder of the agenda items 

Please note venue 

Corn Exchange 

Tuesday Market Place 

King’s Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1JW

If you require parts of this document in another language, large print, audio, Braille or any 

alternative format please contact the Council Information Centre on 01553 616200 and we will 

do our best to help. 

LATVIAN 

Ja Jums nepieciešamas da�as no š� dokumenta cit� valod�, liel� druk�, audio, Braila rakst� 

vai alternat�v� form�t�, l�dzu, sazinieties ar Padomes inform�cijas centru (Council Information 

Centre) pa 01553 616200 un m�s cent�simies Jums pal�dz�t. 

RUSSIAN 

�� , �� , �� 

��, � ��- �� , �� 

��.: 01553 616200, � �� . 

LITHUANIAN 

Jei pageidaujate tam tikros šio dokumento dalies kita kalba, dideliu šriftu, Brailio raštu, kitu 

formatu ar norite užsisakyti garso �raš�, susisiekite su Savivaldyb�s informacijos centru 

(Council Information Centre) telefonu 01553 616200 ir mes pasistengsime jums kiek �manoma 

pad�ti. 

POLISH 

Je�li pragn� Pa�stwo otrzyma� fragmenty niniejszego dokumentu w innym j�zyku, w du�ym 

druku, w formie nagrania audio, alfabetem Braille’a lub w jakimkolwiek innym alternatywnym 

formacie, prosimy o kontakt z Centrum Informacji Rady pod numerem 01553 616200, za� my 

zrobimy, co mo�emy, by Pa�stwu pomóc. 

PORTUGUESE 

Se necessitar de partes deste documento em outro idioma, impressão grande, áudio, Braille 

ou qualquer outro formato alternativo, por favor contacte o Centro de Informações do 

Município pelo 01553 616200, e faremos o nosso melhor para ajudar.

King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 1EX 

Telephone: 01553 616200 

Fax: 01553 691663 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 

Please note that due to the number of applications to be considered it is 

proposed that the Board will adjourn for lunch at approximately 12.30 pm and 

reconvene at 1.30 pm. 

DATE: 25 July 2011 

VENUE: Corn Exchange, Tuesday Market Place, King’s Lynn, PE30 1JW 

TIME: 10.00 am for the Willows Power and Recycling Centre item only 

1 APOLOGIES 

1.30 pm for the remainder of the agenda items 

To receive any apologies for absence. 

2 MINUTES 

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 July 2011 

(previously circulated – pages 141 – 152). 

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 

Members must indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one 

which is also prejudicial. A declaration of a personal interest should indicate 

the nature of the interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case 

of a personal interest, the Member may speak and vote on the matter. Please 

note that Members who are exempt from declaring a personal interest 

because it arises solely from their position on a body to which they were 

nominated by the Council or a body exercising functions of a public nature (eg. 

Development Control Board 

25 July 2011

another local authority), need only declare their interest if and when they 

intend to speak on a matter. 

If a prejudicial interest is declared, the Member should withdraw from the room 

whilst the matter is discussed unless the Member has registered to speak in 

accordance with the adopted Public Speaking Protocol, in which case the 

Member may attend the meeting for that purpose. The Member must 

immediately leave the room when they have finished or the meeting decides 

they have finished, if earlier. 

These declarations apply to all those Members present, whether the Member 

is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local member on an item or 

simply observing the meeting from the public seating area. 

4 URGENT BUSINESS UNDER STANDING ORDER 7 

To consider any business, which by reason of special circumstances, the 

Chairman proposes to accept, under Section 100(b)(4)(b) of the Local 

Government Act, 1972. 

5 MEMBERS ATTENDING UNDER STANDING ORDER 34 

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the 

Chairman of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard 

before the meeting commences. 

6 CHAIRMAN’S CORRESPONDENCE 

7 RECEIPT OF LATE CORRESPONDENCE ON APPLICATIONS 

8 DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS 

To consider and determine the attached Schedule of Planning Applications 

submitted by the Executive Director - Development Services (attached at 

pages 1 - 166). 

9 DELEGATED DECISIONS 

To receive the Schedule of Planning Applications determined by the Executive 

Director - Development Services (attached at pages 167 – 183). 

10 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SERVICE – QUARTERLY REPORT 

To receive a quarterly update report covering performance for the period 1 

April 2011 to 30 June 2011 (attached at pages 184 – 226). 



11 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT – LAND AT 81 BROAD END ROAD, 

WALSOKEN 

To receive the attached report (page 227). 

To: Members of the Development Control Board: 

Councillors Mrs V M Spikings (Chairman), M J Peake (Vice-Chairman), Ms L 

Allen, Mrs Z Christopher, D J Collis, P Cousins, C Crofts, P Foster, D 

Johnson, Mrs J Leamon, John Loveless, T C Manley, A Morrison, G Sandell, 

M S Storey, G Wareham and A White 

Site Visit Arrangements 

Please note that any site inspections will be held 3 days after the scheduled meeting 

of the Board (ie. on a Thursday following a Monday meeting). When a decision for a 

site inspection is made, consideration of the application will be adjourned, the site 

visited, and the meeting reconvened on the same day for a decision to be made. 

Timings for the site inspections will be announced at the meeting. 

If there are any site inspections arising from this Meeting, these will be held on 

Thursday 28 July 2011 (time to be confirmed) and the meeting reconvened on the 

same day (time to be agreed). 

Please note: 

(1) At the discretion of the Chairman, items may not necessarily be taken in the 

order in which they appear in the Agenda. 

(2) An Agenda summarising late correspondence received by 5.15 pm on the 

Thursday before the Meeting will be emailed (usually the Friday), and tabled 

one hour before the Meeting commences. Correspondence received after that 

time will not be specifically reported during the Meeting. 

(3) Relevant plans will be available for inspection in the Corn Exchange, Tuesday 

Market Place from 9.30 am on the day of the Meeting. Any Member wishing 

specific application plans to be displayed on the wall for the Meeting should 

contact Lee Osler in the Planning Control Section before 12 noon on the 

working day before the Meeting (usually the Friday). 

For further information please contact: 

Kathy Wagg 

Democratic Services Officer 

King’s Court 

Chapel Street 

King’s Lynn PE30 1EX 

Telephone: 01553 616276 

Email: kathy.wagg@west-norfolk.gov.uk 



Item 

No. 

INDEX OF APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED 

BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD AT THE MEETING 

TO BE HELD ON MONDAY 25 JULY 2011 

Application No. 

Location and Description of Site 

Development 

8/1 CONSULTATIONS 

8/1(a) 11/01064/CM 

Land At Willows Business Park 

Willow Road 

County Matters Application - Willows Power 

and Recycling Centre 

8/2 DEFERRED 

8/2(a) 10/01419/FM 

Barwick Hall Farm Barwick Road Stanhoe 

Wind farm development of six 3-bladed 

horizontal axis wind turbines each up to 

126.5m maximum height to blade tip with 

associated electricity transformers, 

underground cabling, access tracks, road 

widening works. Crane hardstandings, 

control building, substation compound, 

communication mast for a period of 25 

years. Temporary works include 

construction compound, laydown area, rotar 

assembly pads, turning heads, welfare 

facilities and four guyed masts 

Parish Recommendation Page 

No. 

KING’S LYNN OBJECT 1 

BARWICK REFUSE 37 

8/3 OTHER APPLICATIONS / APPLICATIONS REQUIRING REFERENCE TO THE BOARD 

8/3(a) 11/00991/F 

52 Ryston Road 

Single storey extension to garage to create 

ancillary residential accommodation 

8/3(b) 11/00240/F 

Beech House Snape Lane 

Demolition of existing property and erection 

of nine residential dwellings and associated 

infrastructure 

DENVER APPROVE 68 

DOWNHAM 

MARKET 

REPORT TO FOLLOW 



Item 

No. 



Development 

8/3(c) 11/00950/F 

Lime House The Green 

Proposed development to create a self 

contained dwelling to the rear of Lime 

House & Restoration of London House 

8/3(d) 11/00951/LB 

Lime House The Green 

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: Proposed 

development to create a self contained 

dwelling to the rear of Lime House & 

Restoration of London House 

8/3(e) 11/00302/F 

Heacham Manor Hotel Hunstanton Road 

Removal of condition 32 of planning 

permission 07/00437/FM 

8/3(f) 11/01074/F 

Dairy Farm 

Retention of two storey dwelling in adjusted 

position 

8/3(g) 11/00732/CU 

94 Tennyson Road 

Change of use from private dwelling to 

House of Multiple Occupancy 

8/3(h) 11/00713/F 

80 Peddars Way North 

Proposed demolition of 80 Peddars Way, 

Ringstead and construction of one 

residential dwelling 

8/3(i) 11/00881/F 

The Old Smithy (The Old Buck) 

Church Lane 

Conversion of Old Smithy Barn into 

Domestic dwelling and extension. 

Demolition of part of outbuilding and one 

barn wall. 

8/3(j) 11/00812/O 

The Beeches 122 Grimston Road 

Two detached houses in grounds of existing 

property 


No. 

EAST RUDHAM APPROVE 75 

EAST RUDHAM APPROVE 89 

HEACHAM APPROVE 99 

HOCKWOLD CUM 

WILTON 

APPROVE 112 

KINGS LYNN APPROVE 120 

RINGSTEAD APPROVE 130 

SEDGEFORD APPROVE 139 

SOUTH 

WOOTTON 

APPROVE 151 



Item 

No. 



Development 

8/3(k) 11/00630/CU 

Red Hart Inn Main Road Three Holes 

Change of use from Public House to one 

residential dwelling with no alteration to the 

structure of the property 


No. 

UPWELL APPROVE 158 



11/01064/CM 

Land at The Willows Business Park Willow Road King's Lynn 

Scale: 

1:10000 

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 100024314 - 2009. 

1 

SLA Number 

Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk 

Development Services 

1:10000 

12 July 2011 

100024314

Parish: King's Lynn 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/1(a) 

Proposal: County Matters Application - Willows Power and Recycling Centre 

Location: Land At Willows Business Park Willow Road King's Lynn Norfolk 

Applicant: Cory Environmental Management Ltd And Wheelabrator Technology 

Case No: 11/01064/CM (County Matter Application) 

Case Officer: Mr D Parkin 

Tel: 01553 616468 

Reason for Referral to DCB – Raises issues of wider concern 

THE SITE AND PROPOSAL 

Date for Determination: 

19th July 2011 

This is an application for development made to the County Council as the Minerals and 

Waste Local Planning Authority for an Energy from Waste Plant. The Borough Council is not 

the determining authority and is being asked for formal comments in its capacity as the Local 

Planning Authority. 

The proposal is for a combined heat and power (CHP) enabled energy from waste (EfW) 

plant, visitor centre and incinerator bottom ash recycling facility on land at the Willow 

Business Park to the east of King's Lynn power station. 

Key Issues 

The application raises the following issues:- 

* Principle of development and compliance with policy framework; 

* Ability of the County Council to act impartially in the decision making process 

* Alternative Sites; 

* Traffic and Transport; 

* Air Quality & Impacts on Human Health; 

* Landscape and Visual Impact; 

* Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation; 

* Hydrology and Flood Risk; 

* Socio-economic impact; and 

* Amenity. 

RECOMMENDATION 

a) OBJECT for the reasons outlined at the end of this report; 

b) That the Council should also reserve the right to submit further detailed comments 

given the unreasonably tight timescale allowed for comment on an application of 

such significance, size and complexity; and 

c) That the Council requests that the application should be dealt with by the Secretary 

of State in the interests of fairness, impartiality and because of the level of opposition 

to the scheme expressed by the public. 

11/01064/CM Development Control Board 


2

THE APPLICATION 

The site 

The site is located at the Willows Business Park (to the south of Saddlebow Industrial 

Estate) which is located approximately 1.1km to the south of the A47. The site is accessed 

off the Willows Spine Road (which dissects the site) and which in turn is accessed off High 

Road which links directly to the A47 to the north via the Saddlebow Roundabout. The total 

site area is approximately 6.4ha (including off site connection routes and a potential CHP 

route). The main site is approximately 4.8ha and is made up of two distinct areas (referred 

to through the supporting documentation, and in this report, as the north land and the south 

land). 

The north land occupies an area of approximately 2.6ha and comprises an open area of 

ground; the topography is relatively flat. To the north of the north land the area comprises a 

heavy goods vehicles and car park (used by Palm Paper). Beyond this are the various 

industrial buildings of the Saddlebow Industrial Estate. To the east of the north land is the 

newly operational Police Investigation Centre; to the west lies an area of open undeveloped 

land and beyond that lies land that has permission for an extension to the existing Centrica 

power station. An Anglian Water pumping station is located adjacent to the north land’s 

southern boundary. 

The EfW facility and associated structures would be accommodated in a central position in 

the north land. 

The south land occupies an area of approximately 2.2ha and again comprises an open area 

of ground; the topography is relatively flat. A drainage ditch runs along the southern 

boundary of the south land to the south of which runs High Road. The site and High Road 

are separated by a mature hedgerow which according to the applicant contains 13 mature 

oak trees. A large earth bund is present within the eastern area (approximately 3 - 4 metres 

in height) and traversing the length of the south land on a north/south axis. An electricity 

pylon with overhead cables is present. To the west of the south land is a household waste 

recycling centre (HWRC). 

The south land would accommodate the facility to treat, recover and recycle Incinerator 

Bottom Ash. 

With regard to the Local Plan Proposals Maps, the site lies within Built Environment Type D, 

and is an Employment Site located in the Defined Area of the Town. Cycle / footways run 

immediately adjacent to the south of the site and in close proximity to the other compass 

points. Tree Preservation Order(s) exist on the site. Immediately abutting the site to the 

south is open countryside which is also locally designated as an Important Landscape Area. 

With regard to the Local Authority’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (Climate Change 

Maps) the site lies in Flood Zone 3. 

The Proposal 

The proposal is for a 275,000 tonne per annum (tpa) capacity Energy from Waste (EfW) 

facility to be connected to the National Grid through a 33kV connection with an expected 

throughput of approximately 268,000 tpa of combined municipal and commercial and 

industrial waste (170,000 tpa of Norfolk’s residual municipal solid waste (MSW) and 

approximately 98,000 tpa of commercial and industrial waste (C&I) arising from businesses 

in Norfolk (although it is suggested that some C&I waste may be imported from neighbouring 

areas)). The facility will generate approximately 24.2 Megawatts (MW) of electricity gross 

(net export of 21.1MW without Combined Heat and Power). 



3

The site would also accommodate an Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) recycling area, located 

immediately to the south of the EfW facility (IBA is the inert or incombustible material from 

the combustion process). The total IBA produced by the facility is anticipated to be 

approximately 60,000 tpa of which approximately 5,000 will be metals (and will need to be 

exported from the site to the nearest appropriate facility for treatment (this is believed to be 

in Peterborough)). The remaining 55,000 tonnes of bottom ash will be recycled into 

aggregate for use in the construction industry at the onsite recycling area. 

The applicant suggests that opportunities to enable waste heat and steam from the EfW 

facility (to be utilised through combined heat and power (CHP)) are available, and suitable 

infrastructure to enable this is proposed as part of the application. 

The list below indicates the building heights. 

Key 

Building 

Height 

(m) 

Key Points 

Reception Hall 

24.35m 

(top of slope) 

23.25 (eaves) 

Boiler Hall/Flue 

Gas Treatment 

50.89m 

(highest) 

41.58 (lowest) 

Turbine 

Hall 

23.10m 

Air Cooled 

Condensor 

24.27m 

(top of duct) 

21.09m 

(top of cladding) 

Emissions 

Stack 

The proposal will comprise: 

� A 275,000tpa capacity Combined Heat and Power (CHP) enabled Energy from 

Waste (EfW) Facility (including a visitor centre); 

� An Incinerator Bottom Ash Recycling (IBA) area; 

� Electrical connections to the National Grid (and potentially to an unidentified nearby 

local business ) Note: although the ES does not refer to the business by name, the 

application plans show a link across land owned by Palm Paper; 

� A potential CHP connection to a nearby local business; and 

� Associated development including vehicle circulation areas, vehicle parking (65 car 

parking spaces (6 of which would be disabled bays) and 16 cycle spaces), 

landscaping and sustainable drainage. 

The proposal would generate: 

� up to 85 HGV one way movements per day (170 HGV two way movements); 

� up to 50 light vehicle one way movements per day (100 light vehicle two way 

movements); and 

� 40 new jobs. 

The Facility would operate on a 24 hour basis, 7 days per week throughout the year. The 

proposal, including the IBA Recycling Area, will be open to receive waste and export metals, 

treated aggregates and residues during the hours detailed below with the caveat that “it may 

occasionally be necessary for waste deliveries to be made out of these core hours”: 

� Monday to Friday 07:00 - 21:00 

� Saturday 07:00 - 17:00 

� Sunday & Public Holidays 09:00 - 17:00 

The Visitor Centre opening hours are proposed as follows: 

� 09:00 - 17:00 Monday to Saturdays (excluding Bank Holidays). 



4 

85m

SUPPORTING CASE 

The following is taken directly from the summary of the Planning Application Supporting 

Statement: 

“Norfolk relies heavily on landfill for the disposal of its wastes, with 416,000 tonnes of waste 

landfilled in 2008/09. This situation is no longer economically or environmentally sustainable. 

Councils across the UK, including Norfolk, have strict targets to reduce the amount of waste 

that is sent to landfill and to minimise their impact on the environment. The costs of landfill 

are also increasing, with landfill tax rising year on year. 

Norfolk’s emerging Waste Core Strategy encourages the consideration of alternative waste 

management options to landfill, and given the present lack of waste treatment infrastructure, 

identifies a clear need for residual waste treatment facilities to serve Norfolk over the plan 

period to 2026 and beyond. This need is quantified at 703,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of 

new residual waste treatment capacity for Norfolk. 

Energy from Waste (EfW) incineration technology is capable of treating residual waste 

(waste that is left over after recycling and composting) and diverting waste away from 

landfill, while not compromising Norfolk’s ability to continue its high levels of recycling and 

composting (currently at 43.5% in 2009/10). 

Norfolk County Council (NCC) has identified a requirement for a residual waste treatment 

facility capable of treating approximately 170,000 tonnes of residual 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) per year over a 25-year contract period and is procuring a 

suitable facility through a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) tendering process. 

Cory Environmental Management Limited (‘Cory’) and Wheelabrator Technologies Inc 

(‘Wheelabrator’) have been selected by NCC as the preferred bidder for the PFI contract and 

is proposing proven EfW incineration technology because of, its strong environmental 

performance, its ability to produce energy and heat and because it offers good value for 

money for the people of Norfolk. 

A site within the boundaries of the Willows Business Park, Saddlebow Industrial Area, King’s 

Lynn is identified by NCC as a preferred location for a range of waste management uses 

including EfW (see Site WAS 652). The site is in the ownership of NCC. 

Cory and Wheelabrator are proposing to develop a power and recycling centre at the 

Willows Business Park site (the Proposal Site). The proposed development is referred to in 

this Statement as the Willows Power & Recycling Centre (the Proposal). 

The Proposal will provide an EfW Facility with an expected throughput of approximately 

268,000 tpa of waste, which will generate some 24.2MW (Gross) of electricity, enough to 

power the equivalent of 36,000 homes, using residual waste as a fuel. The Proposal will 

accept residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) from Norfolk and Commercial and Industrial 

(C&I) waste arising from local businesses, some of which will come from neighbouring 

authority areas, given King’s Lynn’s location close to the County boundary. All waste treated 

at the Proposal Site will be non hazardous. 

An Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Recycling Area will recover around 5,000 tonnes of metals 

per year from the bottom ash produced by the EfW process and will enable the remaining 

bottom ash (around 55,000 tonnes per year) to be recycled for use in the construction 

industry. Both aspects promote sustainability by reducing the need for virgin raw materials 

and help boost recycling levels in Norfolk. 



5

Opportunities to enable waste heat from the EfW Facility to be utilised through 

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) will be maximised. To this end, the Proposal is designed 

and will be constructed as a fully CHP enabled EfW Facility. A CHP connection route from 

the Proposal to a nearby local business has been identified and is environmentally assessed 

as part of the Environmental Statement (ES). Commercial discussions to realise the CHP 

opportunities are in progress. 

Planning permission to construct the Proposal will need to be obtained from NCC, as the 

Waste Planning Authority (WPA). The Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for issuing 

an Environmental Permit (EP) to operate it. To satisfy the requirements of the EA, the 

Proposal incorporates Best Available Techniques for the prevention and control of pollution 

and measures to ensure that a high degree of protection of health and the environment, 

taken as a whole, is achieved. The EA will then closely regulate the facility during its 

operation. 

The Proposal Site has easy access from the A47 and the strategic highway network, which 

provides ready accessibility to the existing network of waste transfer stations throughout the 

County and connections to the neighbouring areas. Other than very local deliveries by 

Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCVs) waste traffic will not take routes which pass through 

residential areas in King’s Lynn’s or it’s Air Quality Management Areas. 

The principle of locating the Proposal at King’s Lynn is supported by the emerging Waste 

Core Strategy which encourages new strategic waste management facilities to be well 

related to one of the four key centres in Norfolk. King’s Lynn is one of those key centres 

along with Thetford, Great Yarmouth and Norwich. 

The Proposal will be a generator of low carbon energy, a significant proportion of which will 

be classed as renewable and will deliver savings in greenhouse gas emissions from the 

commencement of its operation. In selecting the Proposal Site over more remote 

alternatives, there is also a real opportunity to deliver a fully integrated CHP scheme. 

Operating in CHP mode, the thermal efficiency of the Proposal will increase from 28% 

(without CHP) to at least 52%. 

The planning application demonstrates that there is an overwhelming need for the proposal 

to complement existing and future recycling and composting initiatives within the County, as 

part of an integrated waste management system. The ES demonstrates that, with the 

implementation of mitigation measures, there will be no likely significant environmental 

effects contrary to the Development Plan or emerging policies. 

The Proposal will make a significant contribution to the delivery of sustainable waste 

management in Norfolk and in turn the spatial vision and key strategic objectives of the 

emerging Norfolk Waste Core Strategy. 

The Government places importance in the provision of sufficient opportunities for new waste 

management facilities of the right type, in the right place and the right time. The Proposal 

implements these objectives”. 



6

PLANNING HISTORY 

Willows Business Park 

2/89/1807/O – Outline consent granted in 1989 for industrial and warehouse development 

on land at Poplar Avenue and Saddlebow Road. 

2/91/2033/F – Full planning consent granted in 1992 for layout of industrial estate spine road 

and surface water sewers and associated engineering work on land at Saddlebow Road. 

2/92/2700/O – Outline consent renewed in 1993 for same development granted under 

2/89/1807/O. 

06/01308/OM Outline Application :Construction of Police Investigation Centre Willows 

Business Park. Approved - Development Control Board decision, 2006 

07/01413/F Construction of building for use as scaffolding depot, access road, parking and 

storage. Approved - delegated decision, 2007 

07/01518/CM Relocation of NCC Community Recycling Centre - Layout 1, Willows Business 

Park. No objection - delegated decision 2007 

09/00572/RMM Reserved Matters Application - Construction of Police Investigation Centre 

Willows Business Park. Approved – delegated decision, 2009 

08/00551/CM Relocation of recycling centre from King's Lynn, Willows Business Park. No 

objection – delegated decision, 2008 

10/00336/CU Change of use from B8 to Sui Generis (Car taxi firm) with auxiliary for 

maintenance of taxi cars for business use only at Units 9-11, Willows Business Park. 

Approved – delegated decision 2010 

Adjacent Sites 

2/95/0981/SU Expansion of combined cycle gas turbine power station to increase capacity 

from 380MW to 1200MW 

07/01708/FM Erection of paper recycling facility, combined heat and power plant, effluent 

treatment works, gatehouse, roads, yardage, parking, landscaping and ancillary building 

works. Approved – Development Control Board, 2007 

08/01544/S36 Consultation in relation to the construction of King's Lynn CCGT power 

station. No objection – Development Control Board decision, 2008 



7

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION 

As the Council is itself a consultee on the application, only internal consultations have been 

carried out as listed below. 

BCKLWN Environmental Health – Quality: 

Contaminated Land 

I refer to the above consultation dated 8 July 2011. I have reviewed the Environmental 

Statement (ES) chapter 11: Hydrogeology and ground conditions. 

Contaminated land is a material planning consideration and specific guidance is contained in 

PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control. 

The chapter reviews earlier site investigation work by others and contains a qualitative risk 

assessment. Table 11.10 presents the risk assessment. However, some fields in the table 

are truncated with some words missing so not all the information is available. The chapter 

does not appear to contain a conceptual site model which the risk assessment is based on. 

Although risks to human health during construction, operational and decomissioning stages 

are judged to be low further work is recommended in the report to revise the risk 

assessment. The conclusions seem reasonable based on the information supplied. 

However, as further work is recommended including a site remedial strategy and materials 

management plan, I would recommend that should consent be granted that it contain 

conditions requiring further investigation, risk assessment and remediation as set out in the 

ES chapter 11. It would also be helpful if further work contains a conceptual site model to 

demonstrate the potential pollutant linkages which have been evaluated on the site. 

I have not commented on the controlled waters risk assessment or the requirement for a 

piling risk assessment which may form part of further contamination investigation. However, 

the Environment Agency is likely to want to comment on these matters. 

Air Quality 

Air quality is a material planning consideration and specific guidance is contained in PPS 23 

Planning and Pollution Control and also additional guidance is contained in PPS 10 Planning 

for Sustainable Waste Management. 

There are two complementary regimes which apply to the Willows Power & Recycling 

Centre, planning permission from the planning authority (Norfolk County Council) and an 

Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. An application for an Environmental 

Permit has been submitted to the Environment Agency. 

As part of the scoping exercise before the application was submitted, Environmental Quality 

raised the following issues: - 

� Impact on Air Quality Management Areas - There are two Air Quality Management 

Areas (AQMA) in Kings Lynn (See Appendix 2), where the level of Nitrogen Dioxide 

exceeds the National Air Quality Strategy annual mean of 40 μm/m3. Emissions from 

the proposal will need to be assessed to determine if there is any significant impact 

on the AQMA’s. Work has started in developing an Air Quality Action Plan which is 

still in the draft stage presently. 



8

� Combined emissions from other point sources - The proposed site is adjacent to 

two existing significant point sources of emissions, namely the gas fired power 

station and Palm Paper Mill as well as two other proposed developments, the power 

station extension and Palm sludge combustor which have planning permission but 

are yet to be built. The application must also include an assessment of the combined 

impact of emissions from all the point sources and their likely impact on the locality. 

This application should not be considered in isolation. 

� Impact on human health - Municipal waste incinerators (MWI) can produce a 

number of different pollutants such as Dioxins, Furans, heavy metals, Carbon 

Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, acid gases (e.g. HCL, SO2) and 

particulates (e.g. PM10 & PM2.5). These can impact on both the short term and long 

term health of humans. Additional traffic movements can impact human health (NO2, 

PM10 & PM2.5) 

To assist in this planning application, Air Quality Consultants Ltd (AQC) have been engaged 

to critically peer review the air quality assessment which forms part of the Environmental 

Statement submitted by Cory Wheeleabrator as part of the planning application. AQC will 

provide expert, unbiased opinion on the application and its potential impact. 

Due to the large amount of detailed information submitted and the relatively short 

consultation period time to consider the information, only an initial view of the application can 

be presented today. Appendix 7.1 of the Environmental Statement was not released until 29 

June 2011, one week after the consultation period began on the 22nd June 2011. 

AQC Ltd’s initial conclusions are as follows: - 

Mitigation 

Mitigation measures are identified within the Environmental Statement include: 

� �A Construction Environmental Management Plan. 

� �An Odour Management Plan. 

The suggested measures are appropriate and it is recommended that suitably worded 

conditions are attached to the planning permission, to ensure that these measures are put in 

place. 

No mitigation is discussed with respect to the Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) handling. It will 

be essential that a Dust Management Plan is put in place to minimise off-site dust and heavy 

metal impacts. The requirement for a Dust Management Plan should also be secured by 

suitably worded condition. 

Although the impact of the Proposals upon nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the Air 

Quality Management Area will be small, it will be contrary to the aims of the Air Quality 

Action Plan, to reduce concentrations to below UK Air Quality Objectives (which are also EU 

Limit Values). Therefore it would be appropriate to obtain a contribution from the developer 

towards implementation of measures within the Action Plan. In addition, consideration 

should be given to any practicable measures available to reduce the impact of emissions 

from vehicles travelling to and from the site. 



9

Monitoring 

Baseline air quality monitoring has been carried out on behalf of the developer. It is 

recommended that monitoring continue to be carried out in the vicinity of the travellers site, 

where the highest concentrations were measured and the model predicts the greatest impact 

of the Proposals. 

This should include measurement of annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations using 

diffusion tubes, at relevant locations alongside roads used by vehicles travelling to and from 

the site. It will also be appropriate to carry out automatic monitoring to determine short-term 

concentrations. As a minimum, the automatic monitoring should measure nitrogen dioxide, 

PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. 

Conclusions 

There are inaccuracies in the approach to assessing the impact of traffic generated by the 

Proposals. These should be addressed before a decision on whether to grant planning 

permission is made. 

If the impact on Incinerator Bottom Ash handling on dust and heavy metal concentrations 

and deposition has not been included in the Human Health Risk Assessment, this should 

also be addressed before a decision on whether to grant planning permission is made. 

The assessment of emissions from the stack is appropriate and the overall conclusions are 

reasonable. Taking into account the uncertainties in the impact of traffic, it is concluded that 

air quality is a medium priority consideration for this development. This means that it is not 

expected that the development should be recommended for refusal but mitigation measures 

should be incorporated into the scheme design to ensure that the development conforms to 

best practice standards and is ‘air quality neutral’ as far as reasonably practicable. 

Based on the information provided, there is potential for minor adverse air quality impacts 

from additional traffic. Therefore consideration should be given to additional practicable 

measures to minimise these impacts. 

A number of conditions should be attached to any planning permission. This should include 

a Dust and Odour Management Plans and a Construction Environmental Management Plan. 

The findings of the Air Quality Assessment and Health Impact Assessment are consistent 

with the findings of the Health Protection Agency that ‘modern, well managed incinerators 

make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants.’ 

The AQC report highlights several areas where further clarification and issues need to be 

addressed. These matters have been highlighted with NCC Planning and they have been 

asked to raise these matters with the applicant who will respond and we can then further 

consider the additional information 

At this stage I recommend a holding objection until the applicant has addressed the issues 

raised in the critical review and those matters have been further assessed. 



10

BCKLWN Environmental Health – Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance 

(CSNN): In relation to the above planning application I have the following comments to 

make: 

The Lighting Assessment 

Predicted levels of light over spill are considered to be small, however where light spill has 

been predicted onto adjacent properties along the Willows Spine Road the assessment 

suggests that this could be minimised by the use of longer mounting arms for the 8m column 

mounted luminaires as this will aim the light closer to the road reducing the spread. 

As the closest receptor is 120 m away from the proposed development the spill light will not 

shine directly onto a sensitive receptor i.e. window of a liveable room and therefore will not 

cause disamenity due to the effects of artificial light at the closest residential properties. 

There will be light pollution in terms of sky glow but the predicted values are indicative that 

the predicted levels are less than the existing sky glow of the area which has existing 

sources of sky glow. The sky glow calculations are well under the maximum sky glow ULR 

for Environmental Zone 2 Low District Brightness Areas (EZ2) – for rural, small village or 

relatively dark urban locations. 

It is important to acknowledge that this assessment has been conducted using specific 

luminaires and whilst the assessment is deemed to be acceptable should the luminaire 

specifications change then a new assessment will need to be conducted to ensure that they 

do not increase the potential for disamenity/ disturbance to nearby residential properties and 

to ensure that they do not increase the levels of sky glow so that they exceed the criteria of 

EZ2. 

Noise and Vibration 

In relation to noise and vibration I have reviewed the information provided in Chapter 12 

noise and vibration. 

We have conducted noise recordings, both day and night at 1-2 High Road, on Low Road 

and in front of the Saddlebow caravan park and our recordings are similar to the noise 

survey results within the chapter. I would consider the baseline used in the survey to be an 

adequate representation of the sound scape of the area. 

The CSNN department are primarily concerned with protecting the amenity of the residents 

and I still have concerns in relation to the noise from the construction and the operation of 

the site. 

I am concerned about the potential for noise from the construction to cause disturbance and 

disamenity to the nearby residents and as a result am in disagreement with the proposed 

core site construction hours. I recommend that the construction working hours are reduced 

so that there is no Sunday working or working on public or bank holidays when any noise 

from the activities is going to be more intrusive as these are generally rest days for the 

average person. Having looked back at previous consents provided in the area I request that 

the following conditions are imposed upon the construction working hours: 



11

Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07.00 to 19.00 

hours (Monday to Friday) and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at no time 

on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays during Greenwich Mean Time and only 

between the hours 07.00 to 20.00 hours (Monday to Friday) and 07.00 to 16.00 

hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays during 

British Summer Time unless otherwise agreed beforehand in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. On completion of the enclosure (being roof, walls, windows 

and doors) of each building, construction work within that building may take 

place outside of the above hours provided that doors and windows remain closed 

during construction activities. 

During the construction phase no deliveries shall be taken at or dispatched from 

the site outside the hours of 07.00 to 19.00 hours (Monday to Friday) and 07.00 

to 13.00 hours on Saturdays, at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays 

during Greenwich Mean Time or outside the hours of 07.00 to 20.00 hours 

(Monday to Friday) and 07.00 to 16.00 hours on Saturdays, at no time on 

Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays during British Summer Time unless otherwise 

agreed beforehand in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The noisiest activities, demolition and site preparation, piling and building 

construction should take place between 8 am and 5pm Monday- Friday. 

For the operational phase more detail is required in relation to the noise produced by the 

site: 

The use herby permitted shall not commence until a detailed scheme for air 

ventilation systems and flue or duct extraction systems has been submitted to 

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall 

specify the precise details of the flue extraction equipment to be used: including 

the stack height; the design and position of all ductwork; the noise power levels 

of the fans; and the number, type and attenuation characteristics of any 

silencers. The scheme shall be implemented and approved prior to the 

commencement of use and thereafter maintained as such. 

Prior to commencement of use a detailed scheme showing the siting of any 

outdoor installations and machinery, which must include generators, pumps and 

compressors has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning 

Authority. The scheme shall specify the noise power levels of the equipment, 

their location and any attenuation characteristics from enclosures or silencers. 

The scheme shall be implemented and approved before the development is 

brought into use and maintained as such thereafter. 

There are also concerns over the impact of traffic noise upon occupants of residential 

accommodation. Conditions should be attached to any consent requiring monitoring of the 

noise levels once the plant is operational as follows:- 

When the development is brought into use the applicants are to fund and provide 

for the monitoring of noise over a 6 month period. The monitoring locations and 

methodology is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning 

Authority prior to commencement. The monitoring shall be carried out as 

approved. 



12

Within 28 days from the receipt of a written request from the Local Planning 

Authority and following a complaint to the Local Planning Authority from the 

occupant of a dwelling which lawfully exists or has planning permission at the 

date of this consent, the applicant shall, at the applicant’s expense, employ an 

independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the 

level of noise from the Willow’s Power and recycling centre, Kings Lynn at the 

complainant’s property. The methodology must be agreed by the Local Planning 

Authority. 

The applicant shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent 

consultant’s assessment and conclusions regarding the said noise complaint, 

including all calculations, audio recordings and the raw data upon which those 

assessments and conclusions are based. Such information shall be provided 

within 3 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority 

unless otherwise extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

No development shall commence until there has been submitted to the Local 

Planning Authority details of a nominated representative for the development to 

act as a point of contact for local residents (in connection with above conditions) 

together with the arrangements for notifying and approving any subsequent 

change in the nominated representative. The nominated representative shall 

have responsibility for liaison with the Local Planning Authority in connection with 

any noise complaints made during the construction, operation and 

decommissioning of the wind farm. 

No development shall commence on site until a management plan to protect the 

local residents from dust and odour has been submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as 

approved before the development is brought into use. 

Dust and Odour 

In relation to the potential for disamenity due to dust, Chapter 7 of the Environmental 

Statement re iterates a quote from MPS2 Annex 1: that dust can affect residents up to 1km 

from the source. There are residential dwellings within this radius of the development site 

and therefore an assessment and identification of controls is necessary. 

The collection and storage of waste has the potential to be a great source of odour, and 

there will be a number of sources on site that need to be adequately controlled in order to 

prevent disturbance/ disamenity to the closest residents through odour. For these reasons I 

request that the following condition is imposed upon any consent granted. 

No development shall commence on site until a management plan to protect the 

local residents from dust and odour has been submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as 

approved before the development is brought into use. 

Prior to commencement of construction work the applicants are to fund and 

provide for the monitoring of dust, in the form of PM10. The monitoring locations 

and methodology is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning 

Authority prior to commencement. The monitoring shall be carried out as 

approved. 



13

In general the Construction and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan 

identifies the sources of disamenity and potential controls. More detail is required on the 

specifics and the implementation of the controls. I request that is conditioned so that the 

information is provided up front and that everything is agreed by the local planning authority. 

BCKLWN Waste & Recycling Manager: The proposal fails to meet national policy and 

regulation through the failure to follow the waste hierarchy which requires that waste is 

reduced, reused or recycled prior to recovery. The size of the incinerator fails to meet 

sustainability criteria due to its location on the extreme west of the County and therefore 

does not support the proximity principle of dealing with waste where it arises. The scale and 

the location of the facility will also draw in waste from across the borders of the county and 

squeeze out recycling and other more sustainable forms of waste treatment in neighbouring 

counties who plan to deal with their own waste. The supporting documentation is lacking in 

many respects and of poor quality and significant additional work is required by the applicant 

to prove statements made in support of this proposal. 

There is evidence that the criteria for need for the incinerator are not met in terms of 

Municipal Solid Waste because of falling waste levels, increased recycling opportunities and 

recycling of food waste as a real opportunity for sustainable management of wastes. 

BCKLWN Regeneration & Economic Development Manager: The section on Socio- 

Economic Effects (page 25) of the Non-technical summary (NTS) refers to socio-economic 

effects and identifies job creation (40 permanent operational and 200-300 construction jobs 

over 32 months) as the main positive externality of the proposed development, although 

paragraph 133 of the NTS (page 26) states that the development will bring a slight beneficial 

effect as it is difficult to demonstrate what percentage of those jobs will be awarded to the 

local workforce. 

The King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Economic Strategy sets out the Objectives and Priorities 

for delivering Sustainable Community Strategy vision of creating a thriving and growing 

economy. The strategy particularly seeks to attract new investment and encourage 

reinvestment by existing businesses whilst raising the qualifications and skills of the local 

workforce. 

The fact that the Power and Recycling Centre will create 40 new permanent jobs, albeit the 

skill levels of these jobs are not known, is to be acknowledged as is the additional 

expenditure in the local economy that should occur during the construction stage. 

However the main employment estates in King’s Lynn, including the two major employment 

development areas, are close to the application site and given the negative perceptions 

associated with the proposed development there is concern that this development could 

discourage investment decisions by both existing businesses and new business 

investments. In particular, businesses operating in the food industry, which is an important 

part of the local economy, may be deterred from investing in operations located in close 

proximity of the application site. 

Although difficult to quantify at the moment because of lack of evidence supplied with the 

application, the loss of potential employment resulting from the negative perceptions 

associated with the proposed development could be far greater than the small employment 

benefits provided by it. 



14

REPRESENTATIONS 

No separate consultations have been carried out since the planning application was 

submitted. Any objections received have been forwarded to the County Council as the 

decision making authority. 

NATIONAL GUIDANCE 

PPS1 - “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005) sets out overarching policies on the 

delivery of sustainable development through the operation of the planning system and 

contains advice on design considerations. 

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 

PPS9 - “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” (2005) aims to promote sustainable 

development, to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and 

geology, and to contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance. 

PPS10 - “Planning for Sustainable Waste Management” (2005) aims to promote sustainable 

waste management and requires that consideration be given to the design and layout of new 

development to secure opportunities for kerbside collection and community recycling without 

having an adverse impact upon the street scene. 

PPG13 - “Transport” (2001) aims to integrate planning and transport, promote sustainable 

forms of development, improve accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling, and 

reduce the need to travel, especially by car. 

PPS23 - “Planning and Pollution Control” (2004) contains guidance on the consideration of 

land, air and water quality issues, the pollution control regime, and the development of 

contaminated land. 

PPG24 - “Planning and Noise” (1994) provides guidance on the considerations to be taken 

into account when determining planning applications for noise sensitive development and 

those activities which generate noise. 

PPS25 - “Development and Flood Risk” (2006) provides advice on land-use planning and 

flooding considerations. 

EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN 

Policy WM2: Waste Management Targets - Recommends adoption of targets to minimise 

waste and provide the basis for implementing the overall aim of recycling, composting and 

recovering value from waste. 

Policy WM1: Waste Management Objectives - Identifies the overall vision and objectives for 

waste management policies. 

Policy WM5: Planning for Waste Management - Local policies should identify the additional 

capacity required to manage their apportioned wastes. 



15

PLANNING POLICIES 

The Norfolk Structure Plan (1999) contains the following policies that are relevant to this 

application: 

T.2 - requires that the traffic implications of new development are assessed. 

The King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (1998) contains the following saved policies 

that are relevant to the proposal: 

SS8 - states that major development will take place in King’s Lynn, limited expansion will be 

permitted in Downham Market and in Hunstanton growth will be restrained. Elsewhere the 

Borough Council will aim to foster the rural economy without significant village expansion 

and protect the environmental characteristics of the coast and countryside. 

SS10 - indicates that provision is made for 160 hectares of employment land mostly in King’s 

Lynn and Downham Market and promotes rural employment provision. 

4/21 - indicates that in built-up areas of towns or villages identified on the Proposals Map as 

Built Environment Type C or D development will be permitted where it is in character with the 

locality. 

4/6 - aims to protect areas of important landscape quality from inappropriate development. 

4/7 - aims to protect and enhance important landscape features such as trees and 

woodlands. 

5/25 - allocates 49.9 hectares at Saddlebow Estate West and 55.2 hectares at White House 

Farm in the Lynn South Expansion Area for employment purposes. 

LDF CORE STRATEGY POLICIES 

(confirmed as ‘Sound’ by the Planning Inspectorate) 

CS01 - Spatial Strategy 

CS02 - The Settlement Hierarchy 

CS03 - King's Lynn Area 

CS08 - Sustainable Development 

CS11 - Transport 

CS12 - Environmental Assets 



16

SAVED POLICIES OF THE NORFOLK WASTE LOCAL PLAN 2000 

WAS1 – The Council will be guided by the principles of the waste hierarchy 

WAS2 – Proposals will be required to demonstrate that they contain integrated proposals for 

the recovery and utilisation of resources 

WAS3 – Waste development for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer and storage 

of waste will be permitted on industrial land 

WAS5 – Waste incineration without energy recovery will not be permitted. Waste 

incineration with energy recovery will be permitted. 

WAS10 – Waste development in the countryside will on be permitted where there would be 

no unacceptable impact 

WAS12 – Waste development in or near conservation of regional or local importance will 

only be permitted where there be no significant damage. 

WAS13 – Waste development will be permitted only where there would be no unacceptable 

harm to the amenities enjoyed by all and no endangerment to human health 

WAS14 & WAS15 – No adverse impact on archaeological remains 

WAS16 – Development only permitted where the access and highway network is suitable 

WAS18 – No adverse impact on surface or groundwater 

WAS19 – No adverse impact upon flooding. 

EMERGING NORFOLK WASTE CORE STRATEGY & WASTE DEVELOPMENT 

MANAGEMENT POLICIES DOCUMENT 

(inquiry re-opened 15 th July) 

CS3 – Strategy is to provide sufficient waste management capacity to meet the expected 

arisings of municipal and commercial & industrial waste and to ensure that appropriate 

capacity is provided for inert waste recycling and disposal 

CS4 – By the end of 2026 there is a need to provide about 163,000 tonnes of new recycling, 

composting and source segregated anaerobic digestion capacity, about 553,000 tonnes of 

value recovery infrastructure and about 700,000 tonnes of new non-hazardous landfill 

capacity. 

CS5 – “Strategic” waste facilities will preferably be well-related to the Norwich Policy Area, 

Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn or Thetford. 



17

CS8 – Residual waste treatment facilities. RWTFs will be acceptable where the proposed 

facility is:- 

a) In use as a waste management site; 

b) In existing general industrial or warehousing/distribution use or identified in a Local 

Plan as such; 

c) On a brownfield site; or 

d) In redundant agricultural buildings; 

So long as it would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and/or highways 

impacts. 

CS13 – Climate change and renewable energy generation – all new residual waste 

treatment plants will be required to generate electricity and/or generate heat 

CS14 – Environmental Protection – Developments must ensure there are no unacceptable 

impacts on water, air, soil, character of landscape, biodiversity, heritage assets and 

residential amenity 

CS15 – Proposals should assess and consider positively the potential for non-HGV transport 

of materials 

DM1 – No adverse impact on nature conservation 

DM2 – No adverse impact on core river valleys 

DM3 – No adverse impact on ground or surface water 

DM4 – Flood Risk - The district council’s SFRA’s will be used to inform decisions for 

development. 

DM9 – No adverse impact on heritage assets 

DM10 – Acceptable impact on highway network 

DM11 – Demonstrate use of sustainable design standards such as BREEAM 

DM12 – Amenity - Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the 

scale, siting and design of a proposal is appropriate and that unacceptable impact to local 

amenity will not arise from the construction or operation of a facility 

DM13 – Air Quality – Applicants will be required to demonstrate that proposals effectively 

minimise harmful emissions to air and would not impact negatively on existing or proposed 

Air Quality Management Areas. 

OTHER GUIDANCE 

PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk – Practice Guide 



18

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 


� Principle of development and compliance with policy framework; 

� Ability of the County Council to act impartially in the decision making process; 

� Alternative Sites; 

� Traffic and Transport; 

� Air Quality & Impacts on Human Health; 

� Landscape and Visual Impact; 

� Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation; 

� Hydrology and Flood Risk; 

� Socio-economic impact; and 

� Amenity. 

Principle of Development and Compliance with Policy 

The starting point for determining a planning application is always against the provisions of 

the Development Plan. The currently adopted development plan for waste provision is the 

Norfolk Waste Local Plan adopted in 2000. The County is currently in the process of 

consulting on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and site specific allocations 

however this plan will not be adopted until late this year, or more probably in 2012. 

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) Planning for Sustainable Waste Management – 

revised March 2011, makes it clear that Waste Local Planning Authorities should: 

“in considering planning applications for waste management facilities before 

development plans can be reviewed to reflect this PPS, have regard to the 

policies in this PPS as material considerations which may supersede the policies 

in their development plan.” 

Whilst the County Council has produced a Waste Core Strategy the Inspector has yet to 

confirm that it is ‘sound’. Indeed, the inquiry is to be re-opened on 15 th July to allow the 

Borough Council to present evidence to the Inspector regarding serious doubts over whether 

or not the document proposes a strategy that can coherently deal with the amount of waste 

forecast. In other words, until such time as the Core Strategy and site allocation 

Development Plan Document are adopted the application should be assessed against 

PPS10 as the old Waste Local Plan policies are out of date. 

PPS10 sets out “Key Planning Objectives” for all planning authorities. Those objectives 

include an expression of the Proximity Principle: to “enable waste to be disposed of in one of 

the nearest appropriate installations”. 

The application represents a fundamental departure from this policy objective: it would place 

the EfW plant, which is intended to serve the whole of Norfolk, in the north-west corner of 

Norfolk. Norfolk is the fifth largest non-metropolitan county in England, with an area of 5,371 

square kilometres with a comparatively poor road transport network across the county. 



19

In considering what constitute suitable sites and areas for development, material 

considerations set out in PPS10 include “the capacity of existing and potential transport 

infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from 

resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road 

transport”. The application appears to depart significantly from this national policy objective 

because: 

� There is no other practicable mode of transport other than road transport. 

� All transport must come via the A47, which is already near to its reasonable capacity 

and its use (i.e., other, potentially, than in relation to the Application site) is 

increasing, not decreasing. 

PPS10 provides, by reference to Annex E, a series of Locational Criteria which should be 

given weight in the consideration of an application. These criteria are:- 

a. protection of water resources; 

b. land instability; 

c. visual intrusion; 

d. nature conservation; 

e. historic environment and built heritage; 

f. traffic and access; 

g. air emissions, including dust; 

h. odours; 

i. vermin and birds; 

j. noise and vibration; 

k. litter; and 

l. potential land use conflict. 

In light of the preceding paragraph, there appears to be a risk of significant departure from 

what is clearly envisaged in Annex E, criterion f. There may also be conflicts with criteria d, 

g and l, which are referred to in subsequent sections of this report. 

The PFI contract will require Norfolk County Council to guarantee the supply of a total of 

170,000 tonnes of municipal waste per annum; and that, if it fails to supply that tonnage of 

waste, it will be liable to pay what amounts to a “penalty” to Cory Wheelabrator: the shortfall 

in income from electricity generation as a result of the shortfall of material to incinerate. This 

is against the background of projections that the amount of municipal waste is decreasing 

and will continue to decrease (generally and see below). 

PPS10 provides that the Government’s overall objective is to protect the environment “by 

producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible” (para.1); moreover, a 

key planning objective is to encourage communities to take more responsibility for their own 

waste. By contrast, the way in which the PFI contract penalises the County Council is a 

positive disincentive to its promoting recycling at a community level: i.e., it will act as a 

“brake” on increased recycling efforts in Norfolk over a 25-year period. 

PPS1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ must also be considered. This statement of 

policy rehearses four of the Government’s stated aims for sustainable development more 

generally. They include “the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and 

employment”. Paragraph 23 of PPS1 provides that planning authorities should, inter alia: 

“(vi) Actively promote and facilitate good quality development, which is 

sustainable and consistent with their plans.” 



20

For reasons referred to above and additionally later on in this report, the EfW plant would not 

be a sustainable piece of development. The basis for those concerns also indicates that 

there is a real risk that the EfW plant will have a significant effect beyond its immediate 

locality (in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and in Lincolnshire). 

The underlying facts can be summarised as follows: 

� The sustainability of the Power and Recycling Centre as a viable economic 

proposition over its projected 25-year lifespan is predicated on the import of 98,000 

tonnes of commercial and industrial waste per annum from locations beyond the 

proximity of King’s Lynn and outside the county boundary. (As above, the PFI 

contract will require Norfolk County Council to guarantee the supply of a total of 

170,000 tonnes of municipal waste per annum.) ; 

� Projections prepared by the Council’s Waste and Recycling Manager and Finance 

and Resources Manager indicate that the availability of such waste, within the county 

and from outside, is decreasing as more waste is recycled and recyclable; 

� Planning permission was granted in 2009 for Peterborough Renewable Energy Ltd’s 

Materials Recycling and Biomass Energy Generation Facility, which will process 

est.650,000 tonnes of commercial waste per annum. Condition 28 of the grant of 

planning permission provides that 80% of the waste to be processed must be from 

within the administrative boundaries of Peterborough City Council and 

Cambridgeshire County Council or within 32 kilometres of the Facility. The Facility is 

only 46.2 kilometres from King’s Lynn. 

� Moreover, it is clear from the emerging Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals 

and Waste Core Strategy, at policy CS14, that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 

have capacity to process all the waste produced in Cambridgeshire and 

Peterborough until 2026. 

� Likewise, Lincolnshire’s Preferred Minerals and Waste Strategy forecasts are that 

Lincolnshire requires no additional facilities for the treatment of municipal solid waste 

and commercial and industrial waste to 2026. 

The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) is also (quoting 

from paragraph 1.2.3 of that document) “likely to be a material consideration in decision 

making on relevant applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as 

amended)”. 

In the context of “Biomass/Waste Impacts – Waste Management”, para.2.5.70 of EN-3 

provides that the relevant decision maker “should be satisfied, with reference to the relevant 

waste strategies and plans, that the proposed waste combustion generating station is in 

accordance with the waste hierarchy and of an appropriate type and scale so as not to 

prejudice the achievement of local or national waste management targets in England[.]” 

The waste hierarchy is described in Annex C to PPS10 and is best illustrated using the 

diagram below, taken directly from the document: 



21

Against the background set out above: 

� The proposed Power and Recycling Centre does not conform with the waste 

hierarchy, as, to run it at the capacity for which it is designed, it will be necessary to 

compete for waste that would otherwise be capable of being recycled. 

� The Application, if granted, is likely to prejudice the achievement of waste 

management targets in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and in Lincolnshire: if the 

Power and Recycling Centre were to succeed in attracting customers from 

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and from Lincolnshire, it risks prejudicing the 

sustainability of the pre-existing facilities for waste management in those areas. 

As will become apparent from the comments below, the entire Environmental Statement is 

predicated on not only the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy being found to be ‘sound’ but 

also on a similar outcome to the site specific allocations DPD. Given that neither event has 

occurred and that there are significant concerns over both the Core Strategy and the 

consequent DPD, the assumptions that underlie the ES are erroneous and no attempt has 

been made to assess the proposal against national policy. 



22

Involvement of the County Council in the Decision Making Process 

There are concerns over the ability of the County Council to deal objectively with this 

application as Minerals and Waste Local Planning Authority. These have been well 

rehearsed elsewhere and are merely summarised here: 

� Norfolk County Council is the PFI-partner to Cory Wheelabrator, which has lodged 

the Application. If the application is not passed, Norfolk County Council will be liable 

to pay a £20.3 million penalty to Cory Wheelabrator. The risk of its decision being 

tainted by the appearance of bias has only been heightened by the recent disclosure 

that Conservative County Councillors met prior to the County Council’s 7 March 2011 

Cabinet Meeting to determine how, en bloc, they would vote on the award of the PFI 

contract to Cory Wheelabrator. (They did vote to award it to Cory Wheelabrator.); 

and 

� Unless called-in by the Secretary of State, the matter will be determined by a 

Committee of Norfolk County Councillors. Compared with a local public inquiry, that 

is not a forum in which the planning merits of the application can be fully tested and 

in which interested parties can make substantial and detailed contributions. 

Given these concerns, representations have been made to the Secretary of State to call the 

application in for his determination using powers under Section 77(1) of the Town and 

Country Planning Act 1990. 

Assessment of Alternative Sites 

The ES contains an assessment of alternative sites. Although the Non-Technical Summary 

states that this is not a requirement of the EIA Regulations, this assertion is incorrect. The 

need to consider alternative sites stems primarily from the requirements under EIA 

Regulations. The Regulations state “An outline of the main alternatives studied and an 

indication of the main reasons for this choice taking into account the environmental effects” 

should be included in the ES. Paragraph 83 of Circular 2/99 which accompanies the 

Regulations notes that: “Although the Directive and the regulations do not expressly require 

the developer to study alternatives the nature of certain developments and their location may 

make the consideration of alternatives a material consideration…” 

The applicant states that ‘The purpose of carrying out this Alternative Site Assessment 

(ASA) is to provide an assessment that determines whether the choice of site for the 

proposal is robust based on a ‘high level’ up-to-date comparative analysis of potential sites 

within Norfolk’ (Appendix 16.1, page 2, para. 1.1.5). 

The appraisal scoring took place under a number of key headings termed ‘positive 

attributes’: Site Allocation and Policy; Planning Vision; Sensitive Human Receptors; 

Landscape and Visual Consideration; Natural Environment; Historic Environment & Built 

Environment; Road Access; Rail or Water Transport; Energy Utilisation; Flood Risk; 

Groundwater Vulnerability; Aerodrome Safeguarding Zones; Air Quality Management Area 

(AQMA); and Proximity to Waste Arising. 



23

The table below is the summary of the 9 shortlisted sites in relation to how they scored in 

terms of their positive attributes. 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 

1 Beck Farm, East Bilney, East Dereham 6 

2 KL Technologies, Estuary Road, King’s Lynn 10 

3 Harling Road, Snetterton 10 

4 

Costessey Transfer Station, Longwater 

Business Park 

5 Blackborough End, Landfill Site, Middleton 9 

6 Pit off Mill Drove, King’s Lynn 7 

7 Carstone Pitt Blackborough End, King’s Lynn 7 

8 Willows Business Park, King’s Lynn 12 

9 SPC Atlas Works, Lenwade 8 

11 

No. of Positive 

Attributes 

With regard to the table above, at paragraph 4.1.4., the applicant states that “In summary the 

Willows Business Park site tested more favourably than the other assessed sites based 

upon the alternative site study criteria. The Willows was assessed as having 12 positive 

attributes and on this basis it is considered the choice of Proposal Site is robust and the 

most suitable in the study area for accommodating a waste facility to manage residual 

municipal waste arising within the administrative boundaries of NCC”. At paragraph 5.1.14 

the applicant states that “The two sites with the highest number of positive attributes using 

the ASA’s criteria are Site 8 (Willows Business Park) which had 12 positive attributes 

whereas Site 4 (Costessey) which had 11 positive attributes. However, Site 4 is too small to 

accommodate the Proposal in its entirety…”. Finally at paragraph 5.1.16 the applicant states 

that “On this basis, therefore, it is concluded that the choice of site is robust and that there 

are no other suitable sites available for the proposed development than Site 8 (The Willows 

Business Park, King’s Lynn)”. 

In light of the weight placed upon the ASA, there are grave concerns with regard to its 

robustness. 



24

The table below shows the scoring for the The Willows in the ES. 

Criteria Description Appraisal 

1 Site Allocations & Policy 

2 Planning Vision for the Area 

3 Sensitive Human Receptors 

4 Landscape and Visual Considerations 

5 Potential Impacts on the Natural Environment 

6 

Potential Impacts on Historic Environment & Built 

Heritage 

7 Road Access 

8 Rail or Water Transport X 

9 Energy Utilisation = 

10 Flood Risk 

11 Groundwater Vulnerability 

12 Not within Aerodrome Safeguarding Zones 

13 Not within Air Quality Management Areas 

14 

Within 10 miles of either Norwich Policy Area, Gt 

Yarmouth urban area, King’s Lynn or Thetford 

Within the short timescale allowed by the County, it has not been possible to look at the long 

list of 59 sites which was whittled down to the short list of 9 and has not had time to look in 

detail at the other 8 sites in the shortlist. But, with regard to the ASA, and taking each 

‘positive attribute’ in turn, the LPA has the following observations: 

Site Allocation and Policy 

The Site Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD) used in the consideration of this 

element has not been adopted nor considered sound and its use is inappropriate as the 

basis for assessment. Furthermore there is an inconsistency between Sites 6 and 7. 

Planning Vision 

The DPD used in the consideration of this element has not been adopted nor considered 

sound and the LPA therefore question is appropriateness as the basis for assessment. The 

uncertainty over DPDs relating to saved and proposed waste sites makes this element of the 

ASA very difficult to consider at this time. 



25

Sensitive Human Receptors 

No residential units within 200m of site boundary 

X Site is within 100m of a settlement 

= Residential units 100-200m from site boundary 

Whilst the criteria (see above) states ‘no residential units within 200m of the site boundary’, 

when this issue is discussed in the summary pages of each site, the key figure used is 250m 

not 200m. The LPA therefore suggest that there is a typographical error in the criteria box 

and that it should read ‘no residential units within 250m of the site boundary’; subsequently 

‘=’ would read ‘residential units 100-250m from site boundary’ - these changes are clearly 

the original intention and keep the criteria box in line with the supporting text. This change 

would not effect the scoring of any other site, but would remove a positive attribute from the 

Willows. 

Officers suggest the criteria for this element should be as outlined in the table below. 

No residential units within 250m of site boundary 

X Site is within 100m of a settlement 

= Residential units 100-250m from site boundary 

According to the criteria Site 1 should be ‘=’ not ‘X’. 

Landscape and Visual Consideration 

Site not within a landscape designation, is well screened or is 

located within industrial area 

X Site within or adjacent to a national landscape designation 

= Site within open countryside, adjacent to open countryside, and / or 

within Local Landscape Areas 

Whilst The Willows falls within ‘ ’ it also falls within ‘=’ being adjacent to both open 

countryside and a an area previously acknowledged to have locally significant landscape 

value as an Area of Important Landscape Quality in the previous Local Plan. Officers 

believe a positive attribute is incorrect, and, in line with the scoring of Site 2 (Site 2 being on 

the edge of an industrial estate, but also adjacent to open countryside) should be awarded 

‘=’. 

Natural Environment 

This criterion is based on geographical proximity to designated sites and not on the actual 

potential to impact upon them. 

Historic Environment & Built Environment 

It should be noted that officers believe Site 7 should be ‘=’ not ‘ ’. 

Road Access 

The site is 1.1km to the south of the Saddlebow Roundabout and the A47. The LPA would 

query whether this is adjacent to a strategic/primary road network. It is clear from the 

comments made later on in this report that the impact of the development upon both the 

strategic and primary road network is unclear at this stage. Consequently, awarding the 

Willows site a positive score is premature and it should be awarded ‘=/?’. 



26

Energy Utilisation 

There does appear to be some inconsistency in the scoring of this criterion. For example, in 

the assessment of Site 4 at Costessey, the ES concludes that there may be the opportunity 

to serve local villages whilst with regard to Site 7, which is 300m from the village of 

Blackborough End, there is no mention of the potential to supply the village. Whilst this 

inconsistency does not affect the scoring for the site at the Willows, it is further evidence that 

the assessment is not robust. 

Flood Risk 

According to the Local Authority’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Climate Maps (the maps 

used to govern development in the Borough) the site is located in Flood Zone 3 (see below). 

Groundwater Vulnerability 

Officers cannot comment on this aspect of the findings of the ASA. 

Aerodrome Safeguarding Zones 

Officers cannot comment on this aspect of the findings of the ASA. 

Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) 

Officers have no comment to make on this aspect of the findings of the ASA. The impacts of 

the scheme at the Willows specifically are referred to below. However, the development 

does not have to be within an AQMA to affect it and there is no indication in the assessment 

as to which of the other sites could affect any other AQMAs in Norfolk. 

Proximity to Waste Arising 

The 10 miles radius of a centre as an arbitrary figure - waste is coming from the whole of 

Norfolk not just the immediate centre. This criterion is not representative of the proximity of 

the facility to the waste it will be receiving and is predicated on the assumption in the 

emerging waste core strategy that an incinerator will be located in the King’s Lynn area. 



27

Summary of Alternative Site Assessment 

Taking the above findings into consideration, officers believe that the scoring for The Willows 

could be as outlined below: 

Criteria Description Appraisal 

1 Site Allocations & Policy 

2 Planning Vision for the Area 

3 Sensitive Human Receptors = 

4 Landscape and Visual Considerations = 

5 Potential Impacts on the Natural Environment 

6 

Potential Impacts on Historic Environment & Built 

Heritage 

7 Road Access =/? 

8 Rail or Water Transport X 

9 Energy Utilisation = 

10 Flood Risk X 

11 Groundwater Vulnerability 

12 Not within Aerodrome Safeguarding Zones 

13 Not within Air Quality Management Areas 

14 

Within 10 miles of either Norwich Policy Area, Gt 

Yarmouth urban area, King’s Lynn or Thetford 

As such, your officers believe The Willows site has 8 positive attributes, not 12. This places 

a number of shortlisted sites either equal to or higher than The Willows. Indeed, on this 

revised scoring, only 3 sites would have a lower score than The Willows, 1 would score 

equal to it and the remaining 4 would score higher. Therefore, The Willows should not be, 

and should never have been considered ‘the most suitable [site] in the study area’. 



28

The highest scoring site, if the scores for the other sites remained the same, would then be 

Site 4 (Costessey). It is stated in para. 5.1.14 that ‘Due to its limited size Site 4 would only 

potentially be able to accommodate the EfW facility element of the proposal…The IBA 

Recycling Area would need to be accommodated elsewhere’. However, officers suggest 

that the close proximity of sites in the ‘Safeguarded Waste Sites for South Norfolk’, together 

with the ‘Potential Waste Sites for South Norfolk’ means that both the EfW facility and the 

IBA Recycling Area could be accommodated within these sites. Of further interest is that 

WAS82 has been ruled out for ‘landscape reasons’ even though in the supporting text it 

states that “…there may be possibility to locate certain facilities on the western edge of the 

site…”. (Prior to its removal, WAS31 abutted WAS82 at its north western most point.) 

Officers believe that the assessment described in the preceding paragraphs shows elements 

of inconsistency and of manipulating the figures to suit the site at the Willows. The 

Alternative Site Assessment is therefore considered to be far from robust. 

Furthermore, the lack of an adopted DPD makes any assessment almost impossible and the 

most recent documents out for consultation seem to have been written on the basis that The 

Willows is a fait accompli. 

Traffic and Transport 

In commenting on the Scoping Opinion (a document produced to identify the scope of an ES 

before it is prepared) the Highways Agency stated that ‘there will be a need to 

manage…traffic in order to avoid peak flow periods such [sic] that the continued operation of 

the Saddlebow interchange is not compromised”. 

Chapter 6 of the ES sets out the transport assessment of the impact of the development. It 

assumes that traffic will be distributed evenly throughout the day with a total of 270 two way 

movements (135 in, 135 out) comprising of staff, refuse vehicles and other deliveries. Of 

these, 30 two way movements will occur in each highway peak (morning and afternoon). 

There are a number of issues with the assumptions made. First of all, the Borough Council’s 

Waste and Recycling Manager comments that the figures ignore the fact that Refuse 

Collection Vehicles tip more than once a day and does not include light commercial vehicles 

delivering fridges, street litter and street sweepings. Consequently, the figures represent an 

underestimate of vehicle movements. Secondly, the assumption vehicles will arrive 

smoothly across the day is also flawed. Loading and transport rates for locally sourced 

contract waste and light commercial vehicles carrying waste create distinct peaks and 

troughs in delivery and these have not been properly accounted for. 

In considering the Palm Paper application, both Norfolk County Council as Local Highways 

Authority and the Highways Agency as the Trunk Roads Authority stipulated a condition 

should be attached requiring that no heavy goods vehicles shall leave the development site 

during the period between 0800 and 0900 and between 1700 and 1800. Notwithstanding 

the concerns expressed in the previous paragraph, the ES shows 14 HGVs leaving in the 

morning peak and 9 leaving in the evening peak hour. Given the concerns expressed by the 

Highways Agency regarding the need to avoid peak hour traffic, the application has failed to 

demonstrate that the development will not have an adverse impact upon the capacity of 

either the local or trunk road network. 



29

Air Quality & Impacts on Human Health 

The ES concludes that the impact of nitrogen dioxide emissions from the stack upon the 

London Road and Gaywood Clock Air Quality Management Areas will fall within acceptable 

limits. Although small the increase in nitrogen dioxide levels will still be contrary to the aims 

of the Air Quality Action Plan to reduce NOX levels below UK Air Quality Objectives. 

Consultants acting for the Council therefore recommend that mitigation should be sought to 

attempt to off-set the increase and suggest this should go towards schemes that would help 

reduce vehicle usage and/or emissions in the two AQMAs. 

The same consultants, AQC, find that there are omissions and inaccuracies in parts of the 

ES. For example, there are inaccuracies in the approach to assessing the impact of 

emissions from traffic generated by the proposal and the ES does not cover the impact upon 

human health of dust and heavy metal concentrations as a result of handling the incinerator 

bottom ash. These and other issues are recorded in the Environmental Health section’s 

comments above. Until they are addressed, it is recommended that a holding objection is 

lodged as at the moment the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of PPS23 ‘Planning 

and Pollution Control’ as the impacts and mitigation have not been adequately addressed. 

Landscape and Visual Impact 

The ES concludes that the landscape and visual impact of the development would not 

exceed ‘moderate adverse’. The maximum impact falls upon users of the Nar Valley Way. 

However, this is when the impact is assessed against what currently exists on site. When 

taken cumulatively with other development committed, i.e. that has planning permission, 

such as the sludge combustor at Palm Paper and King’s Lynn C power station expansion, 

the ES admits that ‘there are likely to be some increases in visual impacts. However, the ES 

does not quantify these impacts. 

Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation 

The ES concludes that the site itself has relatively low ecological value, consisting as it does 

primarily of maintained grassland. It also concludes that the impact of the development 

upon designated sites as a result of emissions will be acceptable. The designated sites 

assessed include Roydon Common Site of Special Scientific Interest/Special Area of 

Conservation. 

The conclusion regarding Roydon Common is interesting. In their response to the Scoping 

Opinion Norfolk Wildlife Trust stated that they were particularly concerned at the impact of 

the development upon rare plant communities on the Common that are sensitive to air 

quality and acid deposition. The Wildlife Trust stated that ‘air pollution levels already appear 

to be over critical loading for some of these communities and in our view impacts of the 

proposed plant should be assessed thoroughly with regard to these aspects’. 

Appendix 9.8 ‘Assessment of Air Quality Effects on Nature Conservation Sites’ states, with 

regard to Roydon Common, that the level of acid deposition is greater than 1% of the 

minimum level for the interest features of the site, i.e. it could impact upon the Common. 

However, it then goes on to say that this constitutes less than 0.5% of existing background 

rates of deposition, indicating a relatively high acid loading from existing sources. As a 

result the ES concludes that the ‘relatively small increase…can be considered insignificant’. 

This conclusion seems to be at odds with the concerns expressed by Norfolk Wildlife Trust 

as it ignores the sensitivity of the Common to increased levels of acid deposition. 



30

It will be down to Norfolk County Council as the determining authority to carry out an 

appropriate assessment under the Nature Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 

1994 to assess whether or not the impact upon Roydon Common SAC and other such sites 

is acceptable. Given that the ES does not appear to address the sensitivity of the Common 

to acid deposition, it is difficult see how an appropriate assessment could conclude that the 

impact is acceptable at the moment. 

Flood Risk 

The ES states that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and at low risk of flooding. This statement is 

true, when taken at face value, as the Environment Agency’s and the Borough Council’s 

flood risk maps show that it is in Zone 1 at the moment. However, in 2009 the Borough 

Council adopted its Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and agreed with the 

Environment Agency that for the purposes of development control and strategic planning the 

predicted Flood Zones for 2115 should be used. These zones show exposure to the 1 in 

200 year flood risk event. 

These zones are used throughout the Borough and have been used to inform the Core 

Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) that will be 

issued later on this year. They are also used for assessing planning applications; for 

example Palm Paper was assessed using these flood zones. 

Using the agreed protocol for assessing development in the Borough puts the development 

in an area at high risk of flooding. Consequently, the sensitivity of the development to 

flooding needs to be more carefully assessed. 

PPS25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ places different kinds of development into different 

vulnerability classes. For example, ‘Waste Treatment’ is classified as being ‘Less 

Vulnerable’ to flooding. However, there is another category of ‘Essential Infrastructure’ that 

includes ‘Essential utility infrastructure which has to be located in a flood risk area for 

operational reasons, including electricity generating power stations…’. 

Part of the function of the Energy from Waste is, as the name implies, to generate energy. 

Indeed, it has to generate energy in order to maintain its position within the waste hierarchy. 

In addition, the proximity to the grid afforded by the Willows is seen as a positive attribute of 

the site in this respect. Consequently, the proposal has many of the elements of ‘Essential 

Infrastructure’ projects, albeit that the ES argues that it should be treated purely as ‘Waste 

Treatment’. 

In order for ‘Essential Infrastructure’ to be acceptable in Flood Zone 3, PPS25 requires that 

the proposal passes, first of all, the Sequential Test. Quoting from Annex D of PPS25, ‘The 

risk-based Sequential Test should be applied at all stages of planning. Its aim is to steer 

new development to areas at lowest probability of flooding’. 

The ES states at Appendix 10.2 that ‘there is no technical requirement to undertake a 

Sequential Testing [sic] as the proposal site is shown to be presently located in an area at 

low risk of flooding…’. Your officers believe that this is wrong given the availability of the 

SFRA and its assessment of climate change and 1 in 200 year flood risk events. The 

‘PPS25 Good Practice Guide’ describes a flood risk management hierarchy as follows:- 

1. Assess the flood risk; 

2. Avoid the flood risk by applying the sequential test; 

3. Control the flood risk by using flood defences; and 

4. Mitigate residual flood risk, e.g. using flood resilient construction. 



31

The SFRA allows development in the Borough to be directed towards areas that would avoid 

the 1 in 200 year flood event, which would come in at point 2 of the above hierarchy. What 

the ES suggests is that mitigation measures are put in place, which is the last point in the 

flood management hierarchy. 

Whilst the ES states there is no requirement for a sequential test, a rather flimsy test has 

been undertaken. However, this is flawed as first of all it uses current flood zones and not 

the 1 in 200 year flood zones and, secondly, it is limited to sites within 10 miles of King’s 

Lynn. The latter criterion has been selected on the assumption that the emerging Waste 

Core Strategy is found to be sound. As pointed out earlier in this report, this is not the case 

and indeed the Borough Council and others have challenged some of the assumptions 

underlying the Strategy. 

The proposals should therefore be subject to a full sequential approach, using the 1 in 200 

year flood risk maps. Given the strategic nature of the proposal, the sequential test should 

be applied across the County. 

This approach is supported by the Environment Agency, which, in its response to the 

Scoping Opinion, stated: 

“The site is shown by our Flood Zone Maps to lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The King’s 

Lynn and West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Climate Change maps 

show the site to lie within Tidal Flood Risk Category 2 and 3 and outside of the designated 

Hazard Zone. Given this risk, the planning application will need to pass the Sequential Test 

and be supported by a site specific flood risk assessment (FRA) to comply with 

PPS25…Although it is noted that the contract period for the PFI is for 25 years only, unless 

Norfolk County Council issue a time limited consent for the development the applicant must 

consider climate change for the development lifetime of commercial proposals (75 years)…”. 

As it stands at the moment, the development does not comply with the requirements of 

national planning policy on flood risk management. 

Socio-Economic Impact 

Policy EC10 of PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ states that planning 

authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications 

for economic growth’. It then sets out a list of criteria that should be applied to development 

proposals. Criteria (d) and (e) in the list states that the planning authority should consider 

the impact of a proposal upon economic and physical regeneration in the area including the 

impact of deprived area and social inclusion objectives as well as the impact on local 

employment. 

Chapter 14 of the ES assesses socio-economic impact of the EFW plant. As noted in the 

comments of the Council’s Regeneration and Economic Development Manager, the project 

will create 40 jobs during the operational phase and 200-300 during the 32 month 

construction phase. The impact of the plant is recorded as being ‘Slight Beneficial’. 



32

However, the assessment concentrates on the employment generated by the project and 

where workers may live. What it does not do is make any attempt to quantify how the 

presence of an EfW plant could affect the ability of the Borough to attract inward invest in 

line with King’s Lynn’s status as a Growth Point and with LDF Core Strategy policies CS01 

and CS03. The Regeneration Manager states that two major employment development 

zones (NORA and the Hardwick Industrial Estate Expansion) are located close to the site for 

the EfW plant and expresses concern that, given the controversial nature of the 

development, there is some concern that the EfW plant could discourage investment 

decisions by both existing and new business investments. 

In the absence of information to address these concerns, it has to be concluded that the ES 

does not adequately address criteria (d) and (e) of policy EC10 in PPS4 and could also 

adversely impact upon Core Strategy policies CS01 and CS03. 

Amenity 

This covers noise, vibration, dust and odour. The comments of the Council’s Environmental 

Health section are recorded previously in this report. From these comments, the impact of 

the development can be adequately controlled through the use of appropriate conditions, as 

has been done on other consents in the area. 

Currently, the ES proposes no mitigation for noise during the construction period other than 

by following best practice in a site management plan. Environment Health express concerns 

at this approach and suggest that construction work is limited to within certain time periods 

over the 32 month construction period. This would bring the development in line with other 

major construction projects in the area, including Palm Paper. Without these conditions, the 

development would be contrary to guidance in PPG24. 

CONCLUSION 

The proposal to site an Energy from Waste Plant on the Willows Business Park is flawed. It 

has not been correctly assessed against relevant national policy contained in PPS1, PPS10 

and EN3 and indeed is contrary to a number of the provisions within those documents. For 

example, it does not conform to the ‘proximity principle’, which states that waste should be 

processed near to where it is generated and it would not respect the waste hierarchy as it 

would compete for waste that could be dealt with by more appropriate measures such as 

composting. Because it does not respect the ‘proximity principle’ and because of its location 

on the western edge of the County area it is supposed to serve, the EfW does not represent 

a sustainable form of development. 

The assumptions underlying the ES are also flawed. It assumes that the emerging Waste 

Core Strategy will be found to be sound and that the same will happen to the consequent 

Site Specific Allocations DPD. Given that there remain unresolved concerns over the ability 

of the Core Strategy to actually produce a coherent network of appropriate waste 

management facilities to deal with the forecast amounts of waste over the plan period, 

relying upon the emerging policies rather than the current national ones carries a high level 

of risk and is wrong in planning terms. It also unnecessarily and inappropriately restricts the 

assessment of alternative sites for the proposed development. 

Technically and regardless of the policy issues, the ES is inadequate as submitted. It fails to 

adequately address the flood risk to which the development is exposed; does not adequately 

demonstrate that the development will not have an adverse impact upon the road network; 

does not adequately assess the cumulative landscape and visual impact of the scheme and 

neglects the sensitivity of Roydon Common SSSI/SAC to acid deposition. Consequently, the 



33

proposal is also contrary to PPS25, PPG13 and PPS9. It fails to either adequately address 

the impact of the EfW upon inward investment in King’s Lynn, contrary to PPS4, or to 

propose adequate mitigation to protect residents from dust, odour and noise, contrary to 

PPG24 and PPS23. 

Consequently, the Board is recommended to:- 

� Object for the reasons outlined at the end of this report; 

� Reserve the right to submit further detailed comments given the unreasonably tight 

timescale allowed for comment on an application of such significance, size and 

complexity; and 

� Request that the application should be dealt with by the Secretary of State in the 

interests of fairness, impartiality and because of the level of opposition to the scheme 

expressed by the public. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

A) OBJECT on the following grounds:- 

1) Reason The proposed Energy from Waste Plant is geographically isolated from the 

areas in which waste will be created and has poor transport links to those areas. It 

consequently fails to respect the 'proximity principle' that waste should be disposed of in 

one of the nearest appropriate installations and, as a result represents an unsustainable 

form of development that is contrary to policies expressed in PPS10 'Planning for 

Sustainable Waste Management' and PPS1 'Delivering Sustainable Development'. 

2) Reason There is evidence to suggest that the level of residual waste available will not be 

sufficient to supply the proposed Energy from Waste plant. In light of contractual 

arrangements between the developer and the County Council, if the levels of residual 

waste are lower than predicted, the proposed plant will compete for what waste is 

available with other means of dealing with that waste that are higher up the waste 

treatment hierarchy such as re-use and re-cycling. Over the life time of the plant, it will 

prejudice the ability of the minerals and waste local planning authority to develop more 

appropriate means of dealing with residual waste and is therefore contrary to national 

government policy as expressed in PPS10 'Planning for Sustainable Waste 

Management' and in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure 

(EN-3). 

3) Reason The assumptions underlying the Environmental Statement and in particular the 

assessment of alternative sites, are unsound in that the document is predicated upon not 

only the Waste Core Strategy _ Waste Development Management Policies being found 

to be 'sound' but on the same being true for the Site Specific Allocations Development 

Plan Document. Given that there are outstanding concerns over the ability of the Waste 

Core Strategy to deliver a coherent mechanism to deal appropriately with the County's 

waste and that consultation on the Site Specific Allocations DPD has not yet closed, this 

assumption is flawed and inappropriately constrains the terms of reference for the 

Environmental Statement. 

4) Reason The assessment of alternative sites in the Environmental Statement is flawed 

and inconsistent. There is good reason to believe that, if a more robust and consistent 

means of assessment been applied, other sites would have been equally or more 

preferable to the site at the Willows. 



34

5) Reason The information presented in the Environmental Statement indicates that the 

development will generate peak hour HGV movements. Given the concerns expressed 

by the Highways Agency over this issue at the Scoping stage of the ES and errors in the 

assumptions about traffic flows and distributions throughout the day, the applicant has 

failed, at this stage, to demonstrate that the development will not adversely impact upon 

the local and trunk road network. The proposal is therefore contrary to national 

government guidance in PPG13 'Transport'. 

6) Reason The Environmental Statement fails to adequately address the cumulative 

landscape and visual impact of the proposed development when considered with other 

committed development in the area. 

7) Reason The Environmental Statement does not appear to adequately address concerns 

expressed at the Scoping stage of the project by Norfolk Wildlife Trust. These concerns 

related to the impact of acid deposition upon plant communities on Roydon Common, 

which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a European-designated Special Area of 

Conservation. Unless and until these issues are addressed, the proposal is contrary to 

Planning Policy Statement 9 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation' and to the 

provisions of the Nature Conservation (Natural Habitats _c.) Regulations 1994 (as 

amended). 

8) Reason The Environmental Statement fails to follow the procedures agreed between the 

Environment Agency and the Local Planning Authority for assessing flood risk in the 

Borough, which is aimed at directing development to areas at lowest risk of flooding. 

Consequently, the approach adopted in the ES underestimates the risk of flooding and 

fails to follow the hierarchical approach to flood risk management set out in PPS25. As a 

result, the development is contrary to central government guidance in PPS25 

'Development and Flood Risk' and the associated good practice guide. 

9) Reason The Environmental Statement fails to identify that the proposed Energy from 

Waste plant has features in common with 'Essential Infrastructure' as described in Annex 

D to PPS25. As a result, the ES fails to adequately apply the Sequential Test to site 

location that is required before 'Essential Infrastructure' should be considered acceptable 

in Flood Zone 3. The Sequential Test that has been carried out is flawed in that it does 

not use the approach agreed between the Environment Agency and the Borough Council 

and, in addition, is inappropriately constrained as a result of the assumptions made 

about the Waste Core Strategy referred to in (3) above. 

10) Reason The Environmental Statement fails to adequately address the impact of the 

proposed Energy from Waste plant upon the ability of King's Lynn to continue to attract 

inward investment in line with its status as a Growth Point. Until this issue is addressed, 

the proposal is contrary to criteria (d) and (e) of policy EC10 in PPS4 'Planning for 

Sustainable Economic Growth' and could also adversely impact upon Core Strategy 

policies CS01 and CS03 

11) Reason The Environmental Statement fails to adequately address the impact of the 

development during construction and operation upon residential amenity in terms of 

noise, odour and dust. Unless and until this issue is addressed, either through the use of 

appropriate conditions or by the submission of additional information to quantify the 

impacts, the development is contrary to national government guidance in PPG24 

'Planning and Noise' and central government policy in PPS23 'Planning and Pollution 

Control'. 



35

12) Reason The Environmental Statement contains a number of omissions and inaccuracies 

in its assessment of the scheme’s impact upon air quality. These detailed issues will be 

raised in separate correspondence from the Council’s Environmental Health Section and 

until and unless they are addressed the Borough Council is of the view that the ES has 

failed to adequately assess the impact of the proposal upon air quality and is therefore 

contrary to central government policy expressed in PPS23 ‘Planning and Pollution 

Control’. 

B) The Board RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD TO, ELABORATE ON AND REVISE 

these comments given the unreasonably tight timescale given by the County Council for 

comments to be made on an application of this size, significance and complexity. 

C) The Board REQUESTS THAT THE APPLICATION BE DEALT WITH BY THE 

SECRETARY OF STATE in the interests of fairness, impartiality and because of the 

level of opposition to the scheme expressed by the public. 

BACKGROUND PAPERS 

Application file reference: 11/01064/CM 

Norfolk Structure Plan (1999) 

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (1998) 



36

10/01419/FM 

Barwick Hall Farm Barwick Road Barwick 

Scale: 

1:25000 


37 

SLA Number 



1:25000 

08 April 2011 

100024314

Parish: Barwick 


Proposal: Wind farm development of six 3-bladed horizontal axis wind 

turbines each up to 126.5m maximum height to blade tip with 

associated electricity transformers, underground cabling, access 

tracks, road widening works. Crane hardstandings, control 

building, substation compound, communication mast for a period of 

25 years. Temporary works include construction compound, 

laydown area, rotar assembly pads, turning heads, welfare facilities 

and four guyed masts 

Location: Barwick Hall Farm Barwick Road Stanhoe King's Lynn 

Applicant: RES UK And Ireland Ltd 

Case No: 10/01419/FM (Full Application - Major Development) 

Case Officer: Miss G Richardson 

Tel: 01553 616457 


7th December 2010 

Reason for Referral to DCB – At the discretion of the Executive Director as the application 

raises issues of wider concern. 

Case Summary 

The application site comprises an area of farmland 200 hectares in extent, with an existing 

means of vehicular access, off Barwick Road, Stanhoe. The proposal seeks full planning 

permission for 6 wind turbines of up to a tower height of 80m with a maximum height to 

blade tip height of 126.5m. The windfarm would have an installed capacity of 13.8MW. 

Jack's Lane bounds the eastern boundary of the main part of the application site, where the 

proposed six wind turbines would be sited. Whilst the main part of the site is largely open in 

character, it includes hedgerows, hedgerow trees, and Hundred Acre Plantation in a fairly 

central position within the site. 

This application was deferred at the April meeting of the Development Control Board. This 

was on the basis of late correspondence from Natural England withdrawing their objection to 

the proposal. 

Key Issues 


Policy Context; 

Landscape and Visual Impacts; 

Wildlife Issues; 

Cultural Heritage; 

Residential Amenity and Noise; 

Traffic and Highway Issues; 

Footpaths and Bridleways; 

Socio-Economic Issues; 

Aviation and Communications; and 

Third Party representations. 

10/01419/FM Development Control Board 


38

Recommendation 

REFUSE 


The application site comprises an area of farmland 200 hectares in extent, with an existing 

means of vehicular access off Barwick Road, Stanhoe. Barwick Hall Farm lies at the western 

edge of the main part of the site (excluding the existing access) and includes a dwelling, in 

addition to a range of farm buildings. The application site also includes the route of a 

proposed new vehicular access, which would be used during the construction and 

decommissioning phases, running south and eastwards. 

Jack's Lane bounds the eastern boundary of the main part of the application site, where the 

proposed six wind turbines would be sited. Whilst the main part of the site is largely open in 

character, it includes hedgerows, hedgerow trees, and Hundred Acre Plantation in a fairly 

central position within the site. 

Residential properties nearby are fairly sporadic in this rural location. The village of Stanhoe 

is located to the north of the site. 

Whilst the site has no statutory designations within its boundary, it is close to a number of 

designated areas. These areas include Syderstone Common SSSI and the Scheduled 

Ancient Monuments of Beaufoe's Manor in South Creake, Creake Abbey, Syderstone 

Barrows and the Bloodgate Hill Iron Age Fort. 

The proposal seeks full planning permission for 6 wind turbines of up to a tower height of 

80m with a maximum height to blade tip height of 126.5m. The maximum output for each 

turbine would be 2.3MW, giving a total output of up to 13.8MW (enough to power 

approximately 8000 homes). An anemometer mast, up to 4 guyed meteorological masts 

(80m in height located to the north of turbine number 3 (T3)) and a communication mast 

(10m high located within the substation compound) are also proposed. A substation (south 

west of T3), access tracks and ancillary infrastructure would also be provided. The 

construction compound would be located to the south west of T3. 

Two wind turbines would be sited to the south of the Hundred Acre Plantation, whilst the 

remaining 4 wind turbines would run parallel with Jack's Lane track. Planning permission is 

sought for a period of up to 25 years, the anticipated operational life of the wind turbines. 

The applicant has also asked for mico-siting of the turbines. The LPA note that Inspectors 

have taken different stances on the issue of mirco-siting. Some have attached micro-siting 

conditions; others have not attached such a condition, where others have taken an approach 

relating to specific turbines within the scheme. 

The planning application includes an Environmental Statement (ES) and planning statement. 

The ES covers the following issues: 

Volume I - Non Technical Summary of the detailed Environment Impact Assessment 

Volume II - The full Environmental Impact Assessment which contains technical and 

supporting information 

Volume III- Figures and plans referred to in text of Volume II 



39

A draft unilateral undertaking has now been submitted with the application which relates to 

mitigation measures on pink-footed geese proposed by the applicant. 

The planning statement considers the policy background and then considers the policy 

framework impacts on:- 

� Landscape and visual impacts; 

� Ecology and hydrology; 

� Cultural heritage; 

� Noise and other issues; and 

� Transport and access. 

There is another proposal for windfarm development at Chiplow, which lies to the southwest 

of the Jack’s Lane site. That application is considered elsewhere on this agenda. 


The applicant makes the following statements in support of the application: 

‘The proposal is for a wind farm of 6 three-bladed, horizontal axis wind turbines, each up to 

126.5m maximum height to tip. The development would have associated electricity 

transformers, underground cabling, access tracks, road widening works, rotor assembly 

pads, crane hardstandings, control building and substation compound, communications mast 

and a permanent free-standing wind monitoring mast. During construction and 

commissioning there would be a number of temporary works including a construction 

compound, laydown area, access track turning heads, welfare, and 4 guyed metrological 

masts up to 80 metres high (indicative hub height).’ 

‘The wind turbines have to be spaced apart; otherwise they will interfere with one another 

aerodynamically. The permanent land take is limited to the area of the towers and the gravel 

path around them, the access tracks leading to them, the crane hardstandings, the control 

building and the substation.’ 

In addition, the supporting documentation also states that the turbine location is covered with 

soil approximately 1m deep, leaving only the concrete or steel plinth to which the steel tower 

is attached. The plinth is approximately 4.5-5m in diameter with a crushed stone border up to 

1.5m wide. There is an external high voltage (HV) enclosure housing a transformer and 

switchgear, approximately 3m x 6m in area and 3m in height on a concrete plinth 7m x 4m 

sited adjacent to each tower. 

The on-site access tracks will be typically 5m wide on straight sections with widening at 

bends (up to 13m) and passing places. It is proposed that the off-site widening works at the 

junction of the A148 and B1454 and at the junction of the B1454 and Barwick Road will be 

made with grasscrete or similar to retain a vegetated appearance. The total length of access 

track across the site would be approximately 4km in total. Shoulders each side of the track 

will be required approximately 1m wide but these would be reinstated after construction. 

Other equipment necessary for the length of the project consists of a substation compound 

(9m x 27m) with a 1m wide gravel border on all sides, control building adjacent to the 

substation compound, 27m x 13m, with a 3m wide concrete loading area along it's length, 

each turbine location would need to be on hardstanding for assembling the cranes and for 

the cranes to stand on. The layout of the hardstanding areas varies upon the manufacturer 

of the turbine. There would be a temporary land take for the construction compound which 

would require an area of up to approximately 60m x 50m. There will also be temporary 



40

hardstanding areas at the turbine locations for the crane booms to be assembled; the turbine 

rotors and for turbine parts to be laid down prior to erection, land intake is dependant on 

layout. An area of hardstanding maybe required during the construction phase for laying 

turbine components down (approximately 50m x 50m). Three turning heads would be 

constructed for the duration of the construction period and then reinstated. 

The final turbine type has not been chosen (tower and rotor dimensions vary little between 

manufacturers) and the colour could be secured by condition. RES requested that 50m 

micro-siting for turbines and associates infrastructure. Although RES has now indicated that 

they would be prepared to accept a condition that allowed micro-siting of 30m for turbines 

and other infrastructure, and that micro-siting of greater than 30m but less than 50m would 

only be allowed with prior written approval of the LPA. This would allow for possible 

variations in ground conditions across the site which is not known at this stage. The ES 

assess that access tracks and crane hardstandings are able to be micro-sited to fit with the 

turbines and to avoid sensitive sub-surface features. 

It is confirmed that turbines begin generating automatically at a wind speed of around 3-4 

metres per second and have a shut down wind speed of around 25 metres per second. It is 

estimated that turbines would be shut down owing to high winds speeds for one hour per 

year. 

The point of connection into the grid system is proposed to be east of the site by the minor 

road at East Common. Connection would be by underground cabling. The precise route will 

be subject to a separate application by the district network operator (EDF) under the 

Electricity Act 1989. 

The sub-station compound would contain power quality improvement equipment, up to two 

auxiliary transformers, and possibly a spare turbine transformer. The control building 

required at the sub-station would accommodate metering equipment, switchgear, the central 

computer system and electrical control panels. In addition there would be facilities for 

maintenance personnel. A 10m high free-standing communications mast would be located 

within the substation compound. A wind monitoring mast is also proposed for ongoing wind 

speed monitoring and assessment up to 80m in height. 


07/00725/F to allow the continued standing of 70 metre temporary anemometer mast for a 

further 12 months. Withdrawn prior to determination. 

07/00725/F Continued standing of 70 metre temporary anemometer mast for a period of 18 

months (renewal). Permitted 07/96/07 (Delegated) 

05/01692/F Erection of 70m temporary mast. Permitted 18/10/05 (Delegated) 

2/03/2300/F Erection of temporary 70 metre high telecommunications mast. Permitted 

19/02/04 (Delegated) 

Adjacent relevant applications 

10/00883/FM - A wind energy development comprising the erection and 25 year operation of 

five wind turbines with a maximum blade height of 100m and up to 50m -micrositing, 

together with ancillary infrastructure including on-site access tracks, hard standing areas, 

control buildings and cabling and a permanent anemometer mast at Land Between 



41

Bagthorpe Barmer And Syderstone known as Chiplow, Main Road, Bagthorpe, Norfolk – 

Refused 10/05/11. Appeal lodged. 


Please note that the following represents a summary of the consultation responses. 

Bircham Parish Council: OBJECT The development will result in visual intrusion within an 

Area of Important Landscape Quality, contrary to policy 4/6. The site is close to an AONB 

and would be clearly visible from the setting of the AONB contrary to policy 4/5 of the Local 

Plan the proposal also contravenes the Norfolk Structure Plan policy ENV3. It is noted that 

the anemometer mast was erected some distance from the nearest turbine (over 1.5kms) 

and therefore there is no accurate data in respect of wind speed and sheer. This makes in 

impossible to provide reliable evidence that the noise levels will conform to standard 

ETSU/R/97. As a result of there being no on-site anemometer mast means that there is no 

reliable evidence that the development complies with PPS1, PPS7, PPS22 and ENG2. 

Insufficient account has been taken of the cumulative impact of the other two wind farms 

proposed at Docking and Chiplow. At Docking permission has been given for an 

anemometer mast as a precursor for a 7 turbine development whilst an application for a 5 

turbine development has been submitted for Chiplow. The impact on every facet of our rural 

life would be overwhelming. The 4 turbines along side Jacks Lane bridleway represent a 

serious risk of the turbine blades shedding ice upon pedestrians and horse riders, not to 

mention risk of movement and noise from the turbines spooking horses. The turbine located 

along side the public track along the northern boundary of the site presents the same 

concern. The site is extensively used during the winter months by large flocks of Pink Footed 

Geese. This bird is endangered species and is on the RSPB Amber Alert list. There are 

substantial risks of collision injuries and of the birds being driven off their feeding grounds 

contrary to PPS9. 

North Creake Parish Council: OBJECT The development would be an industrialisation of 

the rural landscape; it would be a visual intrusion within an Area of Important Landscape 

Quality and would probably be visible from the AONB, contrary to policies 4/6 and 4/5 of the 

King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan. The height of the turbines means that they will 

loom over other residential or historical buildings and be seen for miles around. There are 

significant intrusions to the local landscape; it is impossible to place 6 400 foot structure into 

a landscape where the tallest object is no more than 100 feet tall and do so in a manner 

which is sensitive to the character and appearance of the local area, it is therefore 

considered contrary to policy ENV3 of the Norfolk Structure Plan. Concern is expressed in 

relation to wildlife and more specifically Pink Footed Geese and the substantial risk of 

collision injuries during low visibility conditions. The RSPB objection is endorsed and it is 

considered the proposal contravenes PPS9. Such a peaceful and tranquil area as the 

proposed site should be retained. The extensive costs that will be incurred installing the 

turbines will far outweigh the benefits. 

South Creake Parish Council: OBJECTION on the basis of visual intrusion and damage 

which could be caused on the cable route to Egmere. 

Stanhoe Parish Council: OBJECT The development would be an industrialisation of the 

rural landscape; it would be a visual intrusion within an Area of Important Landscape Quality 

and would probably be visible from the AONB. It will mar views from the countryside walks in 

the vicinity of the site and will detract from the beauty of the area. It is feared further 

applications will follow. Concern that there is no accurate data in respect of wind speed and 

wind shear and no accurate forecast of the noise levels from the turbines within Stanhoe 

itself. There is concern in relation to noise generation which could be heard at night if 



42

esidents had there windows open- this is unacceptable. The proposal will have an adverse 

impact upon tourism and the development itself will create very little economic benefit with 

few jobs being created once built. There is strong concern that the development will have a 

negative impact upon property prices- there appears to be no provision for compensation for 

this. It is considered that there is insufficient information in terms of the cumulative impact of 

this application and Chiplow. If both submissions were approved Stanhoe would be at the 

centre of what would amount to a very large wind farm development. It is believed that the 

warning lights to aircraft will lead to light pollution. Concern that Pink Footed Geese will be at 

risk when flying over the site, this risk would not diminish even if sugar beet was not grown 

on the site. It is requested that a restrictive condition is attached should permission be 

approved in relation to construction times. 

Syderstone Parish Council: OBJECT these giant industrial structures would be out of 

keeping with the Area of Important Landscape Quality, contrary to policy 4/6 of the King's 

Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan. The site would be adjacent to the AONB and would be 

clearly visible and dominate the skyline view from the Norfolk coast and also from the Grade 

1 listed buildings at Holkham and Houghton Hall. In addition it would adversely affect the 

setting of the ancient monument Iron Age Hill Fort at Bloodgate Hill contrary to PPS5. If a 

dwelling would not be permitted why should, something of this nature be permitted? It is 

stated that there is a growing consensus that wind farms should not be located within 2km of 

residential properties; a precautionary approach is suggested, as once approved the 

decision can't be rescinded. Local polls have shown that a majority of the local people are 

against the development 85% in South Creake, 80% in North Creake and 78% in 

Syderstone. The cumulative effect of three possible wind farms- Chiplow, Jack's Lane and 

Fring has not been given adequate attention. Concern about future schemes that could see 

the amount of turbines increase. If both schemes were permitted there would be an increase 

in problems of shadow flicker, low frequency sound waves, sleep disturbance, poor 

television reception; which there would be little remedy for. Concern is also expressed in 

terms of the impact the development would have on tourism. There is strong concern that 

the development will have a negative impact upon property prices- there appears to be no 

provision for compensation for this. It is believed that the warning lights to aircraft will lead to 

light pollution. Finally there is also concern expressed in relation to Pink Footed Geese and 

potential collision injures particularly during events of poor visibility and impact on other 

ecology. 

Thursford Parish Council: OBJECT Detrimental to the environment and landscape. 

West Rudham Parish Council: OBJECT 

� Visual impact on an Area of Important Landscape Quality and AONB, contrary to 

saved Local Plan policies 4/5 and 4/6 and to Norfolk Structure Plan policy ENV3; 

� No Anemometer mast erected some distance from the site and there is consequently 

no accurate data on wind speed and wind shear making it impossible to provide 

reliable evidence that noise levels will conform to relevant standards; 

� Lack of an anemometer mast makes it impossible to evidence that the development 

complies with renewable energy policies; 

� No account taken of cumulative impact of development with other proposed 

developments; 

� Impact of blades shedding ice upon pedestrians and horse riders 

� Impact of development upon Pink-footed geese population. 

North Norfolk District Council: No response received. 

Norwich International Airport: NO OBJECTION provided it is constructed as shown on the 

submitted drawings. 



43

National Air Traffic Services (En-route Safeguarding): NO OBJECTION 

MOD Defence Estates: NO OBJECTION In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests 

that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with 25 candela 

omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes 

per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. If permission is 

granted certain information will be required including the date construction starts and ends, 

maximum height of construction equipment, latitude and longitude of every turbine. 

CAA: NO OBJECTION The development has the potential to impact upon aviation 

operations and activities in a number of ways. In an effort to gauge the scale of any such 

impact the CAA has been previously involved in consultation related to the subject proposal. 

It is confirmed that there are no site-specific observations. 

Natural England: NO OBJECTION RES have submitted a draft section 106 agreement, 

intended to secure the delivery and management of the Goose Refuge area as mitigation for 

predicted impacts on Pink footed geese. However, as stated in previous correspondence it is 

our view that the proposal represents a likely significant effect on the North Norfolk Coast 

SPA. The adverse effect on integrity could be overcome by planning conditions, obligations 

or other legal agreements, hence the objection is removed. The Council as the Competent 

Authority must determine this application via an Appropriate Assessment to demonstrate 

compliance with the Habitat Regulations 2010. 

RSPB: OBJECT as we consider it represents an unacceptable risk to pink-footed geese. 

Management of collision risk in the area to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as geese 

numbers would likely remain high and there would continue to be attractive crops grown that 

encourage geese to forage inland, and thus possibly fly through or near to the wind farm. 

It is further added that the pink footed geese using this site are features of the nearby North 

Norfolk Coast and Wash SPA's North Norfolk Coast and Wash SSSI. It is critical that the 

proposal is thoroughly assessed to ensure these designated sites are not adversely affected. 

The RSPB's opinion is that the Jack's Lane proposal does pose a likely significant effect, 

(and without appropriate mitigation for the proposals impacts on pink footed geese foraging 

in the wider area) a risk of an adverse on the designated sites will have to be concluded. 

In subsequent correspondence received since April it is confirmed that the RSPB remain 

unconvinced that sufficient mitigation will be provided, or that sufficient certainty is provided 

that measures such as a goose refuge area will be delivered. The proposed refuge area will 

be 72ha, this fails to account for displacement effect and collision risk, it is considered the 

number of pink-footed geese have been underestimated. RSPB estimate that a 128ha 

refuge area would need to be provided to give greater certainty that the refuge may be 

effective in reducing impact on pink footed geese. The entire refuge area would need to be 

provided for the entire 210 day period that geese are present in the area. Concern is raised 

in relation to the estimate of geese which is a mean count. 

Disappointment is expressed that there is no mention of turbine shut down which is 

considered vital to the project. Such a condition has been attached to other wind farm 

proposal. Failure to have this option available to address unforeseen effects of the wind farm 

further fails to underestimate the importance of the area for pink-footed geese. The RSPB 

maintain its objection based on inadequate mitigation and lack of certainty that the measures 

proposed can be delivered. 



44

Norfolk Wildlife Trust: OBJECT Avoidance rates greater than 98% are not appropriate in 

this location and calculations based on 98% pose a likely significant impact on the Norfolk 

Coast SPA. From our observations these birds may fly large distance at wind turbine height 

when searching for new foraging areas and it is hard to predict exact routes even if cropping 

patterns are stable. Large numbers of geese fly regularly at night in this area and there 

doesn't appear to be a clear pattern in relation to feeding areas. Feeding does not 

predominantly take place during daylight hours and large numbers remain inland at night, 

often in periods of low visibility. It is concluded that it would therefore be difficult to mitigate 

for collision risk to these species. 

Norfolk Coast Partnership: NO OBJECTION From the information submitted the 

development will be clearly visible from a number of areas within the AONB which have 

valuable qualities of wilderness and absence of human development. High numbers of 

visitors look landward from the coast path. The impact, however, is not significant enough to 

register a strong objection. Concern is also expressed in relation to the cumulative effects of 

onshore and offshore wind developments. The information submitted demonstrates the 

significant impact of the ring of offshore wind farms and how the arc is significantly extended 

into the onshore views by the addition of Barwick Hall Farm development. 

English Heritage: OBJECT the turbines are in open countryside with the potential to cause 

harm to the settings of multiple designated heritage assets. Further information submitted by 

the applicant has allowed us to conclude that impact on several heritage assets will not 

result in significant harm to their settings. However, three sites remain of concern; Church of 

All Saints, (Barmer), Houghton Park, and Bloodgate Hillfort. PPS5 policy HE10. 1 requires a 

local planning authority to favour proposals that preserve those elements of an historic 

assets setting that contribute to or better reveal the significance of the assets. In this case 

three highly important historic assets have not achieved this - harm to those aspects of their 

settings will result from the proposal. 

PPS5 policy HE1.3 states that the LPA should weigh the public benefit of mitigating the 

effects of climate change against harm to the significance of heritage assets. In light of the 

significance of the heritage assets concerned and the individual and cumulative harm to their 

settings we would object to the application. 

Historic Environment Service (formally Norfolk Landscape Archaeology: NO 

OBJECTION the archaeological desk based assessment submitted with the application has 

identified some potential for archaeological remains, particularly of Anglo-Saxon to medieval 

date, to be present within the development area. A brief for a geophysical survey has been 

produced by NCC Historic Environment Service. Further archaeological evaluation in the 

form of trail trenching will be required. A condition is suggested if consent is approved. 

Norfolk Archaeological Trust: OBJECT on the grounds it will adversely affect the setting 

of an ancient monument. The sense of place and setting of the Iron Age Hill Fort at South 

Creake and will be significantly disturbed by this development if it were to go ahead. 

Photomontages with the proposed turbines in site on display at the public exhibitions were 

misleading. 

Norfolk County Council – Local Highways Authority: NO OBJECTION The route for 

abnormal load deliveries involves the use of the A47, the A149 and the A148 to Tattersett, to 

the junction with the B1454. The B1454 will be used as far as Hyde Park and along Burnham 

Road. No highway works are needed to cater for these loads except at the junction between 

the A148/B1454 at Tattersett and along the C479 Hyde Park. The improvements to C479 

Burnham Road involve widening to accommodate the traffic associated with the project and, 

in particular the abnormal loads. The works are extensive and involve the provision of 

kerbing with a 100mm upstand separating the existing carriageway from the widening works. 



45

The latter will be formed of unbound compacted stone. It is the intention to provide a number 

of passing places, all of which has been subject of and passed a safety audit. It is noted that 

they will have a significant impact upon the environment of the highway corridor. 

Norfolk County Council - Public Rights of Way: Bagthorpe with Barmer Restricted Byway 

Number 1 is coincident with part of the access route to the site and make the following 

points: 

� Restricted Byways give the public a right of way on foot, riding or leading a horse, 

and with non-mechanically propelled vehicles. There is no public right to drive a 

motor vehicle on a restricted byway. This is separate to any private rights that may 

exist. 

� It must be ensured that each turbine has a minimum separation distance of turbine 

‘fall down height’ (including blades) from any public right of way 

� It is welcomed that alternative routes for the public are proposed to be provided and 

maintained adjacent to access tracks, registered public rights of way must remain 

open, safe and available for public use at all times, even during the construction 

period- should this not be the case a temporary closure should be sought. 

� If the surface of any public right of way is damaged during the course of any works, it 

must be repaired. 

� Although Jack’s Lane is not a recorded public right of way, it is likely that some form 

of unregistered rights do exist- suggested that the above conditions relate to Jacks 

Lane whilst this is investigated. 

Campaign to Protect Rural England: OBJECT the applicant has not produced a separate 

Cumulative Impact Assessment but used the 1-12 turbine capacity criteria to include the 

Chiplow Wind Farm in their assessment. The site and environs are in a designated Area of 

Important Landscape Quality ‘confined’ which is a material planning consideration. The 

North Norfolk Heritage Coast and AONB are only about 4kn from the proposed site- there is 

potential for significant visual and landscape effects. Heritage assets will be significantly 

affected by the presence of the development in this landscape. The proposal will be in 

conflict with the key characteristics and valued attributes of the landscape as clearly set out 

in the Landscape Character Assessment- acknowledged in the Land Use Consultants’ (LUC) 

Report on Wind Turbine Development (2003). There will be significant visual effects on 

residents living in the surrounding villages, as well as negative effects from flicker and noise. 

There is little scope to mitigate the visual impact. It is suggested that a Cumulative Impact 

Assessment of all the permitted and planned wind farms within the 25km-30km radius of the 

site. 

Open Spaces Society: OBJECTION Jack’s Lane is clearly a public highway and this should 

be borne in mind when determining this application. The proposed development due to its 

size and scale would create a severe intrusion into the character and appearance of this 

unspoilt landscape. Current dominant features are church/agricultural buildings, villages, 

trees. Lights on the structure would also represent a visual intrusion. Concern is also 

expressed in terms of noise; the cumulative impact with the Chiplow application, field 

boundaries, and the proposal fails to adhere to the Borough Council’s Landscape 

Assessment, safety concerns and impact upon over-wintering Pink Footed Geese. 

Environment Agency: NO OBJECTION initially a condition was recommended in relation 

to drainage details, however clarification was made that the access tracks will be 

constructed using crushed stone; the tracks will therefore be permeable and will replicate the 

existing greenfield surface water conditions. Therefore we have no concerns regarding the 

proposed surface water drainage and a condition is not considered necessary. 



46

Environmental Health & Housing – Environmental Quality: NO OBJECTION subject to 

condition. 

Environmental Health & Housing - Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance: 

NO OBJECTION subject to condition. 

There have been on-going negotiations with the applicant since the submission of the 

planning application in relation to noise issues/conditions. It is confirmed that a night time 

limit of 40 dB (A) is acceptable. 

Excessive Amplitude Modulation caused by wind shear, normally arises in stable weather 

conditions where the wind speeds are low at ground level and therefore background noise is 

low. The higher wind speeds at hub height cause the turbines to produce more noise which 

will be more noticeable at ground level due to the pre existing low background. Where this 

problem has occurred at residential properties it has resulted significant levels of disturbance 

and disruption to sleeping patterns. In terms of Excessive Amplitude Modulation (EAM) it is 

confirmed that the guidelines within Note 4 in the noise planning conditions is acceptable. 


A total of 667 letters of OBJECTION have been received. Many of the letters objecting are 

based upon a standard letter/ e-mail (containing eight points), although there are also 

bespoke objections. 

The following issues are raised in the standard letter:- 

1. Visual intrusion within an Area of Important Landscape Quality, contrary to policy 4/6. 

2. Close to an AONB and would be clearly visible from the setting of the AONB contrary 

to policy 4/5 of the Local Plan. 

3. Contravenes the Norfolk Structure Plan policy ENV3. 

4. The anemometer mast was erected some distance from the nearest turbine (over 

1.5kms) and therefore there is no accurate data in respect of wind speed and sheer. 

This makes in impossible to provide reliable evidence that the noise levels will 

conform to standard ETSU/R/97. 

5. Lack of on-site anemometer mast means that there is no reliable evidence that the 

development complies with PPS1, PPS7, PPS22 and ENG2. 

6. Insufficient account has been taken of the cumulative impact of the other two wind 

farms proposed at Docking and Chiplow. At Docking permission has been given for 

an anemometer mast as a precursor for a 7 turbine development whilst an 

application for a 5 turbine development has been submitted for Chiplow. The impact 

on every facet of our rural life would be overwhelming. 

7. The 4 turbines along side Jacks Lane bridleway represent a serious risk of the 

turbine blades shedding ice upon pedestrians and horse riders, not to mention risk of 

movement and noise from the turbines spooking horses. The turbine located along 

side the public track along the northern boundary of the site presents the same 

concern. 

8. Site is extensively used during the winter months by large flocks of Pink Footed 

Geese. This bird is endangered species and is on the RSPN Amber Alert list. There 

are substantial risks of collision injuries and of the birds being driven off their feeding 

grounds contrary to PPS9. 



47

The following additional points are also made by objectors:- 

� Wind turbines are poor providers of electricity 

� Windfarms only work when covering vast areas 

� Should put the money in to developing other alternative energy sources 

� Result in contamination to the land- with concrete pads 

� Turbines are very ugly and spoil the beautiful countryside 

� Turbines should be located out to sea or in cities 

� Who will pay up for the clean up of the site? 

� Concern about potential health risks 

� Detrimental impact on property prices 

� Negative impact upon tourist industry 

� Ruin views 

� Benefits only the makers/owners of turbines 

� The site is used by very low flying military aircraft on exercise 

� Concern about impact upon listed buildings 

� Impact upon ecology 

� Noise potential 

� Waste of farmland 

� Landscape photographs not representative of what will be seen 

� Light pollution 

� If this wind farm is permitted others will follow nearby 

� Concern in relation to shadow flicker 

� Cumulative impact of the wind farms on the countryside and Area of Important 

Landscape Quality 

� Impact upon television reception 

� Affect egg lying potential of chickens on adjacent sites 

� Inadequacy of some the survey work contained within the ES 

� Reduce the quantity of farming land available 

� Traffic to the site would be dangerous 

� Adequacy of the mitigation proposed by RES 

� Dispute applicant’s claims about the amount of homes the development would power 

and jobs created 

� Dispute methodology used to establish whether excessive amplitude modulation will 

occur 

Letter of objection from (former) Councillor Ullswater. 

Local campaign groups - CAPE ('Creakes Action for Protecting the Environment'), STROLL 

(Stop Turbines Ruining Our Lovely Landscape) have submitted a number of objections to 

the proposal. The group believes the proposal to be inappropriately sited, having a 

detrimental effect on local residents, as a result of visual intrusion, noise, impact upon 

ecology, flicker and general loss of amenity. 

It is noted within these numbers of representation, some objectors have written in more than 

once. 

A petition has also been submitted with 123 signatures objecting to the proposals. 

732 letters of support have also been submitted. 



48





PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) provides advice on development in 

Conservation Areas and that involving Listed Buildings. 

PPS7 - “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” (2004) aims to promote sustainable 

patterns of development in rural areas and contains specific advice on the consideration of 

applications for agricultural dwellings. 




PPS22 - “Renewable Energy” (2004) provides advice on the consideration of proposals that 

seek to harness energy flows that occur naturally in the environment and requires local 

planning authorities and developers to consider renewable energy opportunities in all 

developments. 







Policy SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development - The strategy seeks to bring about 

sustainable development by applying the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable 

Development Strategy 2005, the elements contributing to the creation of sustainable 

communities described in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All: 

Policy ENV2: Landscape Conservation - Planning authorities and other agencies should, in 

accordance with statutory requirements, afford the highest level of protection to the East of 

England’s nationally designated landscapes and in particularly in Areas of Outstanding 

Natural Beauty (AONB), priority over other considerations should be given to conserving the 

natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. 

Policy ENV3: Biodiversity and Earth Heritage - Planning authorities and other agencies 

should ensure that internationally and nationally designated sites are given the strongest 

level of protection and that development does not have adverse effects on the integrity of 

sites of European or international importance for nature conservation. 

Policy ENV6: The Historic Environment - Local planning authorities should identify, protect, 

conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region, its 

archaeology, historic buildings, places and landscapes, including historic parks and gardens 

and those features and sites (and their settings) especially significant in the East of England. 

Policy ENG2: Renewable Energy Targets - States that the development of new facilities for 

renewable power generation should be supported and identifies targets for the region. 



49



application: 







CS06 - Development in Rural Areas 



CS14 - Infrastructure Provision 


Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to Planning Policy 

Statement 1. 

Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - a good practise guide. 

Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory obligations and their 

impact within the planning system. 

Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22. 

Wind Turbine Development: Landscape Assessment, Evaluation and Guidance – Final 

Report (Land use Consultants, 2003). 

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment – Final 

Report (Chris Blandford Associates, 2007). 


The main issues to be considered for this application are central Government policy on 

renewable energy and targets, landscape and visual impact, wildlife and ecology, cultural 

heritage and residential amenity. Other issues to be addressed include traffic and highway 

safety, access including effect on footpaths and use by horse riders, safety issues and 

aviation issues. 



50

POLICY CONTEXT 

PPS22 ‘Renewable Energy’ was published in August 2004. It is the principal national 

guideline for the determination of application for renewable energy projects. The PPS 

comments that the then Government had previously set a target to generate 10% of UK 

electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. 

The latest Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), which 

was published for consultation in October 2010 along with other documents in the suite of 

National Policy Statements (NPS) on Energy, reflects the current government’s commitment 

to source 15% of the UK’s total energy from renewable sources by 2020 (the commitment is 

given in ‘The UK Renewable Energy Strategy’, DECC, 2009). 

To achieve this goal, PPS22 sets out various key principles to which local planning 

authorities should adhere in setting their approach on renewable energy, as follows:- 

a) Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout 

England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic and social 

impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. 

b) Local development documents should contain policies designed to promote the 

development of renewable energy resources. 

c) At the local level planning authorities should set out the criteria that will be applied in 

assessing application for renewable energy projects. 

d) The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy 

project, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant 

weight. 

e) No assumption should be made about the technical and commercial feasibility of 

renewable energy products. 

f) Small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of 

renewable energy. 

g) Community involvement in renewable energy projects should be fostered. 

h) Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental and social impacts have 

been minimised. 

The Companion Guide to PPS22 sets out technical detail on how local planning authorities 

should assess such proposals. Chapter 8 sets out particular guidance on proposals for wind 

energy. Guidance is provided on:- 

� Other infrastructure (para 18) 

� Access and site roads (paras 21-23) 

� Connections to the electricity grid (paras 25-26) 

� Noise (paras 41-46) 

� Landscape and visual impact (para 47 and section 3, 4 and 5 of the Companion 

Guide) 

� Ecology and ornithology (para 58-63) 

� Shadow flicker and reflected light (para 73-78) 

� Construction and operational disturbance (para 81-83) 



51

At a regional level, the East of England Plan sets targets in policy ENG2 for renewable 

energy generation. It states that 10% of the regions energy needs should be met by 

renewable sources by 2010, rising to 17% in 2020. This document still forms part of the 

Development Plan but recent court decisions have indicated that the government’s intention 

to abolish regional development plans can be a material consideration in determining 

planning applications. 

There are no saved Structure or Local Plan policies that relate directly to renewable energy 

developments. However, the LDF Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document policy 

CS08 states that ‘The Council and its partners will support and encourage the generation of 

energy from renewable sources. These will be permitted unless there are unacceptable 

locational or other impacts that could not be outweighed by wider environmental, social, 

economic and other benefits’. This Document has now been found ‘sound’ by the Planning 

Inspectorate and it is expected to be adopted later in the month. 

The application lies in open countryside and in a locally designated Area of Important 

Landscape Quality (AILQ). The turbines would also be visible from the North Norfolk Coast 

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty so PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ is 

relevant as is saved Local Plan policy 4/6. In addition, there are a number of listed buildings 

and Scheduled Ancient Monuments in within the development’s Zone of Visual Influence so 

PPS5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ needs to be considered. 

A number of protected species are potentially affected by the development. PPS9 is 

therefore relevant to the assessment of the application. Any assessment should also include 

an assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, that 

requires the Council to determine the impact of the development upon the species and 

habitats for which the North Norfolk and Wash Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are 

designated. 

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 

The application site lies within a locally designated Area of Important Landscape Quality 

(saved Local Plan policy 4/6). The landscape within this part of the AILQ is split between 

two types described as ‘confined’ (the western part of the site) and ‘open’ (to the east). The 

North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty lies around 7.5km north of the 

application site. 

In addition, two documents have been published that provide further guidance on the 

character of the landscape and its sensitivity to any development. The first of these was 

produced for the Borough Council and Breckland District Council by Land Use Consultants 

in 2003 and is entitled ‘Wind Turbine Development: Landscape Assessment, Evaluation and 

Guidance’. The second is a more recent publication, again commissioned by the Borough 

Council, prepared by Chris Blandford Associates in 2007 and entitled ‘King’s Lynn and West 

Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment – Final Report’. The latter forms part of the 

evidence base for the Local Development Framework, but the former does not. 

Notwithstanding the status of either of the previous documents, the applicant has referred to 

both in their assessment so it is pertinent to examine what each says about the landscape in 

the vicinity of the application site. 

The Land Use Consultants report (LUC report) ‘provides strategic guidance on the 

landscape factors influencing the location of wind turbines’. It is not, to quote the document 

‘intended to stereotype any landscape for a particular type of development’ and neither does 

it suggest that some landscapes are more suitable for development. Its assessment is 



52

ased on 3-bladed turbines with a tower height of up to 80m. The LUC report identifies the 

site as lying in 2 landscape character types - ‘Rolling Open Farmland’ (landscape character 

type 9) and ‘Plateau Farmland’ (landscape character type 10). 

The LUC report gives a list of key characteristics for each character type. For ‘Rolling Open 

Farmland’ these include:- 

� A medium to large scale landscape with an over-riding sense of openness, wide 

open skies, medium to large field units and the presence of large linear features such 

as shelter belts; 

� Prominent skyline; and 

� Often feels remote and peaceful. 

Whilst the study concludes that this landscape type has moderate capacity for single or 

small scale groups of turbines (2 – 12 turbines) it does point to the sensitivity of the 

landscape in terms of the impact of turbines upon landmarks such as churches and because 

of its sense of remoteness and tranquillity. It also points out that the landscape has a low 

capacity to accommodate anything above the ‘small scale group’. 

For ‘Plateau Farmland’ the key characteristics include:- 

� A large scale landscape; 

� Most elevated landscape in the study area; 

� Skyline is prominent, often uninterrupted and smooth giving way to wide-open skies; 

and 

� The landscape feels for the most part still – having a remote, almost vacant character 

in places. 

Notwithstanding the above comments, the LUC study concludes that ‘Plateau Farmland’ has 

a ‘high’ capacity for accommodating small scale groups of turbines. Within this 

generalisation, the study does state that ‘A small scale group may be appropriate if linked to 

the busy areas of the landscape such as the main transport corridors…however, it would be 

less suited to the more peaceful parts of the landscape type’. 

The Chris Blandford Associates (CBA) report aims to “provide an integrated assessment of 

the landscape character of the Borough…, to serve as a baseline inventory to enable a 

better understanding of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk’s landscapes and for monitoring 

change”. Its objectives are to:- 

� Undertake a systematic survey of the Borough’s existing Landscape Character Types 

to identify areas of distinctive local character. 

� Provide a comprehensive description and evaluation of the landscape character units 

identified within the Borough, integrating field survey information on visual character 

with historic landscape character and biodiversity (including ecological network 

mapping information). 

� Engage key stakeholders in the assessment process to gather views on landscape 

character issues and raise awareness of the project. 

It places the application site in landscape character unit J1 ‘Plateau Farmland: Docking’, 

which it characterises as follows: 

“Situated to the north of the Borough, this large area of gently undulating plateau farmland 

radiates from the large village of Docking at its centre. The western edges of the area are 

situated within Norfolk Coast AONB. Outside Docking, settlement pattern is sparse, 

consisting of isolated farmsteads and small hamlets forming ribbon development along the 



53

oads that cross the area. The village of Docking centres on the church with a landmark 

tower and village pond, Docking Hall and its associated mature parkland landscape. Typical 

of the area are a series of roads (some of them fairly busy e.g. the B1454) radiating out from 

the villages. Farmland comprises generally large, regular shaped fields (separated by low to 

medium mature hedgerows), which are interspersed by small patches of woodland, 

plantations and tree belts, which punctuate the skyline. The patches of woodland provide 

some localised sense of enclosure. Few tracks and footpaths cross the area other than the 

Peddar’s Way and Norfolk Coastal Path. A strong sense of tranquillity, isolation and 

exposure is apparent throughout the open sparsely populated area. Long distance, 

panoramic and open views across farmland are characteristic of the area, contributing to the 

generally large-scale nature of this landscape character area”. 

The CBA report then highlights the following landscape sensitivities of the area: 

� Intact mature landscape structure including belts and copses of (plantation) 

woodland, mature (parkland) trees and patches of intact hedgerow network. 

� Landscape setting of Docking. 

� Coherent and recognisable small-scale settlement density and pattern. 

� Relatively strong sense of tranquillity throughout the area. 

It concludes that development in this area should, amongst other things:- 

� Seek to conserve the largely undisturbed and tranquil nature of the area; and 

� Seek to conserve the panoramic views across the area and adjacent areas. 

Moving on to the assessment of the impact of the proposed development, the submitted 

Environmental Statement (ES) concludes that the character of the area in the immediate 

locality of the site, including CBA landscape character type J1 (Docking) and parts of North 

Norfolk, would experience localised significant effects. However, it then goes on to state that 

the effects would not be significant in terms of the overall character of the area. 

Based in the viewpoint analysis carried out, the applicant concludes that high sensitivity 

receptors (such as residents) will experience effects of ‘Major’ significance at distances up to 

2km away. Beyond this, the effects would reduce to ‘Negligible’ at around 11-15km. It is the 

applicant’s view that within 5km of the site, screening features and topography will largely 

mitigate the visual impact and concludes by stating ‘Both Major and Moderate visual effects 

within these distances are to be expected for any windfarm development of this size and 

should not be regarded as intrinsically unacceptable’. 

To help with assessing the applicant’s case, independent consultants (Shiels Flynn) were 

commissioned to review the material. Shiels Flynn (SF) reviewed the currency of 

background documentation, the LVIA for this application (and that at Chiplow) and the 

cumulative impact upon the landscape of this application and the Chiplow proposals. 

With regard to the LUC report, SF comment that the analysis stands up well despite the 

considerable experience amassed since it was produced. However, they recognise that it 

was prepared in the absence of detailed work on visual representation and cumulative 

impact undertaken by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). SF also point to the reports 

limitations as follows:- 

� It is a strategic study, which deals with issues at a relatively broad brush scale; 

� The landscape characterisation focuses on generic landscape types, rather than site 

specific local character areas; 

� The summary statements and maps for capacity to accommodate wind turbine 

development specifically exclude cumulative impacts; and 



54

� The typical height of wind turbine developments has increased (the LUC report 

considered turbines of approximately 114m to tip height). 

Shiels Flynn comment that whilst the CBA report makes only passing reference to wind 

farms it “should be used as a key part of the evidence base for assessing landscape and 

visual impacts of wind turbine development…”. 

Moving on to the assessment of landscape impact, Shiels Flynn has reviewed the sensitivity 

of the landscape within an area up to 2.5km from the site. They conclude that its sensitivity 

to the proposed development is ‘Moderate’, making it slightly more sensitive than the 

applicant has predicted, i.e. ‘Medium-Low’. Based on this assessment and a review of the 

proposed development, Shiels Flynn estimates that the landscape would experience an 

impact of ‘Medium’ magnitude, which would be of ‘Major-moderate’ significance; again, 

slightly higher than those estimated by the applicant. Overall, the consultant feels that the 

applicant’s assessment ‘slightly’ underestimates the landscape and visual impact of the 

proposed development. 

Shiels Flynn concur with the applicant that the landscape and visual impacts at distances 

further away are unlikely to be material, which includes the AONB. 

Cumulative Visual Impact 

As the Jack’s Lane application was submitted after the Chiplow application, the developer 

was obliged to conduct an assessment of the visual impact of both developments. The 

applicant concludes this assessment by stating that: 

“The two wind farms are sufficiently close together that from viewpoints and landscapes 

beyond about 5km from the sites, the effects of both wind farms will be much the same as 

for just one of the two developments. The regional and local capacity and sensitivity studies 

indicate that with respect to the national and local character areas there is capacity for wind 

farms of up to 12 turbines, indicating that two wind farms of 5-6 turbines each are potentially 

able to be accommodated even if they are relatively close together. The main cumulative 

effects identified are highly localised, principally on landscape character and views in the 

vicinity of Barmer and Syderstone, where the influence of the two wind farms on landscape 

character will be significant and where the two wind farms will be seen in opposite directions, 

with viewpoint 17 presenting the ‘worst case’ view in terms of a clear, close view to both 

wind farms. However, in considering this, it should be noted that the influence of Jack’s Lane 

on the settlements themselves is very limited, with views restricted to the northern edge of 

Syderstone. 

There would be no notable sequential effects on routes through the area and no significant 

cumulative effects on designated landscapes”. 

Shiels Flynn make the following comments on the cumulative landscape and visual impacts 

of the two wind farms:- 

“This review of the cumulative effects section of the Stanhoe LVIA suggests that there are 

predicted to be significant local cumulative landscape and visual effects as a result of the 

development of both windfarms”. 

“This independent review highlights the fact that there would be increased landscape and 

visual effects as a result of both groups of turbines, compared to one single windfarm. The 

key issue to take into account is the overall change in landscape character as a result of 

there being two windfarms within 2.5km of each other - there is a need to take account of the 



55

perceived cumulative effects (on settlements and local residents generally), as well as 

combined and sequential cumulative effects”. 

Third parties have raised concerns about the cumulative impacts of the two developments. 

Objectors have submitted a document prepared by consultants The Landscape Partnership, 

which concludes that there are concerns with how the cumulative impact of the 2 schemes 

has been assessed. It states that ‘Instead of fully addressing the changes in landscape 

character associated with both developments, it [RES’ assessment] refers back to the total 

capacity identified in the LUC guidance of 2003’. 

Concerns have also been expressed about the cumulative impact of the proposals upon the 

AONB. However, on the latter point, there has been no objection from either Natural 

England, which has a statutory duty towards the preservation of the AONB, or from the 

Norfolk Coast Partnership, although the latter body does express ‘concern’ about cumulative 

impacts. 

WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGY 

The application site does not lie within a protected area for nature conservation or contain 

any statutorily designated sites. However, it is necessary to consider the potential effects of 

the proposed development upon nature conservation interests, and species which exist 

elsewhere nearby and within the site. Notwithstanding the characteristics of the site, it is 

used by a variety of bird species and bats. 

The ES has identified 7 species of bat near to the application site. A maternity roost of 

brown-long eared bats was found just outside the site boundary at Barwick Hall Farm. It is 

noted that bats arising from this roost did not appear to make substantive use of the site. 

The most abundant and frequently recorded species was the Common Pipistrelle with the 

second most abundant species being the Soprano Pipistrelle. In summary the distribution of 

bats was mainly limited to locations around hedgerows, pond on Jack's Lane and woodland 

edge habitats. 

No evidence of badgers was found within the application site during either the badger survey 

or any other survey work undertaken. 

No great crested newts or natterjack toads appear to be located within the application site. 

Three species of amphibian were recoded; these species are smooth newt, common toad 

and common frog. 

Brown hares (priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan) were observed on several 

occasions during survey visits in 2009. Five animals were seen at any one time located just 

outside the southern boundary of the site. 

A small herd - a stag and four does - of non-native deer were observed on one visit along 

the westernmost track. 

A variety of bird species have been observed in the vicinity of the site or have the potential to 

be affected by the development. Of particular interest is the over-wintering population of 

Pink Footed Geese that forages in the area. 

The application is within approximately 7km and 15km of land which forms part of the North 

Norfolk Coast and the Wash Special Protection Areas (SPA) respectively. A Special 

Protection Area (SPA) is an internationally designated site as classified under the EC Birds 

Directive (79/409/EEC) and the UK is bound by the terms of the EC Birds Directive and The 



56

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994, as amended (the ‘Habitats 

Regulations’) which provide for the legal protection of European sites. The wintering 

population of pink footed geese is an interest feature of these sites, and this species; Pink 

Footed Geese, is known to forage on surrounding arable farmland. Therefore, the location of 

the proposal in relation to these European sites and the results of the Collision Risk Model 

mean that the application must be determined in accordance with the requirements of the 

Habitats Regulations. 

Natural England (NE) has considered the potential effects of the proposal specifically in 

terms of breeding and over-wintering birds - Stone Curlew, Montagus Harrier, Marsh Harrier 

and Pink Footed Geese. 

The mitigation proposed by RES is detailed within a draft unilateral undertaking. The 

mitigation includes the provision of a refuge area (agricultural land that is, or has reasonable 

potential to be frequently used by pink-footed geese). The fields within the refuge shall 

satisfy the following criteria: 

� Be within the Qualifying Area; 

� Be Sugar beet fields that will be harvested within the Goose Wintering Season; 

� Each be of at least ten hectares in size, and one area of land (whether comprised of 

one or more parcels of land) should be a minimum of twenty hectares in size; and 

� Not be located adjacent to main A roads. 

The developer shall evidence to the Monitoring Group that the refuge has been managed as 

above for a period of 30 days. 

Notwithstanding the above the refuge may consist of an area(s) totalling more than 72 

hectares over a shorter period than 30 days; the number of hectares managed multiplies by 

the number of days the area(s) is managed is at least 2160. If the figure is less than 2160 

the Monitoring Group shall be entitled to withdraw the mitigation proportion sum (formula 

provided) from the mitigation fund (£110,000). The developer has 60 days in which to pay 

money back into the mitigation fund to return the balance to the original level. 

If the developer is unable to provide the refuge because the proprietor(s) of the area(s) of 

land within the qualifying area are unwilling to enter into an agreement with the developer, 

the developer shall supply evidence to the Monitoring Group of its offer(s) of appropriate 

financial compensation (£8.24 for each day that a hectare is to be managed RPI index 

linked; formula given) to all relevant registered proprietor(s) of the land identified by the 

developer. 

Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit the proposed refuge 

management scheme for the refuge for the Council’s approval; copies to also be provided to 

the RSPB and NE. This would need to be approved by the Council, if no response is 

received within 6 weeks the refuge management scheme shall be deemed to be approved. 

Each December the developer shall invite the Council, RSPB, NE and NWT to inspect the 

refuge and invite comments on the establishment of the refuge and implementation of the 

refuge management scheme. If the Council do not inspect the refuge within 10 days of the 

receipt of any request the developer will have no further obligation to request inspection and 

it shall be deemed satisfactory. 

If however the Council chooses to inspect the refuge at any time and requests the developer 

undertake any actions reasonably required to comply with the refuge management scheme 

then the developer shall comply with the Council’s request as soon as reasonably 

practicable. 



57

A refuge management scheme survey shall be undertaken on an annual basis and a copy 

provided to the Council, RSPB, NE, NWT and monitoring group. 

If the developer seeks amendments to the refuge management scheme a report shall be 

submitted the Council has a six week period to respond. 

Since the April DCB report was prepared, NE have confirmed the removal of their earlier 

objection, is subject to some amendments to the unilateral undertaking and the possibility of 

the shutdown of one or more of the turbines should post-construction monitoring identify the 

location of a turbine/s as particularly problematic for pink-footed geese. Whilst NE 

understand the implications of this may have for funding of the proposal, given these 

concerns NE recommend that such a condition is attached. 

The RSPB also request a condition of this nature should the application be approved. In an 

e-mail from RES dated 20th March 2011, in response to comments from the RSPB and in 

relation to amendments to the unilateral undertaking it is stated by RES ‘your suggested 

amendments to the S106 UU summarised below, are not accepted by us as they are neither 

practicable nor necessary.’ It is considered by officers that if RES are unwilling to 

accept/comply with such a condition, it is questioned if this should indeed be attached to any 

approval. 

However the Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) and the RSPB share a similar stance in relation to 

the proposed mitigation package for impact on Pink Footed Geese and raise an objection to 

the proposal (as detailed earlier in the report). 

A legal view was sought on the unilateral undertaking to inform the LPA of whether or not the 

undertaking would comply with the Habitat Regulations. Doubt is raised in terms of the 

certainty of providing the refuge area; the undertaking is the provision of the refuge area to 

mitigate the impact of the development, yet the undertaking only requires that the land for 

the refuge should be secured prior to the commencement of development. It is put forward 

that it would be more certain if the undertaking provided that the refuge area had to be 

secured and ready for use prior to commencement of development. The land comprising the 

refuge is not clearly identified (which makes it difficult to monitor and enforce) within the 

undertaking, and greater comfort would be given if this had already been secured and 

identified in the undertaking. This would enable the Council to require all those with an 

interest in that land to enter into the undertaking to ensure that they are bound by it 

provisions. It is also noted that the undertaking makes some requirements on the Council; 

the undertaking should provide only the obligations to be carried out by the developer and 

not obligate the Council. Such an approval would require the agreement of the Council. It is 

concluded that this raises significant doubt as to the mitigation required to make the scheme 

acceptable is certain or achievable. 

Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations requires that before deciding to give any consent 

to a project which is: 

a) Likely to have a significant effect on a European Site (either alone or in 

combination with other plans or projects); and 

b) Not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, to 

make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of its 

conservation objectives. 

The procedure for doing an appropriate assessment is set out in Circular 06/2005 

‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the 

Planning System’. 



58

In this case, the proposal is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of 

the site but may have a significant effect on a European site (North Norfolk and Wash SPA), 

in terms of its use by Pink Footed Geese which is reinforced by the comments of Natural 

England, as well as the RSPB and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust. 

Consequently, with legal doubt cast on the mitigation proposed to reduce the impact upon 

the geese, the conclusion of the Appropriate Assessment is that, solely with regard to the 

impact upon the SPA, ‘permission must not be granted’, particularly as the developer has not 

demonstrated that there are other, alternative sites either within the Borough or outside it 

that could accommodate the development without impacting upon the SPA. 

CULTURAL HERITAGE 

Planning Policy Statement 5; Planning for the Historic Environment is relevant to the 

determination of this application. Policy HE1 (heritage assets and climate change) provides 

guidance in determining applications where there is conflict between climate change 

objectives and the conservation of heritage assets. It states that the public benefit of 

mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the 

significance of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles 

in this PPS and national planning policy on climate change. In addition Policy HE10 

(additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for development 

affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset) states ‘When considering applications 

for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should 

treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive 

contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications 

that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider 

benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the 

heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval’. 

PPS5 provides a definition of setting and states that it is: 

‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may 

change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive 

or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate 

that significance or may be neutral.’ 

In terms of archaeology your officers are satisfied that the proposed development would not 

cause any adverse impact on archaeology and that a suitably worded condition (as 

recommended by Historic Environment Service) would ensure adequate monitoring during 

construction. 

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 

establishes the need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of 

listed buildings. 

There are 38 listed buildings within 2.5 km of the centre of the site; this includes grade II 

listed buildings in South and North Creake. Grade I and II* listed buildings were also 

identified that lie within 10km of the centre of the proposed development. 

The ES concludes that in respect of indirect adverse impact, there is a likelihood of medium 

term reversible impact of lower moderate and moderate magnitude (respectively) upon the 

setting of two visible heritage assets (Grade I listed churches); the assets themselves are of 

national importance, whilst the setting detriment would be of local-to-regional significance. 

The ES states these impacts are to be managed, through mitigation by agreed screening 



59

einforcement and/or through appropriate compensatory measures, designed to result in an 

overall neutral effect. 

In addition in respect of indirect cumulative impact (Jack's Lane and Chiplow), there is a 

likelihood of medium term reversible impact (above and beyond the impact from Jacks Lane 

alone) of lower major magnitude upon the setting of one visible heritage asset (Grade I listed 

church); the asset itself is of national importance, whilst the setting detriment would be of at 

least regional significance. Were this cumulative impact arise it would not be capable of 

mitigation. 

Supplementary information was submitted following initial concerns raised by English 

Heritage (EH); this looked more specifically at: 

� The Houghton Asset Group (Houghton Hall, The Square Houghton Park, The 

Watertower and Houghton Hall South Lodges) 

� Bloodgate Hill Fort 

� Barmer Church 

� North Creake Abbey 

� Stanhoe 'Market ' Cross 

� Bircham Newton Church 

The degree of impact will be dependant on distance from the turbines and the status of the 

asset is a fundamental consideration. The turbines, due to their height, are visually dominant 

and this is most likely to be apparent when viewed in relatively close proximity to the asset. 

English Heritage have provided consultation responses in respect of this application and 

whilst some of the initial concerns raised have been addressed, strong concerns still remain 

in relation to Barmer Church, Houghton Park and Bloodgate Hill Fort. 

In relation to Barmer Church, a statement of significance has been produced but this does 

not actually state what is significant about the church or the contribution its setting makes to 

that significance. The assessment does not make reference to qualities of the landscape 

setting of the site or what that might contribute to the significance of the building or an 

appreciation of it. EH also consider that the Church has always been in a rural setting and 

despite changes to the landscape since its foundation this remains the case. The 

assessment submitted by the applicant states that ‘glimpses of the church within its 

woodland clump setting are just sufficient to draw the observer inwards to the intimate 

surroundings of the churchyard’. This sentence suggests the quiet, peaceful atmosphere in 

the churchyard which so befits this ancient place of worship and aids an appreciation of its 

significance as such. On a less intimate scale the wider setting of the site also does this, but 

this is not stated, nor the impact of introducing the turbines into that setting considered. 

The new illustrations provided by the applicant show how the turbines will intrude into views 

of the site when approaching from the west and when inside the churchyard. While this 

wider landscape has many modern characteristics, such as the size of fields and relative 

lack of hedges, it is still peaceful, rural and a compliment to the church. The stillness and 

greenness of this wider landscape reflects the character of the churchyard and so aids an 

appreciation of the church’s significance when outside the churchyard. The turbines are 

large, mechanical and dynamic - very much at odds with the landscape and will impinge on 

an appreciation of the site, especially when approaching it. English Heritage would therefore 

conclude that they will harm the wider setting of the church. The Chiplow turbines will be 

less prominent, but will combine with the Jack’s Lane development to introduce a sense of 

intrusive motion into the setting of the site. 



60

With regard to Bloodgate Hill Fort, which is a Schedule Ancient Monument, it is noted by EH 

that it is a designated asset and through meeting the scheduling criteria it is recognised as 

being of national importance. The Iron Age works also survive to a reasonable height. In 

terms of the Monument at Risk Register, its status has been reduced to low because of the 

Norfolk Archaeological Trust's guardianship and the management is positive and beneficial 

to the archaeology. There are very few sites of this nature in the East of England, and it is 

one of only seven Iron Age ring works or forts in Norfolk. East Anglia does not have the 

same type or scale of monument as those in the south and west of the country, which fit the 

traditional model of Maiden Castle or Caer Caradoc. This example should therefore, be 

recognised for its distinctness and regional rarity, and could be seen to be as important as 

the larger and more famous monuments elsewhere in the south and west. It is further added 

that the undeveloped rural nature of the landscape around the hill fort should be considered 

as part of its setting. The views from the monument, including the sweeping vista from the 

north-west through to the south-west are an integral part of the setting. EH have therefore 

objected to the application. 

Norfolk Archaeological Trust (who own the site) has objected on the grounds of the adverse 

impact of the development upon the Iron Age Fort at South Creake; this is discussed in more 

depth above. 

There are three Registered Parks/Gardens in the wider area: Holkham Park (Grade I), 

Houghton Park (Grade I) and Raynham Park (Grade II). It has been concluded by English 

Heritage that the development would not affect either Holkham Park or Raynham Park. 

However, there remain concerns regarding Houghton Park. Despite the new assessment of 

the historical development of the Park and the identification of principal axis and boundary 

woodland, the computer modelled ZTV illustrates visual impact upon part of the northern 

park and water tower, which falls within the grade I registered landscape. In addition, this 

drawing illustrates significant impact upon the setting of the park by direct visual impact upon 

land to the north in and around Bircham Common. Consideration of the text, images and 

drawings provided by the applicant also suggests to English Heritage that the level of impact 

upon the registered park and the setting of specific listed buildings within it could increase. 

Based upon the present evidence available, English Heritage concludes that these large 

structures with moving blades will visually intrude into the wider setting of the registered park 

and listed buildings in a manner harmful to their significance and visitors experience of them. 

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY AND NOISE 

Noise 

The operational noise from the proposed wind farm has been assessed in accordance with 

the methodology set out in the 1996 DTI Report ETSU-R-97 'The Assessment and Rating of 

Noise from Wind Farms'. This document provides the basis for assessing the operational 

noise impact of a wind farm, as recommended by PPS22: Renewable Energy (2004). 

The ES concludes that the wind farm would comply with relevant guidance on wind farm 

noise and the impact on the amenity of all nearby properties would be regarded as 

acceptable. The Council's Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance (CSNN) Team 

have negotiated with the developer since the submission of the application acceptable levels 

taking into account the rural nature of the site and low background levels. 



61

ETSU-R-97 states that separate noise limits should apply for day and night time as during 

the night time the protection of external amenity becomes less important and the emphasis 

should be on preventing sleep disturbance. In areas of very low background, the introduction 

of a new noise source can cause disturbance and dis-amenity at levels lower than 43 dB (A). 

The night time background noise measurements within the Environmental Statement include 

measurements as low as 16.3 and 17.6 dB(A) at wind speed of 4 m/s and 25.6 and 27.9 dB 

(A) at a wind speed of 7 m/s. A limit of 43 dB (A) at this location allows for noise to increase 

by as much as 26.3dB (A) during wind speeds of 4 m/s. A 10 dB increase is perceived as a 

doubling of noise and a 20 dB increase is perceived as quadrupling of the noise. This is 

considered to be unacceptable. PPS 22 acknowledges that the difference between the noise 

of the wind farm and the background noise is liable to be greatest at low wind speeds. 

Excessive Amplitude Modulation (EAM) caused by wind shear, normally arises in stable 

weather conditions where the wind speeds are low at ground level and therefore background 

noise is low. The higher wind speeds at hub height cause the turbines to produce more 

noise which will be more noticeable at ground level due to the pre existing low background. 

Where this problem has occurred at residential properties it has resulted significant levels of 

disturbance and disruption to sleeping patterns. 

Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance (CSNN) have recommended 5 conditions 

in relation to noise issues in order to ensure material harm will not result to residential 

occupiers. In addition it is stated for the prevention of dis-amenity or disturbance due to 

noise at residential dwelling, this criteria will not be relied upon in the determination of 

Statutory Nuisance and that if authorised officers of the Borough Council of Kings Lynn and 

West Norfolk are of the opinion that a Statutory Nuisance is being caused by the Wind Farm, 

that they will fulfil their obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

Shadow Flicker 

Under certain circumstances of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass 

behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over nearby properties. When the 

blades rotate shadow flicks on and off. The effect is known as shadow flicker. 

The ES analysis concludes that there is only one house within 930m of any turbine (known 

as ‘The Cottage’). However, no instances of shadow flicker have been predicted to occur to 

this property. 

Reflected Light 

Turbines can cause flashes of reflected light, which can be visible over long distances. It is 

possible to ameliorate the flashing but it is not possible to eliminate it completely. Careful 

choice of blade material and colour can significantly reduce this effect. The applicant 

proposes to use a semi-matt surface finish to reduce the light reflection. It is suggested that 

details of material and colour can be conditioned to ensure appropriate materials are used. 

Ice Shedding 

During periods of extreme cold weather, a build up of ice on turbine blades can occur. If ice 

does build up on the blades there can be instances of ice shedding when the turbine is 

started up. Most wind turbines are fitted with vibration sensors, which can detect any 

imbalance which might be caused by the icing of blades and prevent the turbine from 

operating. Ice shedding can therefore be avoided. 



62

It has been recognised by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal that a suitably worded 

condition requiring the fitting of sensors and the shutting down of the turbines should icing 

occur is a satisfactory way of overcoming this issue and preventing potential harm. 

TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAY ISSUES 

The abnormal load vehicles would travel south on the A47 towards King’s Lynn. The route 

would take the A148 east, then north on the B1454 and Barwick Road to site. Widening 

works would be required at the junction of the A148 and B1454, and along Barwick Road to 

the site. Increased traffic levels would only be experienced during the 12 months of 

construction. Traffic management measures would be implemented prior to, and during, the 

construction phase in consultation with the relevant Highways Authorities and the Police to 

ensure road safety. It is concluded by the agent that the local transport network would be 

able to absorb the additional traffic movements associated with the construction of the wind 

farm and that there would not be significant effect of disturbance on local residents and other 

roads users. The cumulative transport effects of the Jack’s Lane wind farm and the Chiplow 

wind farm have been assessed and are unlikely to have significant effects. 

Unlike most other developments, the main impact on highways associated with this 

development is during construction and decommissioning. The impact on traffic flows during 

construction including the abnormal loads would be noticeable to residents and road users. 

The disruption would be limited to a relatively short period of time, given the operational 

lifetime of the development. 

Norfolk County Council, Highways have confirmed that no highway improvements are 

needed to cater for abnormal load deliveries with the exception at the junction between the 

A148/B1454 at Tattersett and along from Hyde Park and improvements to Burnham Road 

which involve the widening to accommodate the traffic associated with the project. The 

Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposal subject to condition. 

FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS 

There is no statutory separation distance between a wind turbine and a public right of way. 

However, the minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings 

calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and visual impact will often be greater than 

that necessary to meet safety requirements. Fall over distance (i.e. the height of the turbine 

to the tip of the blade) plus 10% is often used as a safe separation distance (para 51 

Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22). Should a micro-siting 

condition be attached this could be achieved. Alternatively a condition could be attached 

stating that no turbine tower shall be sited with a specific distance of the public right of way. 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES 

According to the applicant, the proposal represents a significant capital investment in the 

area of £19 million (approximately) by RES. During the 12 month construction phase it is 

estimated that up to 40 short term jobs will be created. It is estimated that 80% of these 

construction jobs would be sourced locally. Construction could impact on the local supply 

chain as businesses may have the opportunity to provide goods and services. 



63

A number of concerns have been raised by residents on the grounds that the proposed 

development would have an adverse impact on tourism/commerce in the area. Whilst the 

concern is appreciated there remains no compelling evidence to suggest that the proposed 

development would cause any significant loss of business. Furthermore it would be difficult 

to quantify or prove that any loss of business would be directly attributed to the presence of 

a wind farm in the vicinity. 

AVIATION AND COMMUNICATIONS 

Air safety considerations exist in relation to proposed wind turbine development due to their 

physical characteristics coupled with their size and siting. Consultation has been carried out 

with the National Air Traffic Service (NATS). 

NATS En Route Plc (NERL) is responsible for 'the safe and expeditious movement in the enroute 

phase of flight for aircraft operating in controlled airspace in the UK'. To undertake this 

responsibility, NERL has a comprehensive infrastructure of radars, communication systems 

and navigational aids throughout the UK, all of which could be compromised by the 

establishment of a wind farm within their operational ranges. In order to safeguard its 

infrastructure, to ensure its integrity to provide the required services to Air Traffic Control 

(ATC), NERL therefore assesses the potential impact of every proposed wind farm 

development in the UK. 

The Ministry of Defence, Defence Estates (DE), CAA, and National Air Traffic Service 

(NATS) have been consulted and they do not object to the proposal. Subject to a condition 

requiring the provision of obstruction lighting on the proposed turbines, your officers would 

raise no objections to the proposed development on the grounds of adverse harm to air 

safety and aviation in general. 

The possibility of the wind farm interfering with telecommunications links or television or 

radio reception is a consideration. An objection has been raised in relation to radio and 

telecommunications links. In the event that the operational wind farm causes interference to 

television, this would be required by condition to be remedied by the developer. Potential 

solutions include re-aligning existing aerials, upgrading aerials or alternative signals. Digital 

television signals are unlikely to be affected. 

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS 

Third parties have raised a number of areas of concerns. In particular it is highlighted that 

there is no evidence to support the contention that tourism would be adversely affected. The 

possible loss of property value is not a material planning consideration. 

Concerns have been received from local residents with respect to perceived health issues. 

Current Government advice contained in the PPS22 Companion Guide which explains in the 

Technical Annex on Wind why electromagnetic emissions will rarely be a health problem, 

states that there is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from wind 

turbines is sufficient level to be harmful to human health. 

According to the land use gazetteer a wind farm falls within Use Class B2 – general 

industrial. The application site is currently used for farming. Comments have been received 

regarding the inappropriateness of the change of use from agricultural to industrial. 

Following completion of the construction of the wind farm the area around the turbines would 

continue to be used for agricultural purposes as is often the case. The agricultural status of 



64

the vast majority of the land contained within the application site would therefore not be 

undermined to an adverse degree. 

Where objections can be identified as material and are supported by specific evidence, then 

appropriate weight should be given to them. If any such objections cannot be overcome or 

otherwise addressed satisfactorily, they need then to be weighed in the balance along with 

those considerations in favour of the scheme. 

CONCLUSION 

National policies are generally supportive of renewable energy developments. However, 

they do indicate that the developments should be acceptable in all other respects. 

There are many issues to be considered in the determination of this application as discussed 

above. Your officers consider that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed many of these. 

However, there remain concerns in three areas:- 

� Landscape and Visual Impact (individually and cumulatively with the development at 

Jacks Lane); 

� Impact upon the Pink Footed Geese population and consequently upon the Special 

Protection Areas; and 

� Impact upon cultural heritage, in particular upon Barmer Church, Bloodgate Hill fort 

and Houghton Hall Park. 

Consultants commissioned by your officers to review the LVI assessment carried out by the 

applicant broadly concur with the assessment in terms of the wider landscape and the 

AONB, i.e. that the impact will not be significant. 

However, there are concerns that the use of generalised landscape types underestimates 

the sensitivity of the landscape closer to (within 2.5km) the turbines. Consequently, the 

impact upon the landscape is considered to be of ‘Major – moderate’ significance. 

One of the key characteristics of the landscape in the area surrounding the site that comes 

through all the various documents is that it has a strong sense of both isolation and 

tranquillity as well as having open and prominent sky lines. In light of the comments both 

from third parties and from independent consultants, it is considered that the assessment 

has underestimated the impact that the proposed wind farm would have. The introduction of 

turbines into this landscape and in particular the movement associated with them would 

have a material, adverse impact upon its character. The turbines would be dominant 

features in the landscape, drawing undue attention to themselves and detracting from the 

undeveloped nature of the area. The moving blades would also disrupt the tranquil nature of 

the landscape. 

Similarly, the cumulative landscape and visual impact arising from both this development 

and that proposed at Jack’s Lane has also been underestimated. It is considered that this 

impact will cause material harm to both the character of the landscape, in particular its sense 

of peace and tranquillity and isolation. 

The application should therefore be refused both on its individual and cumulative landscape 

and visual impact. 



65

Impact upon Pink Footed Geese 

The arguments on this issue are presented in the main body of the report above. In the 

absence of an adequate programme to mitigate against the impact upon the goose 

population, then the consequent adverse impact upon the Special Protection Areas means 

that, in accordance with the Habitats Regulations, consent should not be granted. 

Cultural Heritage 

English Heritage expresses concerns at the impact of the proposed development upon 

Barmer Church, a Grade I listed building, Bloodgate Hill fort, a Scheduled Ancient 

Monument, and Houghton Hall Park, a Grade I Listed Park/Garden. Policy HE1 of PPS5 

allows the harm to heritage assets to be off-set by the contribution that a project may make 

towards mitigating climate change. 

The proposed wind farm would have a maximum installed capacity of 113.8MW and can 

theoretically provide for 8,000 homes. This is a relatively small project in relation to off-shore 

schemes in the area, such as Docking Shoal, which may have up to 166 turbines and an 

installed capacity of 500MW. 

Whilst the scheme’s contribution to mitigating climate change is recognised, in this case it is 

not considered sufficient to justify the harm caused to the setting of the designated heritage 

assets of Barmer Church, Bloodgate Hill fort and Houghton Hall Park. 

Whilst on-shore wind farm developments can have substantial benefits to society and wider 

environmental aspirations the adverse effects locally in terms of impact on heritage assets, 

ecology, and significance of the impact on the local landscape renders this development 

unacceptable. 


REFUSE for the following reason(s): 

1 The proposed development is considered to have a significantly harmful impact upon 

the landscape character and visual amenity of the landscape in the local area, i.e. 

within 2.5km of the site. This landscape is characterised by open skyline, a strong 

sense of peace and tranquility as well as of rural isolation. The introduction of the 

turbines as dominant, man made features, and in particular the movement associated 

with the blades, will disrupt this character to the detriment of those living in the locality 

and using the various footpaths and roads from which the turbines will be visible. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan 4/6 as well as national government 

guidance expressed in PPS7, which states that Local Planning Authorities should 

ensure that the quality of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, 

enhanced; and in PPS22, which states that the environmental impacts of renewable 

energy projects should be addressed satisfactorily. 

2 The proposed development, when taken with others proposed for the surrounding 

area, is considered to have a significantly harmful cumulative impact upon the 

landscape character and visual amenity of the landscape in the local area. The 

introduction of the turbines as dominant, man made features, and in particular the 

movement associated with the blades, will disrupt this character to the detriment of 

those living in the locality and using the various footpaths and roads from which the 

turbines will be visible. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan 4/6 as 

well as national government guidance expressed in PPS7, which states that Local 



66

Planning Authorities should ensure that the quality of the wider countryside is protected 

and, where possible, enhanced; and in PPS22, which states that the environmental 

impacts of renewable energy projects should be addressed satisfactorily. 

3 The proposed development of 6 wind turbines will adversely affect the setting of 

Bloodgate Hill Fort, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and the setting of Barmer Church, 

as a Grade II* listed building, (which could be exacerbated by any approval of the 

Chiplow Wind Farm, by the introduction of a sense of intrusive motion). The proposal 

is therefore contrary to policy HE10 of PPS5 in that it fails to preserve or enhance the 

setting of these designated heritage assets. It is also contrary to policy HE1 of PPS5 

as the harm caused to the designated heritage assets is not considered to be 

outweighed by the contribution that the project would make to mitigating climate 

change, bearing in mind the relatively modest scale of the development. 

4 Based upon the present evidence available the proposed wind turbines, which are 

large structures with moving blades, will visually intrude into the wider setting of the 

Grade I Registered Park/Garden at Houghton Park and listed buildings within the park 

in a manner harmful to their significance and visitors’ experience of them. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to policy HE10 of PPS5 in that it fails to preserve or 

enhance the setting of these designated heritage assets. It is also contrary to policy 

HE1 of PPS5 as the harm caused to the designated heritage assets is not considered 

to be outweighed by the contribution that the project would make to mitigating climate 

change, bearing in mind the relatively modest scale of the development. 

5 Planning Policy Statement 9, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation includes the 

objective to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England's wildlife, with 

Planning for Renewable Energy - A companion Guide to PPS22 advising that the 

impact of a wind farm on the local ecology should be minimal. Policy ENV3 of the East 

of England Plan (2008) states that the region's wider biodiversity, earth heritage and 

natural resources are protected and enriched through the conservation, restoration and 

re-establishment of key resources. In this instance it has not been demonstrated that 

the impacts upon Pink Footed Geese can be effectively mitigated. The development 

therefore fails to comply with PPS9 and PPS22, Policy ENV3 of the East of England 

Plan 2008. Furthermore the proposed development, by virtue of its potential adverse 

impact upon the Pink Footed Geese and consequent adverse impact upon the North 

Norfolk and Wash Special Protection Areas, would also be contrary to Regulation 48 of 

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c) Regulations 1994 and the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 


Application file reference: 10/01419/FM 





67

11/00991/F 

52 Ryston Road Denver 

Scale: 

1:2500 

FB 

Cattle Grid 

28.7m 

Well 


68 

The Hill House 

SLA Number 

24.1m 

Posts 

Pond 

Elf Wood 

Borough Council King's Lynn & West Norfolk 


1:2500 


100024314

Parish: Denver 


Proposal: Single storey extension to garage to create ancillary residential 

accommodation 

Location: 52 Ryston Road Denver Downham Market Norfolk 

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Howland 

Case No: 11/00991/F (Full Application) 

Case Officer: Mr C Fry 

Tel: 01553 616232 

Reason for Referral to DCB – The applicant is Cllr Howland 

Case Summary 


8th August 2011 

The application site lies on the southern side of Ryston Road within Built Environment Type 

D according to the Local Plan Proposal Maps for Denver. The surrounding land-uses 

comprises of residential single and two storey dwellings and agricultural to the rear of the 

site. 

The application seeks consent to create ancillary residential accommodation. 

Key Issues 

Design, Form and Character 

Impact upon Visual Amenity 

Impact upon Neighbour Amenity 

Trees and Landscape 

Other Material Considerations 


APPROVE 


The application site lies on the southern side of Ryston Road, Denver. The surrounding 

properties are either single storey detached bungalows on large plots or two storey semidetached 

and detached properties. The site has an established Oak Tree that is protected 

under a Tree Preservation Order. The existing property is constructed from multi coloured 

buff and dark brick with dark grey pantiles, elevated above the road. 

Other features to note on site include a detached double garage sited in front of the property, 

gable end on to Ryston Road, 1.8m close boarded fencing on the eastern and western 

boundaries. 

11/00991/F Development Control Board 


69

Access to the site is provided via a block paved drive directly from Ryston Road. 

The proposal seeks consent for an extension to the double garage to provide ancillary living 

accommodation. 


There is no Design and Access Statement with this type of application. 


There is no recent relevant site history. 


Parish Council: OBJECT The development would compromise the original building line, 

effectively create a completely new dwelling and would not be in accordance with the street 

scene. This would also constitute over development of the plot and set precedents for further 

obtrusive developments in the area. 

Highways Authority: NO OBJECTION 

Arboricultural Officer: NO OBJECTION subject to condition 

Internal Drainage Board: NO OBJECTION 

Environmental Health – CSNN: NO OBJECTION 

Environmental Health – Environmental Quality: NO OBJECTION 


The Council have received OBJECTIONS from FIVE neighbouring residents citing the 

following concerns: 

� The view from the properties of no. 50 and 59 Ryston Road will be greatly spoilt and 

will change the whole aspect of the surrounding area 

� The existing double garage could be converted without the need for this extension 

� This will set a precedent to build what is essentially another bungalow in front of the 

existing bungalow 

� Amazed that no observations made by the Council’s Tree Officer of the danger from 

any falling branches on the extension 



70

� Members should visit the site before making a decision 

� The extension will run parallel to the fence shared with no. 50 Ryston Road 

completely dominating the neighbouring front garden 

� This is a case of over development 

� This would adversely affect the sale and value of properties in the area 

� Rules apply as to how close such an extension can legally be built to large trees and 

this should be barred on those grounds 

� This would cause further congestion and safety issues for pedestrians at a point 

where there are already six driveways converging on to the road. There is also 

ongoing barn conversions/new builds on the Forbes site at the top of the road which 

will add to the current situation. 





Circular 10/97 - “Enforcing Planning Control: Legislative Provisions and Procedural 

Requirements” provides comprehensive guidance on enforcement legislation and 

procedures. 


Policy ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment - Local Development Documents should 

require new development to be of high quality which complements the distinctive character 

and best qualities of the local area and promotes urban renaissance and regeneration. 






locality. 


CS11 – Transport 




71


Downham Market Town Design Statement 


The main planning considerations in regards to the application are:- 

� Design, Form and Character 

� Impact upon Visual Amenity 

� Impact upon Neighbour Amenity 

� Tree and Landscape 

Design, Form and Character 

The proposed “L” shaped extension, to the front of the garage, would create ancillary living 

accommodation to 52 Ryston Road. It would provide a studio/gym, bedroom and shower 

room. The extension would scale 8.8m (d) x 6.875m (w) x 4.4m (h) (max. dimensions) built 

from matching brick and tile. The extension would tie into the existing garage at ridge and 

eaves height. The bedroom, shower room and lobby area element of the extension would be 

stepped down at ridge height and stepped back on the east elevation. 

Two double paned, vertically dominating windows would be inserted into the north elevation 

of the extension. Double doors and two velux windows would be inserted on the west 

elevation, and a double paned vertically dominated window with two velux windows above 

on the east elevation. 

It is considered the scale and the design of the extension does not cause any detriment to 

the character of the existing property. 

Impact upon Visual Amenity 

The site cannot be seen from the west and east of the site, by virtue of established conifer 

hedging and trees. 

From the north (opposite the site), it is considered that the extension by virtue of its design 

and scale would not cause any visual amenity issues or break any visual building lines. No 

public views of the extension are afforded from the south by virtue of its siting and scale. 

Impact upon Neighbour Amenity 

The extension to the garage would be sited adjacent to 50 Ryston Road’s (neighbour to the 

west) double garage and be no higher than the existing garage. The extension to the garage 

would be 15.8m to the North West of 54 Ryston Road, and at this distance there is no 

detrimental overbearing or overshadowing issues. The windows in the east elevation would 

afford a degree of overlooking into the front garden/drive to this neighbours property, but this 

area is not afforded as much protection from overlooking in comparison to private amenity 

spaces. The neighbours to the north are separated from the extension by virtue of Ryston 

Road, consequentially they would not be detrimentally affected. 



72


The proposed extension lies within the root protection area of the Oak Tree, which is 

protected by a TPO. However, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the 

application, provided that the development is carried out in accordance with the Tree Report, 

the tree protection plan, the ground plates and ground protection measures that have been 

provided as part of the application. This request is deemed to be reasonable in line with 

circular 11/95 – Use of conditions and a condition is subsequently imposed. 

Other Material Considerations 

The Highways Authority and Environmental Health CSNN and Environmental Quality Teams 

of the Council offer no objections to the application. It is not considered that there would be 

any detrimental impact on the local highway network as a result of this extension, whilst the 

impact on properties sales and values are not material planning considerations. 

Furthermore, tree protection measures relating to the adjacent oak tree can be secured by 

way of a condition. 

CONCLUSION 

The proposal for ancillary living accommodation is not considered to cause any detrimental 

impact upon the character of the dwelling, neighbour or visual amenities by virtue of the 

scale, siting and design of the extension. 

The recommendation is therefore to approve the application subject to conditions. 


APPROVE subject to the imposition of the following condition(s): 

1 Condition The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 

three years from the date of this permission. 

1 Reason To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, as 

amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004. 

2 Condition The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with 

the following approved plans; - “Proposed Extension” drawing no.’s 10220, 10221 

dated June 2011 received 10 June 2011. 

2 Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 


the "Tree Report" received 10th June 2011 and the Tree Protection Plan received 30th 

June 2011 and accompanying details received 23rd June 2011. 

3 Reason In order to retain the visual amenity of the area. 



73


Application file reference: 11/00991/F 





74


Lime House The Green East Rudham 

Pond 

Flint Croft 

w Cottage 

Rose Court 

Scale: 

49.0m 

Crossroads 

The Old Stables 

1:2500 

Manor 

House 

Mulberry Tree 

Mulberry Tree 

House 

Cottage 

The Lodge 

Pond 

TCB 


75 

49.9m 

Jasmine 

Cottage 

St Mary's Church 

PH 

Square 

The 

Church Cott 

Romridge 

49.1m 

Pump 

Cottage Horse White 

Orme 

House 

PO 

Lockinge 

49.2m 

Hideaway Barn The Close 

SLA Number 

Faze Cottages 

The 

Oaks 

Eastfields 

Appledore 

Wensum House 

47.3m 

FB 

100024314 

Rudham 

Hazelwood 

The Hill 

Pond 

Mallard 

Cottage 

50.0m 

East 

Pond 

FB 



1:2500 


Parish: East Rudham 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(c) 

Proposal: Proposed development to create a self contained dwelling to the 

rear of Lime House & Restoration of London House 

Location: Lime House The Green East Rudham King's Lynn 

Applicant: Mrs Meher Vanner 



Tel: 01553 616468 


2nd August 2011 

Reason for Referral to DCB – Referred to the Board at the discretion of the Planning 

Control Manager. 

Case Summary 

The application proposes the renovation and conversion of London House, East Rudham 

from mixed residential/retail to residential as well as the creation of a new, self-contained 

dwelling on the rear garden of Lime House. Both properties are Grade II Listed and lie 

within the East Rudham Conservation Area. London House is on the buildings at risk 

register. 

Key Issues 

Issues raised:- 

Principle of development; 

Listed Buildings and Conservation Area; 

Trees; 

Residential amenity; and 

Highway safety. 


APPROVE 


The application relates to Lime House and London House in East Rudham. Both properties 

lie on the northern side of the A148 in the north-east corner of the Green. St Mary’s Church 

lies to the east of London House and Mulberry Tree House and an associated complex of 

converted barns lies to the west of Lime House. On the opposite side of the A148 lies an 

area of the Green known as The Square. The Crown lies on the eastern side of the Square 

with a number of retail premises to the south of it. There is an area of car parking in front of 

these properties. 

Lime House and London House are set slightly back from the edge of the footpath behind 

railings. Both are Grade II Listed. Lime House is in current use as a private residence. It is 

a seven bay, two storey house dating from the mid-1800s. The last two bays on the eastern 



76

end of the property include an arched gateway that would have provided access to a 

stable/coach house in the rear garden. The house has been extended to the rear with a 

conservatory and wing along the western boundary providing a kitchen extension. The 

garden to Lime House is bounded to the west for about half of its length by the wall of the 

converted barns to the rear of the neighbouring Mulberry Tree House. For the remainder 

there is a 3m high wall. A stable or ‘gig house’ with consent for use as an annex lies on the 

eastern boundary alongside the church yard before the garden to London House starts. 

London House is also Grade II Listed. It is currently on the County Buildings at Risk 

Register. It is slightly smaller than Lime House (3 bays, albeit with more generous 

proportions than Lime House) and dates from a similar period. It is vacant and in a semiderelict 

state. It has a triangular shaped garden to the rear, sharing a boundary with Lime 

House to the west and the church to the east. A lower, two storey later addition has been 

made to the eastern end of London House and was previously used as a shop although the 

shop front is now boarded up with sheeting to prevent access. Beyond this but still in the 

application site is an area of land last used as a petrol station and garage. 

There are a total of 20 individual trees on or adjacent to the application site, which lies in the 

East Rudham Conservation Area and within Built Environment Type C on the Local Plan 

proposals map. 

The application contains two distinct elements: creation of a self-contained unit of 

accommodation in what is now the rear garden of Lime House; and the renovation and 

change of use of London House to bring the entirety of the property (including the former 

shop) into residential use. 

The creation of the self-contained dwelling would be achieved by extending the existing gig 

house for approximately 17m at single storey level along the eastern boundary of the 

garden. This extension would be in line with but just off the boundary wall with the church 

yard and would culminate in a 1½ storey building of the same height as the gig house that 

runs at 90 degrees from the wall for around 13.5m. The plans show that 9 trees would have 

to be removed to accommodate the new build. 

Access to the new dwelling would be to the east of London House across land previously 

used as the petrol station/garage and then across the rear of the garden to London House. 

The garden to Lime House would be sub-divided with 2 parking spaces to the rear, negating 

the need to use the current access via the gateway directly off the A148. Two double cart 

sheds are to be constructed to provide car parking for London House and the new dwelling; 

these would be sited mid-way between Lime house and the gig house. The plans show that 

1 tree would be lost to provide the parking and manoeuvring area and 4 would be lost to 

provide the new access. 

The renovation and conversion of London House involves extensive internal repairs and 

renovations, which are covered by the Listed Building application. Externally, the shop front 

is to be removed and replaced with 2 new windows, one each below existing first floor 

windows. Three new window openings would be inserted on the northern elevation of the 

shop. The land that was last used as a petrol filling station would be enclosed by a 1m high 

wall topped with 1.2m high metal railings and used as garden land. One willow tree would 

be removed as a result. 



77


The following is taken from the applicant’s Design and Access Statement: 

“In spring 2010 the Borough Council approached the owners of the Lime House and asked 

them to consider purchasing and restoring London House, in a back-to-back agreement, 

should the local council buy London House using a compulsory purchase order (CPO). 

Following many discussions and consultation with other interested parties, the deal was 

agreed in principle. From an early date it was clear that the restoration of London House was 

not economically viable as a stand-alone project; for this reason the idea of recouping the 

loss by gaining access to the rear of the Lime House, separating the annex from Lime House 

and developing it was conceived. 

The benefits arising for the borough council, the parishioners of East Rudham, Highways 

and the owners of Lime House from the accomplishment of this proposal are: 

� The restoration to listed building standard of London House, which is currently a high 

priority on the Listed Buildings at risk list, and which the BC cannot afford to restore, 

at minimal cost to the local council. 

� The resolution of a long standing dispute between the residents of East Rudham with 

the support of their Parish Council concerning the failure of the Borough Council to 

meet its statutory requirement to preserve the building and protect the safety of 

pedestrians; 

� The removal of an eyesore from the centre of a conservation area; 

� The additional revenue to the borough council from two dwellings, London House 

and the extended annexe; 

� The regulation and reduction of traffic joining and leaving the A148 from the side of 

the existing shop enhancing road safety. 

� The building of a well designed, energy efficient dwelling, as an extension of the 

annexe, is the only way to make the project financially self-supporting. 

It is our wish to retain the traditional listed buildings and restore them into good repair. The 

design approach to the refurbishment of London House is to retain as much of the original 

features as possible, which gives them their intrinsic value and individuality. It is proposed to 

retain the external appearance of the building by repairing and redecorating areas affected 

by years of neglect. 

Internally the layout remains the same, with the exception of removing the stairs to the shop 

end of the building. These are not required and did not form part of the original dwelling. A 

new door opening has been inserted on ground floor to provide access to the old shop area, 

new family room. The removal of the shop frontage aids with Highways issues and goes with 

the change of use from shop to residential. This area will be infilled with brickwork. Ideally 

original re-used bricks will be sourced to infill this opening, however if this is not possible a 

new brick to match the existing will be sourced and agreed with the local authority. The 

design and detailing needs to be carefully handled so that the intrinsic quality and 

appearance of the traditional buildings is maintained. The design solution set out in this 

statement recognises the constraints and the design principles which need to be respected. 

In order to make the repair and conversion of London House commercially viable, it is 

important the annex can be separated away from Lime House and converted into an 

individual dwelling. The compulsory purchase of London House will therefore be beneficial to 

all parties. Therefore conversion of London House will help to secure the continued viability 

of the existing site and hence the preservation of the buildings themselves over the long 

term future”. 



78


11/00951/LB LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: Proposed development to create a self 

contained dwelling to the rear of Lime House & Restoration of London House – under 

consideration 

07/00231/CU Change of use of stable to annexe to private dwelling – approved under 

delegated powers in April 2007 

08/01958/LB Change of use of stable to annexe to private dwelling - Approved under 

delegated powers in October 2008 

2/02/0218/F Extensions to house, Lime House – Approved under delegated powers March 

2002 

2/02/0217/LB Extensions to house Lime House – Approved under delegated powers March 

2002 


Parish Council: SUPPORT No reasons given 

Highways Authority: NO OBJECTION subject to conditions to restrict the placing of gates 

and other barriers across the access over the old garage site; to restrict vehicular access to 

that shown across the old garage site and to ensure any other accesses are closed up; and 

to ensure that the parking is laid out as shown on the submitted plans. 

BCKLWN Environmental Health & Housing – Environmental Quality: NO OBJECTION 

subject to conditions to secure the investigation and remediation of any contaminated land 

relating to the historic garage use. 

BCKLWN Conservation Officer: NO OBJECTION recommends approval of the associated 

listed building application. 

BCKLWN Tree and Landscape Officer: NO OBJECTION subject to conditions. 

Conservation Areas Advisory Panel: NO OBJECTION The panel acknowledged that the 

proposals would bring London House back in to use. 


FIFTEEN letters of SUPPORT have been received applauding the applicant for their 

proposals and the positive impact they will have on London House. 

ONE letter COMMENTING that the correspondent generally supports the proposals but 

would like to see the old shop adjacent to London House removed rather than restored. 







79
















locality. 






Issues raised:- 

Principle of development; 

Listed Buildings and Conservation Area; 

Trees; 

Residential amenity; and 

Highway safety. 

Principle of Development 

The site lies in Built Environment Type C. Saved policy 4/21 of the Local Plan allows 

development in such areas provided it does not adversely impact upon the character of the 

area. Under the Core Strategy, East Rudham is a Key Rural Service Centre where ‘local 

scale’ development will be permitted. Consequently, the principle of another dwelling in East 

Rudham is acceptable, subject to its local impact. 



80

Impact upon Listed Buildings and Conservation Area 

As previously mentioned, both houses are Grade II listed as are The Crown public house 

opposite and Mulberry House adjacent. The Church is Grade II* listed. All are in a 

Conservation Area. 

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on Local 

Planning Authorities to preserve the setting of listed buildings and to ‘preserve or enhance’ 

the character of Conservation Areas. Whilst there is a separate application for Listed 

Building consent for some of the works, the impact upon both London House and Lime 

House as well as upon other listed buildings in the vicinity remains material to determination 

of this application for planning permission. 

This position is reinforced through the policies in PPS5. The following are relevant to the 

determination of this application:- 

� HE7 – Significance of and impact upon all heritage assets; 

� HE8 – Impact upon non-designated heritage assets; 

� HE9 – Additional guidance on the impact of development upon designated heritage 

assets (such as Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas); and 

� HE10 – Additional guidance on the impact of development upon the setting of a 

designated heritage asset. 

A Conservation Area Character Statement has been prepared and adopted by the Council 

for East Rudham Conservation Area. It speaks of The Green as being a key feature of East 

Rudham, once used as a market place, before going on to say that as people travel on Lynn 

Road through the village The Green is very prominent, lined with a number of listed 

buildings. The character statement says that there are many larger buildings set back from 

the road on the northern side. 

The character statement does not refer directly to the character of the area to the rear of the 

buildings that front The Green. However, it does talk about the area around the Church and 

the fact that a number of buildings have been demolished on the northern side of the road, 

including on the petrol station/garage site that forms part of the application site. Previously, 

therefore, the setting of the Church was experienced entirely behind buildings to its south 

and east. Most of these still remain on the eastern boundary but only Church Cottage and 

London House remain to the south. In addition, the existing gig house and wall to Lime 

House’s garden are both prominent on the western boundary of the church yard. 

Immediately adjacent to Lime House stands Mulberry Tree House. To the rear of this 

substantial dwelling is a range of outbuildings of a barn like appearance that have been 

converted to houses and include Mulberry Barn and Mulberry Coach House. The latter 

forms the western boundary to the garden of Lime House. Elsewhere around The Green 

there are other examples of outbuildings to the rear of properties, such as off Station Road 

immediately south of the junction with Lynn Road, and examples of new build residential 

development to the rear of street-fronting properties, for example at Hideaway Barn, which 

lies behind The Close, also off Station Road. 

There is therefore a precedent for both the conversion of existing structures to residential 

use to the rear of houses that front the street as well as for new build-development of new 

houses in a similar position. 

The proposed development would result in a change to the character of the space adjacent 

to Lynn Road previously occupied by a petrol filling station/garage. It will be enclosed and 

landscaped. As mentioned above, historically this space was occupied by a building. 



81

The formation of an access to the rear of London House to get access to the new property 

behind Lime House will reduce the size of the garden to London House. The proposed new 

dwelling will increase the density of built form to the rear of Lime House and reduce the 

space available to the occupants of Lime House. This issue is addressed in more detail 

below. 

One of the key issues of the new dwelling would be its impact in the adjacent church and 

churchyard. Elements of the new building will be visible from the churchyard, specifically the 

1½ storey structure. The latter will protrude above the wall to the same extent and be the 

same height as the gig house. The single-storey element of the new dwelling will be 

relatively inconspicuous above the wall. As previously mentioned, the setting of the church 

includes or historically included continuous development on two sides. Part of the western 

side currently has a hard boundary with Lime House, and the gig house is a notable feature 

along this boundary. Whilst the development would have had almost no effect had the new 

build all been single storey, on balance, the introduction of another structure of similar 

proportions to the gig house will not materially or detrimentally affect the setting of either 

Lime House or the church and the Conservation Area in which they both stand. 

The refurbishment and change of use of London House will bring about a marked 

improvement to the character of that Listed Building and to the character of the Conservation 

Area around the Green. 

The Conservation Officer has no objection to the proposal and is recommending approval of 

the listed building application elsewhere on this agenda. The Conservation Areas Advisory 

Panel has also reviewed the scheme and has no objection to the scheme. The panel 

acknowledged that the proposals would bring London House back in to use. 

Trees 

Twenty individual trees and 3 groups have been surveyed on or adjacent to the site. Three 

of these have been identified as being of ‘moderate’ quality and value – a mature ash in the 

garden of Lime House; a mature magnolia to the north-west of the gig-house and a mature 

oak in the church yard. None of these trees will need to be removed but conditions will need 

to be attached regarding means of construction and protection during construction. 

Twelve trees and three groups have been classified as being of low quality and having low 

value. These include apple trees in the rear garden of Lime House and the large willow on 

the London Road frontage. All of these will need to be removed to facilitate the 

development. 

Finally, the self-set Ash trees in the rear garden of London House will also need to be 

removed, either because they are being suppressed by the Oak or because they are causing 

damage to the property. 

Residential Amenity 

The size of the gardens to both London House and Lime House would be reduced as a 

result of the development. However, it is not considered that this would materially affect the 

amenity of existing or future occupants, given the character of the area. This character is 

varied and it is not uncommon for substantial houses, such as the adjacent Mulberry House, 

to have limited gardens. Equally, there are also examples of substantial houses with 

extensive grounds, such as Manor House, which is next door but one to Lime House. 

The new build parts of the scheme are predominantly single-storey so over-looking will not 

present an issue. Where they are taller at the rear of Lime House, the openings have been 



82

designed in such a way as to minimise over-looking to adjacent properties. For the most 

part, it is the amenity space of the dwelling in question that is over-looked. 

The access to the new dwelling will introduce a level of activity into the rear gardens to both 

Lime and London House that does not exist at the moment. However, given the relatively 

noisy environment in which the properties stand, i.e. adjacent to a main road, and that the 

level of activity would be relatively low, it is not considered unacceptable in this context. 

Highway Safety 

No objection has been received from the County Council, subject to conditions. One of 

these is that the existing access to Lime House, via an archway, is stopped up and the drop 

kerb reinstated across the frontage. The rationalisation of access to all three dwellings 

across the petrol station site is put forward by the applicant as one of the benefits of the 

scheme. The Design and Access Statement acknowledges that the existing access to Lime 

House is dangerous and currently not used as it involves reversing out on to the road. To 

fully realise this particular benefit of the proposal would require the condition requested by 

the County and could be achieved simply by having a fixed ‘gate’ as currently exists. 

Other issues 

The proposal involves the change of use of the petrol station/garage site to garden land, 

which is a more sensitive use in terms of contaminated land. Conditions are requested by 

the Council’s Environmental Health Section to ensure that any residual contamination from 

the previous historic use is remediated. 

CONCLUSION 

Much has been made both by the applicant and third parties of the role that development of 

the new dwelling will play in enabling investment in London House. Policy HE11 of PPS5 

refers specifically to enabling development. Although it talks of development that departs 

from the development plan, it is clear that enabling development should only be accepted if 

the benefits outweigh the dis-benefits. If, in weighing the issues in the balance, significant 

weight is to be placed upon the enabling element of the proposals, then a mechanism would 

need to be put in place to ensure that the benefits are secured. 

However, in this instance, it is the view of your officers that, on balance, all elements of the 

scheme are acceptable in their own right. That is to say, the new dwelling does not 

materially detract from either the character of the Listed Buildings or the Conservation Area 

given the existing character of the area and could; as a result, proceed in the absence of the 

refurbishment to London House. Similarly, financial issues aside, the refurbishment of 

London House and change of use to full residential occupation, could proceed in isolation to 

construction of the new dwelling. Consequently, no mechanism is proposed that would 

ensure that London House is refurbished, at least as part of the consideration of this 

application. 

Please note that details of materials are proposed to be attached to any grant of consent for 

listed building permission and are not replicated here. 



83







2 Condition Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town 

and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order 

revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gates shall be erected across the 

approved access unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority. 

2 Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the principles of PPG13. 

3 Condition Vehicular access to and egress from the adjoining highway shall be limited 

to the access shown on drawing No 23-205; only. Any other access or egress shall be 

permanently closed, and the footway/ highway verge shall be reinstated in accordance 

with a detailed scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority concurrently with the bringing into use of the new access. 

3 Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the principles of PPG13. 

4 Condition Prior to the first occupation or use of the development hereby permitted the 

on-site parking and turning areas shall be laid out, constructed, surfaced and drained 

in accordance with the approved plans and retained thereafter available for that 

specific use. 

4 Reason To ensure that parking and servicing facilities will be available to serve the 

development in accordance with the principles of PPG13. 

5 Condition Prior to the commencement of the development, an investigation and risk 

assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, 

must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of 

any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of 

the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The 

investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a 

written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the 

approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must 

include: 

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; 

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: 

� human health, 

� property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, 

� woodland and service lines and pipes, 

� adjoining land, 

� ground waters and surface waters, 

� ecological systems, 

� archaeological sites and ancient monuments; 



84

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). 

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s 

‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. 

5 Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land 

and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, 

property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried 

out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite 

receptors in accordance with PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control. 

6 Condition Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed remediation 

scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing 

unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and 

historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the 

Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, 

proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site 

management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as 

contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation 

to the intended use of the land after remediation. 






7 Condition The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with 

its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry 

out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of 

commencement of the remediation scheme works. 

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a 

verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the 

effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the 

approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. 






8 Condition In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the 

approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing 

immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment 

must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Condition 5 and where 

remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with 

the requirements of condition 6, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local 

Planning Authority. 

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a 

verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the 

Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 7. 



85






9 Condition The proposed development must be built in accordance with the Tree 

Survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment produced by Touchwood dated 

20th May 2011 and submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. 

9 Reason To ensure satisfactory landscape treatment of the site in the interests of visual 

amenity. To comply with Policy CS12 of the Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West 

Norfolk Emerging Core Strategy 2011. 

10 Condition No development or other operations shall commence on site until the 

existing trees and/or hedgerows, along with any future planting sites have been 

protected in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development must be implemented in 

accordance with these agreed details. This is in accordance with BS 5837 (2005) and 

should include any ground protection where there will be a requirement for access and 

working areas within the root protection areas (RPA) of the retained trees. The 

scheme shall provide for the erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree 

or hedge before any equipment, machinery, or materials are brought onto the site for 

the purposes of development or other operations. The fencing specification will need 

to be detailed and comply with BS 5837:2005. 

The fencing shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development until all 

equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. If the 

fencing is damaged at any time during the development all the operations shall cease 

until it is repaired or replaced in accordance with the approved details. Nothing shall 

be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the 

ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavations be 

made without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 




11 Condition There is a requirement for foundation design for any foundations within the 

root protection area (RPA) of any retained trees. The beams, rafts or cantilever are 

required to be built above the existing ground level. The piles, if required should be 

sheathed and of the minimum diameter required to support the structure. The pile 

locations should be predetermined to minimise root damage and avoid any large 

structural roots. No development or other operations shall commence on site until 

foundations design details have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning 

Authority. The development must be implemented in accordance with these agreed 

details and a completion report must be submitted when completed. This must comply 

with BS 5837:2005. 

11 Reason To ensure satisfactory landscape treatment of the site in the interests of visual 





86

12 Condition There are some hard surfaces/driveways within the root protection area 

(RPA) of retained trees. These will need to be constructed using no-dig construction 

techniques to minimise the impact on the tree roots. There must be no alterations 

(addition or removal) to the soil level within the RPA to facilitate the construction of 

these areas. The soil must not be smeared or compacted as this will affect its 

structure. This must maintain the water and gas porosity of the soil. The submission 

must include method statements detailing the techniques employed and the products 

used to achieve this, including the specification and dimensions of the products that 

are to be used including the base layer and any infill material. This must include a bill 

of quantities for the materials. The details must comply with BS 5837:2005. 

No development or other operations shall commence on site until details have been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

development must be implemented in accordance with these agreed details and a 

completion report must be submitted when completed. 




13 Condition No existing trees, shrubs or hedges within the site that are shown as being 

retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, willfully damaged or 

destroyed, cut back in any way or removed for a period of 5 years from the completion 

of the development, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 

Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such approval or that die or become 

severely damaged or seriously diseased within 5 years from the completion of the 

development hereby permitted shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of 

a similar species and final size, in the next available planting season, unless the Local 

Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation. 




14 Condition No part of the development including demolition shall commence until full 

details for the arboricultural supervision of tree protection measures and any ground 

works within retained tree(s) Root Protection Areas, as specified by BS5837:2005 or 

as shown on a Tree Protection Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority. The supervisory works shall be carried out in strict 

accordance with the details as approved. 




15 Condition The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with 

the following plans:- 

Location Plan 23/201 Rev A dated 06/06/11; 

Proposed Site Plan 23/205 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Site Plan Ground Floor Plan Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Ground Floor Sheet 1 Rev - dated 05/11; 


Proposed Self Contained Dwelling First Floor Sheet 1 Rev - dated 05/11; 



87

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling First Floor Sheet 2 Rev A dated 06/06/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Roof Plan 23/214 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Restoration of London House 23/215 Rev - dated 05/11; 



Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Elevations Sheet 1 23/218 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Elevations Sheet 2 23/219 Rev A dated 06/06/11; 

Proposed Restoration of London House Elevations 23/220 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Sections AA _ BB REv - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Typical Cart Shed Plans _ Elevations 23/225 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Annexe Floors Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev B dated 06/06/2011; 

London Floors Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev C dated 02/06/11; 

Sections Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev A dated 24/05/11; 

London Elevs Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev A dated 23/05/11; 

Annexe Elevs Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev A dated 15/05/2011; and 

Topo Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev B dated 19/05/11. 

15 Reason For the avoidance of doubt 







88

11/00951/LB 

Lime House The Green East Rudham 

Pond 

Flint Croft 

w Cottage 

Rose Court 

Scale: 

49.0m 

Crossroads 

The Old Stables 

1:2500 

Manor 

House 

Mulberry Tree 

Mulberry Tree 

House 

Cottage 

The Lodge 

Pond 

TCB 


89 

49.9m 

Jasmine 

Cottage 

St Mary's Church 

PH 

Square 

The 

Church Cott 

Romridge 

49.1m 

Pump 

Cottage Horse White 

Orme 

House 

PO 

Lockinge 

49.2m 

Hideaway Barn The Close 

SLA Number 

Faze Cottages 

The 

Oaks 

Eastfields 

Appledore 

Wensum House 

47.3m 

FB 

100024314 

Rudham 

Hazelwood 

The Hill 

Pond 

Mallard 

Cottage 

50.0m 

East 

Pond 

FB 



1:2500 


Parish: East Rudham 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(d) 

Proposal: LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: Proposed development to create a 

self contained dwelling to the rear of Lime House & Restoration of 

London House 

Location: Lime House The Green East Rudham King's Lynn 

Applicant: Mrs Meher Vanner 

Case No: 11/00951/LB (Listed Building Application) 

Case Officer: Mrs P Lynn 

Tel: 01553 616235 


2nd August 2011 

Reason for Referral to DCB – Referred to the Board at the discretion of the Planning 

Control Manager. 

Case Summary 

This application seeks listed building consent for:- 

1. The extension of the Stable/Gig House to the rear of Lime House and other work to 

facilitate its conversion a self-contained dwelling 

2. Extensive repairs and renovations to London House and the attached shop known locally 

as Newsteads including work to facilitate the change of use of the shop to residential. The 

property is Listed Grade ll and is a Building at Risk. 

A corresponding application for planning permission is also before this meeting for 

consideration. 

Key Issues 

Impact of the proposals on: 

the character and appearance of the Stable/Gig House 

the fabric, character and appearance of London House/Newsteads. 

the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and the character of the wider conservation area. 


APPROVE 


This application relates to two properties, Lime House and London House, both Grade ll 

Listed Buildings situated to the within East Rudham Conservation Area. They are set back 

from the Lynn Road in the north east corner of The Green and adjacent to St Marys Church. 

Lime House, c.1800, is two storeys in seven bays and constructed of render on brick with a 

roof of black glazed pantiles. The front façade has sash windows, a decorative doorcase and 

11/00951/LB Development Control Board 


90

an off-set carriage arch with boarded gates which would have given access the small 11/2 

storey stable and attached single storey gig house situated to the eastern side of the 

enclosed rear garden. 

The outbuilding, which is noted as being 19th century, is constructed of coursed flint with red 

brick detailing. It has semi-circular windows on the ground floor facing the house (south 

west elevation) and a glazed former hoist opening above a door. The blank rear wall faces 

the church yard and forms part of the boundary between the two properties. A wall 2-3m 

high extends north and southwards along the rest of the boundary. The stables/gig house 

and the boundary walls are deemed to be listed by virtue of curtilage. 

London House, c1840, is attached to the east of Lime House. It is a two storey building, 

c.1840 and constructed of red brick with gabled roof of black glazed pantiles. The front 

facade has two ground and three first floor sashes under flat rubbed brick arches, and a 

central six panel door with a plain doorcase with pilasters, console brackets, and a glazed 

rectangular fanlight above. There is a brick dentil eaves cornice and a ridge stack to the 

west end stack. To the rear of the building the roof extends down over a single storey 

outshout. 

At the eastern end of London Houses is a lower two storey extension formerly used as a 

shop (Newsteads) with storage above. It is constructed in red brick and with a hipped slate 

roof and has a projecting double shop front at ground floor with a pair of six over six sash 

windows above. The property has a small rear garden enclosed by the boundary walls of 

Lime House and the church yard. To the east is an open area of land which has, in the past 

served as a garage/petrol filling station and more recently as a parking area for the shop. 

Although not specifically mentioned in the listed description, the shop is deemed to be listed 

by virtue of attachment to London House. 

London House/Newsteads is semi derelict as a result of long term neglect and vandalism. It 

has been on the County Councils Buildings at Risk Register since 1999 and has been the 

subject of two Urgent Works Notices served by the Borough Council in September 2003 and 

June 2005. In both cases the owner defaulted and the work has been carried out by Local 

Authority who have also boarded the front windows and secured the building to prevent 

further damage. 

This application seeks listed building consent for two distinctly different elements: 

1) The extension of the Stable/Gig House and other work to facilitate its conversion to a selfcontained 

dwelling. 

There are extant consents for the conversion of this building into residential accommodation 

albeit as an annexe to Lime House rather than a separate dwelling. This application 

proposes to extend the building by adding a 11/2 storey wing north of the existing stable and 

linked to it by a single storey block running parallel to the churchyard wall. The 11/2 storey 

element will have hipped roof similar in height to the existing building and with two inward 

facing dormer windows while the single storey element will have a gable roof with the ridge 

appx.1m above the height of the churchyard wall. Openings onto the churchyard will be 

limited to roof-lights. 

2) The repair and restoration of London House/Newsteads and the alterations required to 

facilitate the change of use of the shop into residential accommodation. 

The work to London House involves extensive internal repairs and renovations but few 

actual changes to the structure or appearance of the building. However, the work to the 

former shop is more extensive and includes removing the shop front and replacing it with two 

new sash windows to match those at first floor, stripping the paint from the eastern flank wall 

and the formation of three new window openings. Internally, the application proposes the 



91

emoval of the staircase in the shop section, the formation of connecting doors at ground 

and first floor levels and some minor reconfiguration of the existing room layouts to form a 

single dwelling. 

The proposal also includes the formation of a new access across the former garage/parking 

area and through the garden of London House into the rear garden of Lime House, and the 

construction of two cart-shed garages however, these are not matters for this application but 

rather are considerations of the concurrent planning application. 


The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement which details the proposals 

and the circumstances leading up to the submission of the application making the following 

comment:- 

“In spring 2010 the Borough Council approached the owners of the Lime House and asked 

them to consider purchasing and restoring London House, in a back-to-back agreement, 

should the local council buy London House using a compulsory purchase order (CPO). 

Following many discussions and consultation with other interested parties, the deal was 

agreed in principle. From an early date it was clear that the restoration of London House was 

not economically viable as a stand-alone project; for this reason the idea of recouping the 

loss by gaining access to the rear of the Lime House, separating the annex from Lime House 

and developing it was conceived. 

The benefits arising for the Borough Council, the parishioners of East Rudham, Highways 

and the owners of Lime House from the accomplishment of this proposal are: 

� The restoration to listed building standard of London House, which is currently a high 

priority on the Listed Buildings at risk list, and which the BC cannot afford to restore, 

at minimal cost to the local council. 

� The resolution of a long standing dispute between the residents of East Rudham with 

the support of their Parish Council concerning the failure of the Borough Council to 

meet its statutory requirement to preserve the building and protect the safety of 

pedestrians; 

� The removal of an eyesore from the centre of a conservation area; 

� The additional revenue to the borough council from two dwellings, London House 

and the extended annexe; 

� The regulation and reduction of traffic joining and leaving the A148 from the side of 

the existing shop enhancing road safety. 

� The building of a well designed, energy efficient dwelling, as an extension of the 

annexe, is the only way to make the project financially self-supporting. 

It continues:- 

“It is our wish to retain the traditional listed buildings and restore them into good repair. The 

design approach to the refurbishment of London House is to retain as much of the original 

features as possible, which gives them their intrinsic value and individuality. It is proposed to 

retain the external appearance of the building by repairing and redecorating areas affected 

by years of neglect. 

Internally the layout remains the same, with the exception of removing the stairs to the shop 

end of the building. These are not required and did not form part of the original dwelling. A 

new door opening has been inserted on ground floor to provided access to the old shop 

area, new family room. The removal of the shop frontage aids with Highways issues and 



92

goes with the change of use from shop to residential. This area will be infilled with brickwork. 

Ideally original re-used bricks will be sourced to infill this opening, however if this is not 

possible a new brick to match the existing will be sourced and agreed with the local 

authority. The design and detailing needs to be carefully handled so that the intrinsic quality 

and appearance of the traditional buildings is maintained. The design solution set out in this 

statement recognises the constraints and the design principles which need to be respected. 

In order to make the repair and conversion of London House commercially viable, it is 

important the annex can be separated away from Lime House and converted into an 

individual dwelling. The compulsory purchase of London House will therefore be beneficial to 

all parties. Therefore conversion of London House will help to secure the continued viability 

of the existing site and hence the preservation of the buildings themselves over the long 

term future”. 


11/00950/F: Proposed development to create a self contained dwelling to the rear of Lime 

House & Restoration of London House – Pending consideration. 

The following relate to the stables to the rear of The Lime House:- 

08/01958/LB:Conversion of stable to annex – Approved September 2008 

07/00231/CU: Change of use of stable to annexe to private dwelling - Approved March 2007 

The following relate to The Lime House:- 

02/0218/F: Extension to dwelling - March 2002 

02/0217/LB: Extension to dwelling - March 2002 

There is no recent planning history in respect of London House/Newsteads. 

CONSULTATIONS 

Town/Parish Council: SUPPORT this application. 

Conservation Areas Advisory Panel: SUPPORT The Panel had no objections to the 

proposals. The Panel acknowledged that the proposals would help to bring London House 

back into use. 

REPRESENTATIONS Five letters/emails of support have been received. They make the 

following comments: 

� Although the Rudhams have many rustic buildings which have aged well, the village 

needs to move forward and position new accommodation such as this which will not 

affect the aesthetics of the village. This is a better way to enlarge it without damaging 

the old feeling which it preserves so well. 

� This eyesore in the pretty village should have been dealt with years ago. 

� Thank goodness someone has come up with a sensible solution in a time of 

economic distress when few people would be able to take on such a dilapidated 

building. 

� This proposal should be supported. It is assumed that the Council are backing the 

application fully – if not, then they should have a plan “B” in place. 

� It is pleasing that someone is prepared to undertake this project when the only 

alternative would appear to be wait until the building falls down. 



93

� At long last a realistic proposal for London House after years of neglect. The sooner 

the property is restored the better. It has been a dangerous eyesore in the centre of 

the village for far too long. 

� There is delight to learn that something is finally being done about London House. It 

has been an eyesore for nearly 20 years and is a cause for concern in the village. 

� London House is unsightly and increasingly, as is deteriorates, a potential danger to 

pedestrians and traffic. The writer sees no possible objection to this commendable 

enterprise and wholeheartedly supports the application. The writer also sees no 

objection either to the proposed new dwelling behind London House as it will not be 

visible from the A148 and hardly visible from the properties in Bagthorpe Road 

whence there might be a glimpse of the top of a roof – and a view over rooftops can 

be quite attractive. 

One further letter states that it is difficult to comment on the application as it covers two quite 

distinct and separate projects. The writer supports the proposal to do something with London 

House as it would be a positive asset to the village, but considers that the old shop should 

be removed as it was an obviously opportunistic add-on that will never look quite in place 

even with the proposed new windows. It is as other old premises, eg the butcher’s shop, 

which were never meant or built to become lasting legacies. The extra space would improve 

the vision splay for traffic/people using the existing access. 

The writer is in favour of using a CPO to secure the building but comments on the process if 

it excludes all others and suggests a variant of a sealed bid process. 

The proposed new dwelling to the north of Limes House is supported. 












The primary considerations in the determination of this application are the impact of the 

proposals on the two buildings in question. However, the proposal will also have some affect 

on the setting of the adjacent buildings Lime House, St Marys Church, (Grade ll*) and The 

Crown PH (Grade ll) opposite, and the character of the wider conservation area. All are 

designated heritage assets as defined by PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. 



94

The PPS5 defines conservation as the process of maintaining and managing change to a 

heritage asset in a way that sustains and where appropriate enhances its significance. It 

requires that Local Authorities take into consideration the desirability of sustaining and 

enhancing the significance of heritage assets and of utilising their positive role in placeshaping 

(HE7.4.)and new development making a positive contribution to the character and 

local distinctiveness of the historic environment (HE7.5). It further states that there should 

be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets (HE9.1) and 

gives guidance on the affect of the application on the setting of a heritage asset (HE10.1). 

HE11 refers to enabling development and will be a consideration of the concurrent Planning 

Application. 

To deal with the two elements of the application in turn:- 

1) The extension to the stables/gig house to the rear of Limes House will increase its size 

considerably and, because of the new access, reduce the size of the garden to both listed 

buildings. The new 1½ storey section will also be seen from the church yard although the 

single storey section will barely be visible above the existing wall. Overall, the proposal is 

considered to respects character and appearance of the existing building and, in accordance 

with pre-application advice, and its height is such that it will not be detrimental to the setting 

of the adjacent listed buildings. 

2) This application proposes the repair and restoration of London House which will remain 

essential as it was in terms of appearance. The shop window will go to be replaced with a 

pair off sash windows to present a similar appearance to the adjacent houses and three new 

windows will be inserted into the blank gable. The loss of some fabric to create new windows 

and the internal staircase are considered acceptable in order to allow the building to be 

brought into residential use and give it a future. 

The public comment suggesting that the shop should be demolished has been noted but not 

considered to be justifiable purely on the ground that it was an “opportunistic“ add-on and 

not specifically mentioned in the statutory list description. 

Justification. 

As previously mentioned, London House has been categorised as a Building at Risk for 13 

years and was unoccupied or many years before that. Its continuing deterioration has 

caused much concern within the village. This has manifested itself in regular letters/phone 

calls to Officer and some Members and, in 2007 a “round robin” letter from some 60+ 

residents expressing concerns about the condition of the building both in terms of 

appearance and structural stability. 

Over time Offices have sought to persuade the owner to either repair or sell the building to 

no avail and the Borough Council has undertaken essential two lots of repair work to prevent 

further deterioration and also damage being caused to Lime House by water penetration and 

dry rot in the area of the party wall. 

In the past there have been numerous offers to purchase the property, either directly from 

the owner or following compulsory purchase but the owner has refused to sell saying that he 

will do the work, and compulsory purchase has not be an option that the Borough Council 

choose to pursue until recent months. The current applicant has long expressed an interest 

in acquiring the property and has continued to do so, even though other expressions of 

interest have lessened considerably of late, possibly because of the current economic 

climate. The need to extend and convert the stables/gig house to help finance the work the 

rear of Lime House is therefore seen as an acceptable form of enabling development in 

terms of the consideration of this application. 



95

CONCLUSION. 

The proposed work to both buildings is acceptable in terms of its impact on the structures 

and their appearance. It will change the character of both buildings, particularly “Newsteads” 

but given its current state, that can only be to the good. The work will secure the future of 

London House which will, if left, deteriorate to a point where it is beyond repair and will also 

have a detrimental affect on the structure of lime House at the eastern end. It will also 

improve the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and make a major contribution to the 

character and appearance of the conservation area. 

It must also be noted that the applicant has worked with Officers to get to this stage and 

expresses the intention to continue to take advice on all aspects of the work particularly the 

repair and refurbishment of London House/Newsteads, and that the proposal has the 

support of a number of individuals and the Parish Council. The only negative comment 

relating to the retention of the shop has been considered above. 

Taking all matters into consideration it is you Officers opinion that this proposal represents 

the opportunity to secure the future of one designated listed) heritage asset/building at risk, 

prevent damage to a second and greatly improve the setting of others. It therefore accords 

fully with the advice and requirement of PPS5 and it is recommended that the application be 

approved subject to a condition that the work to London House/Newsteads be work be 

completed within an agreed timescale. 


1 Condition This Listed Building Consent is granted subject to the condition that the 

works to which it relates shall begun not later than the expiration of three years of the 

date of this consent. 

1 Reason To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation 

Areas) Act, 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory 

Purchase Act, 2004. 

2 Condition This Listed Building Consent relates only to works specifically shown and 

described on the approved drawings listed below. Any others works, the need for 

which becomes apparent as alterations and repairs proceed, are not covered by this 

consent and details of any other works must be submitted to the Council as Local 

Planning Authority and approved before work continues. 

Location Plan 23/201 Rev A dated 06/06/11; 

Proposed Site Plan 23/205 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Site Plan Ground Floor Plan Rev - dated 05/11; 



Proposed Self Contained Dwelling First Floor Sheet 1 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling First Floor Sheet 2 Rev A dated 06/06/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Roof Plan 23/214 Rev - dated 05/11; 




Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Elevations Sheet 1 23/218 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Elevations Sheet 2 23/219 Rev A dated 06/06/11; 

Proposed Restoration of London House Elevations 23/220 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Proposed Self Contained Dwelling Sections AA - BB REv - dated 05/11; 



96

Proposed Typical Carts Shed Plans _ Elevations 23/225 Rev - dated 05/11; 

Annexe Floors Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev B dated 06/06/2011; 

London Floors Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev C dated 02/06/11; 

Sections Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev A dated 24/05/11; 

London Elevs Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev A dated 23/05/11; 

Annexe Elevs Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev A dated 15/05/2011; 

Topo Kempston Surveys Ltd Sheet 1 of 1 Rev B dated 19/05/11. 

2 Reason To ensure a satisfactory standard of works in the interests of safeguarding the 

Listed Building in accordance with the principles of PPS5. 

3 Condition London House/Newsteads shall be properly protected and shored as work 

proceeds and details of how the building is to be properly protected and supported 

shall be previously submitted to and approved by the Local Authority. 

3 Reason To ensure that the fabric of the Listed Building is properly protected during the 

works in accordance with the principles of PPS5. 

4 Condition A sample panel of the brick/stone to be used for the external surfaces of the 

building(s)/extension(s) hereby approved shall prepared on site for the inspection and 

written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The sample panel shall be at least 1m 

x 1m and show the proposed material, bond and pointing technique. The development 

shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. 

4 Reason To ensure that the materials are in keeping with the Listed Building in 

accordance with the principles of PPS5. 

5 Condition The existing clay pantiles and slates must be carefully stripped from the roof 

of London House/Newsteads and set aside for re-use for the repair work hereby 

approved. The balance to replace those unsuitable for re-use shall be made up with 

reclaimed clay pantiles and slates to match those set aside. In the event that the 

tiles/slates are not of a standard or sufficient in number to be re-used, samples of new 

replacements shall be provided on site for the inspection and written approval of the 

Local Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the 

approved details 



6 Condition Samples of the tiles to be used on the extension to the Stables/Gig House 

hereby approved shall be provided on site for the inspection and written approval of the 

Local Authority. The development shall be competed in accordance with the approved 

details. 



7 Condition 1:20 scale drawings of all new and/or replacement windows and external 

doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The plans shall provide for the use of timber through-out and shall include joinery 

details, cross-sections and the opening arrangements. The development shall be 

implemented in accordance with the approved details. 

7 Reason To ensure that such details are in keeping with the Listed Building in 




97

8 Condition Not withstanding the approved plans, scaled drawings showing the following 

items shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 

(i) The precise size, position and design of the proposed roof-lights. 

(ii) The precise size, location and design the proposed dormer windows. 

8 Reason To ensure that such details are in keeping with the Listed Building in 



Application file reference: 11/00951/LB 





98


Heacham Manor Hotel Hunstanton Road Heacham 

Scale: 

1:10000 


99 

SLA Number 



1:10000 


100024314

Parish: Heacham 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(e) 

Proposal: Removal of condition 32 of planning permission 07/00437/FM 

Location: Heacham Manor Hotel Hunstanton Road Heacham Norfolk 

Applicant: Searles (Camping Ground) Ltd 



Tel: 01553 616468 


26th May 2011 

Reason for Referral to DCB – Parish Council object to the proposal, partly contrary to the 

Officer recommendation. 

Case Summary 

The application relates to Manor Farm, which lies between Hunstanton and Heacham. The 

site has consent for development involving the conversion of the farm house to a hotel and 

restaurant, conversion of an existing agricultural building to a spa/gym/swimming pool 

building, construction of a golf club house, conversion of two existing buildings to create 

eight residential units and construction of 25 residential units in 4 new blocks. 

All the residential units are subject to a condition stating that they should be used for holiday 

use only and not as a permanent place of residence. 

The application proposes to vary this condition. 

Key Issues 

Promotion of economic development 

Development in the countryside 


APPROVE but only remove the condition in so far as it relates to the 8 units created through 

conversion of the existing buildings. It is proposed that the condition remains in relation to 

the new-build units. 


The application relates to a development at Heacham Manor Hotel, previously known as 

Manor Farm, Heacham. The site lies on the western side of Hunstanton Road Heacham. It 

consists of what used to be Manor Farm House (which is now a hotel and restaurant), a barn 

fronting on to Hunstanton Road (vacant), an agricultural building that is in the process of 

being converted into a leisure club and spa building, a residential unit formed from an 

existing single-storey farm building (block A) and 10 new build holiday residential units in two 

blocks (blocks B and C). The site has extant consent for another 7 units of holiday 

accommodation in a large existing barn (block E), fronting Hunstanton Road, and another 15 



100

such units in new buildings laid out in 2 blocks (D and F). It also has permission for a golf 

club house. 

The application sought initially to have condition 32 attached to consent reference 

07/00437/FM removed but this has since been modified so that the applicant seeks to 

modify the condition. 

Condition 32 currently states that:- 

“The development hereby permitted shall only be used as holiday accommodation and shall 

not be used as a permanent residence at any time” 

The reason being:- 

“The site lies within an area in which the Local Planning Authority would not normally permit 

residential development. This permission is granted because accommodation is to be used 

for holiday purposes only in accordance with policy 9/17 of the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk 

Local Plan 1998”. 

The applicant proposes varying the condition so that it reads as follows:- 

“The owner of any residential unit hereby approved shall throughout their period of 

ownership (a) be a member of Heacham Manor Golf Club; (b) be a member of Searles 

Resort Club; and (c) contribute a fair proportion for all services and communal facilities 

provided by the resort and used in conjunction with the residential unit”. 

In addition, it is also proposed to add further conditions stating:- 

“The residential units hereby approved shall not be the sole residence owned by the 

occupier”. 

“Searles shall maintain an up-to-date register of names of all owners of the residential units 

on the site and of the other property owned and shall make this information available at all 

reasonable times to the local planning authority”. 

On the current Local Plan proposals map the majority of the site is shown as being in 

Countryside. However, the barn at the eastern edge of the site is within Built Environment 

Type C, which also covers the houses immediately south of the site. The more modern 

houses on the opposite side of Hunstanton Road fall within Built Environment Type D. That 

part of the site that is within Countryside is also designated as an Area of Important 

Landscape Quality. 


The applicant argues that the condition is unreasonable and unduly restrictive. The consent 

was originally granted because of the benefits of the development to the local economy. 

However, the effect of the condition is that the residential units are classed as commercial 

development and attract VAT and require a commercial mortgage. The result is that the 

cottages are 20% more expensive than open market residential accommodation and, in the 

current economic climate, difficult to secure a mortgage against. This affects the viability of 

the whole scheme. 



101

The applicant states that 11 units have been created since consent was granted. It has only 

been possible to sell 4 of these. All of these were sold to existing VAT-registered 

organisations. None have been sold to private individuals. 

It is the applicant’s view that the nature of the development would not be materially affected 

by removal of the condition, notwithstanding that the development plan does not support 

development outside the development boundary. The applicant also points out that the barn 

fronting Hunstanton Road falls within the built environment. 

The applicant believes that the proposed amendments to the condition would be compliant 

with advice contained in ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism’. Quoting from the 

guide, the applicant states that the main aim of occupancy conditions is to ensure that “the 

premises are only used by visitors and do not become part of the local housing stock”. It is 

the applicant’s belief that the proposed conditions would achieve this aim without specific 

reference to holiday use or to a property not being the sole or main place of residence. This 

would allow the properties to be marketed without VAT and financed by domestic 

mortgages, helping to make the development viable and bringing about the economic 

benefits originally envisaged. 


06/02092/FM – Alteration, extension and change of use of listed farmhouse to create a hotel, 

conversion of barns and outbuildings into hotel suites, health spa and leisure facilities, 

conversion of existing barns and construction of new barns to create 33 holiday cottages, 

change of use of agricultural land to 9 hole golf course, erection of new clubhouse, 

associated infrastructure and parking – Manor Farm, 68 Hunstanton Road, Heacham – 

Refused – Development Control Board – 2006 

07/00437/FM – Hotel, self catering holiday cottages, leisure club and spa, golf course and 

club house – Manor Farm, Hunstanton Road, Heacham – Approved – Development Control 

Board – 2007 

07/01718/FM – Variation of condition 31 attached to 07/00437/FM (hours of opening) – 

Approved – Development Control Board – 2007 


Parish Council: OBJECT despite the compelling circumstances, the reason for the 

condition remains valid. 


One letter has been received but the comments relate to the opening hours rather than to 

holiday occupation. 







102


Tourism Good Practice Guide (2006): This Good Practice Guidance, to be read alongside 

national planning policies, is designed to: 

� ensure that planners understand the importance of tourism and take this fully into 

account when preparing development plans and taking planning decisions; 

� ensure that those involved in the tourism industry understand the principles of 

national planning policy as they apply to tourism and how these can be applied when 

preparing individual planning applications; and 

� ensure that planners and the tourism industry work together effectively to facilitate, 

promote and deliver new tourism development in a sustainable way. 


Policy E6: Tourism - Identifies key principles to be adopted in Local Development 

Documents. 











locality. 


CS10 - The Economy 



This application to vary the occupancy condition on the permission granted in 2007 requires 

the imperative to support economic development, now contained in PPS4 rather than PPS7, 

to be balanced against the need to prevent unsustainable patterns of development in the 

countryside that could harm the character and appearance of the landscape. 

In balancing these issues, the Board will need to consider first whether or not the reasons for 

imposing the original condition still exist. If they do not, then the condition can be removed. 

If control over occupancy is still necessary, the Board will then need to consider whether or 

not the changes proposed by the applicant would allow sufficient control to be exercised 

over occupancy of the development to allow it to be approved. 



103

Is there still a need to control occupancy of the development? 

The permission granted in 2007 allowed for the creation of 33 residential units. One of these 

was in an existing single-storey block to the rear of Manor Farm House and seven were in 

the large barn fronting on to Hunstanton Road. As mentioned earlier in this report, the large 

barn is in built environment type C. The balance of the residential units (25) was to be in 

open countryside. Ten of these new-build units have been constructed as well as the single 

unit in the existing single-storey block behind the farm house, now the hotel and restaurant. 

At the time the application was submitted, the applicant made the case that the development 

was needed to extend and diversify the holiday offer in the Borough generally and in and 

around Hunstanton specifically. The point was made that the applicant was an existing 

operator that already made a strong contribution to the local economy and that the proposals 

would strengthen their position, bringing in additional holiday income and providing 

employment. 

However, there were concerns that the bulk of the development was in open countryside 

where residential accommodation would not normally be permitted. Balancing the potential 

conflict between the desire to promote economic development against the need to protect 

the landscape, the application was considered as a package and a condition attached 

restricting all the residential units to holiday occupation. 

Had separate applications been received for the conversion of the large barn and the singlestorey 

building, it is unlikely that they would have been subject to a holiday occupancy 

restriction. The units in the large barn would not have been in the countryside whilst the unit 

in the single-storey building would have involved re-use of an existing building in a relatively 

sustainable countryside location. Consequently, it can be legitimately argued that there is no 

need to restrict the 8 units provided in the existing buildings to holiday use. 

Notwithstanding this, it remains a fact that the ten new-build units that have been 

constructed and the 15 that can still be built are in the countryside and would not have been 

recommended for approval without some form of occupancy restriction. Whilst the specific 

policies may have changed (Local Plan policies have been superseded and parts of PPS7 

have now been superseded by PPS4), the general thrust of both national and local policy is 

that residential development in the countryside should not normally be allowed. The 

exception at the time was that they were for economic development (holiday 

accommodation), and is not the case for open market housing. 

Do the changes proposed by the applicant allow sufficient control over occupancy to 

be retained? 

The document that guided the imposition of the original condition and still remains relevant 

today is the DCLG publication ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism’. Annex B of 

the guide deals specifically with seasonal and holiday occupancy conditions and suggests 

that there are three main reasons why a planning authority may wish to impose such 

conditions:- 

� In order that national or local policies on development of the countryside are not 

compromised. Often the conversion of redundant rural buildings to holiday 

accommodation provides a means to retain those buildings without introducing a 

level of activity that would occur with permanent households; 



104

� To avoid occupation by permanent households which would in turn put pressure 

upon local services. Permanent households may place demands for local schools 

and social and health services that would not normally arise from visitors. Moreover, 

in remote locations the cost of providing these services is greater. It may therefore be 

reasonable for the planning authority to place an occupancy condition when 

properties are being built or converted for residential use; and 

� To strengthen tourism in a particular area by ensuring that there is a wide range of 

properties available to encourage visitors to come there on holiday. 

It states that planning authorities will frame these conditions according to local 

circumstances and that they should be ‘reasonable and fair’. The guide gives an example of 

occupancy conditions applied elsewhere in the country, these read as follows:- 

� The caravans (or cabins/chalets) are occupied for holiday purposes only; 

� The caravans (or cabins/chalets) shall not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main 

place of residence; 

� The owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all 

owners/occupiers of individual caravans/log cabins/chalets on the site, and of their 

main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable 

times to the local planning authority. 

The current wording of condition 32 states that ‘The development shall only be used as 

holiday accommodation and shall not be used as a permanent residence at any time’. The 

reason being that ‘The site lies within an area in which the Local Planning Authority would 

not normally permit permanent residential development’. From this wording, it is the first of 

the bullet points in the practice guide that is relevant to this condition, i.e. to ensure that 

policies on development in the countryside are not compromised. 

The applicant proposes removing condition 32 as worded and replacing it with 3 conditions 

as follows:- 

“The residential units hereby approved shall not be the sole residence owned by the 

occupier” 

“Searles shall maintain an up to-date register of the names of all owners of the residential 

units on the site and of the other property owned and shall make this information available at 

all reasonable times to the local planning authority” 

“The owner of any residential until hereby approved shall throughout their period of 

ownership:- 

� Be a member of Heacham Manor Golf Club 

� Be a member of Searles Resort Club 

� Contribute a fair proportion for all services and communal facilities provided by the 

resort and used in conjunction with the residential unit” 

The applicant acknowledges that the conditions neither refer to holiday accommodation nor 

to the units not being used as a permanent place of residence. The last of the three 

proposed conditions would also tie the occupier into the facilities provided at the complex. 



105

The applicant believes that this would make the properties unappealing to normal residential 

buyers. 

However, the proposed conditions, in omitting reference to holiday accommodation and not 

being used as a permanent place of residence, would allow the occupant to reside on-site 

permanently provided that they owned another property somewhere else. There is no 

obligation upon the occupier to reside in their other property for any length of time or indeed 

at all. In essence, the units would become permanent places of residence. The requirement 

to own a second residence and be a member of the golf club etc may make the units less 

attractive to parts of the open market but not to all, for example second home owners. 

CONCLUSION 

When an applicant makes an application to remove or modify conditions, the planning 

authority can take the opportunity to review all the conditions attached to the consent. It is 

not bound to approve or refuse the application in the way it has been submitted. 

In this case, it is arguable that it was not necessary to control the occupancy of all the units. 

In particular, the 7 units in the large barn and the one in the smaller existing building to the 

rear of the farmhouse, for the reasons described in the body of the report above. 

However, there remains a need to control the occupancy of the new build units, particularly 

as these constitute the bulk of the units approved and are all in the countryside. The 

proposed changes put forward by the applicant do not, it is suggested, ensure that sufficient 

control is retained over the use of these new-build units. They could still be used as 

permanent places of residence, although with certain obligations upon the occupier. 

Allowing the conditions to be varied in this way would effectively allow a housing estate of 25 

dwellings in a location not considered acceptable. 

The need to balance the protection of the countryside against the need for continued 

economic development is recognised. Removing the condition on 8 of the units in existing 

converted buildings should help the applicant to achieve some sales although it will not help 

with the unsold new build units already constructed. It is the view of your officers that 

relaxing the conditions as suggested would be at variance with established policies for 

protecting the countryside and, had they been proposed when the application was made, the 

recommendation to the Board would have been to refuse the development. 

The recommendation is therefore to approve the application but only to remove the 

occupancy condition from the 8 units created by the conversion of existing buildings. It is 

proposed to retain the condition unchanged in relation to the new-build units. 

As the development is not completed, it is necessary to ensure that some of the conditions 

from the original consent remain enforceable, which is why they appear below. 







106



2 Condition Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town 

and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order 

revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gates shall be erected across the 

approved access unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority. 

2 Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with PPG13. 

3 Condition The visibility splay shown on the approved plans and laid out on site shall be 

maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the 

adjacent highway carriageway. 

3 Reason To ensure that lines of vision are available in the interests of highway safety in 

accordance with PPG13. 

4 Condition Prior to the first occupation or use of the golf clubhouse, leisure club and spa 

building and block D, E and F hereby permitted the associated on-site parking, 

servicing, loading and unloading areas shall be laid out, constructed, surfaced and 

drained in accordance with the approved plans and retained thereafter available for 

that specific use. 

4 Reason To ensure that parking and servicing facilities will be available to serve the 

development in accordance with PPG13. 

5 Condition The Travel Plan submitted to discharge condition 6 attached to consent 

reference 07/00437/FM shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable set out 

therein and monitored in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority so long as any part of the development is occupied. 

5 Reason To ensure that the development is sustainable in accordance with PPG13. 

6 Condition No further development shall take place pursuant to this consent until full 

details of the foul and surface water drainage arrangements for the site have been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage 

details shall be constructed as approved before any further part of the development 

hereby permitted is brought into use. 

6 Reason To ensure that there is a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with 

PPS23 and PPS25. 

7 Condition The ground floor levels of the buildings to be either constructed or converted 

as part of the development hereby approved shall be set no lower than 6.55m above 

Ordnance Datum Newlyn. 

7 Reason To protect the development from flooding in extreme circumstances in 

accordance with PPS25. 

8 Condition The floodplain area of the Ringstead River and the Heacham River as 

defined in drawing 50580/IPER/102 and in Appendix C of the Faber Maunsell 

Modelling Report submitted with application 07/00437/FM shall remain sterile and no 

development, including any buildings, fencing, walls and/or ground raising shall take 

place in this area. 



107

8 Reason To ensure that the flood plain is free from development in order to alleviate the 

increased risk of flooding that would otherwise be caused as a result of a reduction in 

flood storage capacity, in accordance with PPS25. 

9 Condition The golf clubhouse, leisure club and spa building and blocks D, E and F 

shall be completed in accordance with the materials submitted to discharge condition 

12 attached to consent reference 07/00437/FM. 

9 Reason To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and grouping of materials in 

accordance with PPS1 and PPS5. 

10 Condition The details of the door and window style, reveal, cill and header treatment 

for the golf clubhouse, leisure centre and spa building and blocks D, E and F shall 

accord with the details submitted to discharge condition 13 attached to planning 

permission reference 07/00437/FM. 

10 Reason To ensure that the design and appearance of the development is appropriate 

in accordance with PPS1 and PPS5. 

11 Condition The boundary treatments shown on plan 0355-MF1 Rev B shall, with the 

exception of that to the south of the site, be completed prior to the first occupation of 

either the golf clubhouse, leisure centre and spa building or block D, E and F. The 

hedge and tree planting shown on the southern site boundary shall be planted within 6 

months of the date of this consent or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority within the same timescale. 

11 Reason To ensure that the development is compatible with the amenities of the locality 

in accordance with PPS1. 

12 Condition The planting scheme shown on drawing 0355-3 Rev B, submitted to 

discharge condition 16 of consent reference 07/00437/FM in relation to the golf course 

and implemented on site, shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of 

this consent. Any trees or plants that within the maintenance period die, are removed 

or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting 

season with others of similar size and species as those originally planted, unless the 

Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation. 

12 Reason To ensure that the work is carried out within a reasonable period in 


13 Condition Those parts of the landscape scheme shown on drawing 0335-MF1 Rev B 

that relate to the hotel and units A, B and C submitted to discharge condition 16 

attached to consent 07/00437/FM and implemented on site shall be maintained for a 

period of 5 years from the date of this consent. Any trees or plants that within the 

maintenance period die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall 

be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species as those 

originally planted, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any 

variation. 





108

14 Condition All hard and soft landscaping shown on plan 0355-MF1 Rev B that relates to 

either the golf clubhouse, leisure centre and spa building or units D, E and F shall be 

carried out, with the exception of the planting on the southern site boundary, prior to 

the occupation of those buildings or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that within a period of 5 years 

from the completion of the last of the buildings referred to in this condition die, are 

removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next 

planting season with others of similar size and species as those originally planted, 

unless the Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation. 



15 Condition No development or other operations relating to either block D, E or F shall 

commence on site until the existing trees and/or hedgerows to be retained have been 

protected in accordance with the scheme prepared by Dr Hope dated 20th October 

2007 and submitted to discharge condition 18 attached to planning permission 

reference 07/00437/FM. The fencing shall be retained intact for the full duration of the 

development until all equipment, materials and surplus materials have been removed 

from the site. If the fencing is damaged all operations shall cease until it is repaired in 

accordance with the approved details. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced 

area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall 

not be altered, nor shall any excavations be made without the written approval of the 

Local Planning Authority. 

15 Reason To ensure that existing trees and hedgerows are properly protected in 

accordance with Policy 4/7 of the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan, 1998. 

16 Condition No further development or other operations pursuant to this consent shall 

take place until a detailed scheme for the investigation of land contamination, 

remediation, and validation of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall contain an investigation and 

assessment identifying the extent of contamination and the measures to be undertaken 

to avoid risk to people, buildings, and the environment before the site is developed. 

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. 

16 Reason In the interests of protecting the environment and the future occupants of the 

development in accordance with PPS23. 

17 Condition In the event that contaminated material should be encountered during 

ground works or construction the Local Planning Authority shall be notified 

immediately. A detailed scheme for the investigation, remediation and validation of the 

site contamination shall thereafter be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their 

written approval. The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify 

the extent of contamination and the measures to be undertaken to avoid risk to people, 

buildings, and the environment. The development shall thereafter be implemented in 

accordance with the approved scheme. 

17 Reason In the interests of protecting the environment and the future occupants of the 

development in accordance with PPS23. 

18 Condition No development of any kind shall take place within 5m of the top of the bank 

of any water course that crosses the site. In addition, no grass mowing or other form 

of landscape maintenance shall take place within the same area. 



109

18 Reason In order to minimise the impact of the development upon water voles, which 

area a protected species, in accordance with PPS9. 

19 Condition Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 3 Class H of the Town and Country 

Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and reenacting 

that Order with or without modification), no satellite dishes/antenna shall be 

erected on the holiday dwelling units hereby approved without the granting of specific 

planning permission. 

19 Reason To preserve the appearance and character of the development in accordance 

with PPS7. 

20 Condition Any flues, vent pipes and extraction systems relating to either the golf 

clubhouse, the leisure centre and spa building or units D, E and F shall be installed in 

accordance with drawings D1641:30, 31 and 35 submitted to discharge condition 25 

attached to planning permission 07/00437/FM in so far as they relate to the buildings 

referred to. No additional flues, vent pipes or extraction systems shall be installed on 

any buildings covered by this consent without the granting of specific planning 

permission. 

20 Reason To preserve the appearance and character of the development in accordance 

with PPS7. 

21 Condition Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B and D of 

the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any 

order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the 

enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house, the enlargement of 

a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof, or the erection or 

construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwelling house, shall not be 

allowed without the granting of specific planning permission. 

21 Reason In order that the Local Planning Authority may retain control of development 

which might be detrimental to the amenities of the locality if otherwise allowed by the 

above mentioned Order. 

22 Condition Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town 

and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order 

revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the provision within 

the curtilage of any of the dwelling houses hereby permitted of any building or 

enclosure, swimming or other pool shall not be allowed without the granting of specific 




above mentioned Order. 

23 Condition Any external lighting installed in association with the development hereby 

approved shall accord with the details shown on Blueprint Building Services Design 

drawing 'External Lighting Layout' BP/661/07/E06. 

23 Reason In the interests of minimising light pollution and to safeguard the amenities of 

the locality in accordance with PPS1. 



110

24 Condition The bars and restaurants and health facilities that form part of the 

development hereby approved shall have no restriction on opening times for residents 

staying at the development. 

24 Reason For the avoidance of doubt and to define the terms of the consent. 

25 Condition The bars and restaurants shall only be open to the general public who are 

not staying at the development during the period from 0630 to 2330 Monday to 

Saturday with an extension to 0100 for functions provided at the development and 

between 0630 and 2300 on Sundays. The health facilities that form part of the 

development hereby approved shall only open to the general public who are not 

staying at the development during the period from 0700 to 2330 Monday to Saturday 

and 0700 to 2300 Sunday. 

25 Reason In order that the Local Planning Authority may retain control over the 

development in the interests of the locality in accordance with PPG24. 

26 Condition The residential units hereby approved in blocks B, C, D and E on approved 

plan D: 1641:7A shall only be used as holiday accommodation and shall not be used 

as a permanent residence at any time. 

26 Reason The site lies within in an area in which the Local Planning Authority would not 

normally permit permanent residential development. This permission is granted 

because accommodation is to be used for holiday purposes only in accordance with 

PPS7. 









Dairy Farm Hockwold Cum Wilton 

Scale: 

1:1250 

The 

Hamlet 

Oakwood 

Point 

Ground 

Flint House 

Bowling 

Green 


112 

WEBBS WAY 

Shelter 

93 

SLA Number 

TCB 



1:1250 


100024314

Parish: Hockwold cum Wilton 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(f) 

Proposal: Retention of two storey dwelling in adjusted position 

Location: Dairy Farm Hockwold cum Wilton Norfolk IP26 4JY 

Applicant: Miss B Webb 


Case Officer: Mrs H Wood-Handy 

Tel: 01553 616734 


18th August 2011 

Reason for Referral to DCB – At the request of the Executive Director 

Case Summary 

The site is located to the north of Webbs Way, 30m to the west of the junction of Webbs 

Way with Mill Lane and 170m to the North West of the junction of Mill Lane with Main Street, 

Hockwold. The site is located in a Built Environment Type D Area as defined by the Local 

Plan. 

The application is to retain a two storey dwelling of traditional cottage style appearance in an 

unauthorised position (Plot 3). The dwelling has been constructed 50cm max closer to the 

northern boundary than approved under the 2008 permission (08/01603/F). 

Key Issues 

Planning history 

The change in the location of the dwelling and its impact on neighbour amenity 

Other Issues 


APPROVE 


The site (Plot 3) is located to the North of Webbs Way, 30m to the west of the junction of 

Webbs Way with Mill Lane and 170m to the North West of the junction of Mill Lane with Main 

Street, Hockwold. The site is located in a Built Environment Type D Area as defined by the 

Local Plan. 

The application is to retain a two storey dwelling of traditional cottage style appearance in an 

unauthorised position on the site. The application arises as a result of a complaint submitted 

in January 2011 that the dwelling built on site caused overlooking and overshadowing. The 

site was assessed by officers and concluded that whilst the appearance of the dwelling was 

as previously approved (bar minor detailing), it was not constructed in its approved location. 

The dwelling been constructed 50cm max closer to the northern boundary than approved 

under the 2008 permission (08/01603/F). 





Proposal 

This proposal and application arises from circumstances on site raised by an Officer in the 

Planning Department 

The only item that is the subject of this proposal which has not had previous consideration 

and approval is the siting of the House and its North elevations in respect to the Northern 

boundary. 

In other respects the House has approval and has been completed to that approval. 

The North gable in its completed position is located such that the difference between 

approved and as built is small in both distance and effect. 

Background 

The whole site has an approval for 6 Houses to be constructed and all but 2 have been 

completed. Plot 3 proposal has had amendments approved firstly for a change of design and 

secondly handing of the design and this has been constructed. 

The House has been completed for almost 2 years in its present form and was under 

construction for 10 months before then. 

The latest approval is an extant approval for a House of this form on this plot. 

Siting 

The Authority’s Officers originally mentioned that the House is positioned in a location not 

approved and that in respect to both the North boundary and the East boundary the House 

was some 500– 600mm nearer for the North and 600mm nearer than the East respectively. 

Further measurements commissioned by the Applicant have shown that with regard to the 

East boundary this is not the case and the location is within tolerances generally agreed as 

acceptable. The differential is between - 0.1 and + 0.150 and as such is acceptable as being 

correct. 

The dimension to the North as measured by the Authority’s Officers for the face of the wall 

range from 0950mm to 1140mm but further measurements have shown that the dimensions 

in fact are 1000mm to 1140mm and these have been generally accepted as correct in 

Officer discussions. 

The scaled dimension as the gap between the faces of the wall and the North gable is 

agreed at the Local Authority’s figure of 1500mm as the approved dimension. 

It can be seen that on the face of it the North gable is some 500mm down to 360mm nearer 

to the wall face than scaled from the drawing. 

A distance of 1000mm is commonplace in positioning buildings adjacent to boundaries. 

As approved and as built comparison 




The comparison between siting arrangements approved and as built have differences shown 

on the siting plan and the elevations and the shading drawings and the effect is small. 

The shading drawings – prepared in accordance with the standards laid down show the 

comparison with the House as approved and that as built. 

It is clear by observation that shading of windows and garden will take place to a degree 

where the gable end some 360mm to 500mm further away than as built has no change at all 

on how the shadowing and appearance of the House would be in relation to the Northern 

boundary and the building beyond. 

It is therefore submitted that it is reasonable to allow the proposal with the existing as built 

and unreasonable to require the gable to be to it’s approved (as seen by the Authority) 

position. 

Any change from the current position would be small in both distance and effect. 


08/01603/F – Construction of dwelling (amended siting) – Approved – 21.08.2008 

(Delegated) 

2/03/1551/F – Construction of 6 houses – Approved – 24.11.2003 (Delegated) 


Parish Council: Support – The Parish Council support this application although in principle 

they are against retrospective plans. This is a build error and would not be realistic to ask 

for a rebuild. 


None received to date. 





PPS3 – Housing (2010) sets out the national planning policy framework for delivering the 

Government’s housing objectives. 













locality. 

8/1 - indicates that individual and small groups of dwellings will be permitted in settled or 

built-up areas of villages defined as Built Environment Types C and D. 




The principle of a dwelling and its design and appearance are considered acceptable. The 

main issues for consideration are: 

� Planning history 

� The change in the location of the dwelling and its impact on neighbour amenity 

� Other Issues 

Planning history 

By way of history, planning permission was granted in November 2003 for 6 large houses on 

the overall Dairy Farm site (now Webbs Way. The permission was subsequently 

implemented and remains an extant consent with two further plots (Plots 1 and 2) capable of 

being built. Whilst the 2003 permission was under consideration, amendments were made 

to the siting of Plot 3 to take account of highway safety concerns. The dwelling on Plot 3 

was approved with a two storey rear extension approx 2m from the boundary with the 

property to the north, 3 Reeves Lane, with a window in the gable end directly overlooking the 

garden (western side of 3 Reeves Lane). 

Further applications followed to vary the design of houses on plots 5 and 6 but in 2008 an 

application to amend the design of Plot 3 (the application site) was submitted. This 

application effectively handed the two storey extension element of the proposed dwelling 

located on its north face from the west side of the dwelling to the east and moved the garage 

from the south part of the site adjacent to the access road to the west side of the house 

creating an attached garage. 




Given the extant 2003 approval, the case officer assessed the impact of the changes on 3 

Reeves Lane and concluded that an extension without a window located in front of an area 

of blank wall to the south elevation of Reeves Lane would have less of an impact on the 

amenity of the occupiers of that property. The dwelling was approved (on 21.08.2008) 1.5m 

at its closest point to the north boundary which was similar to that previously approved under 

to the 2003 permission. The dwelling was constructed in late August 2008 and completed in 

later August 2009 with the final Building Regulations completion certificate being issued in 

February 2010. 

A complaint was submitted in January 2011 that the dwelling built on site caused overlooking 

and overshadowing to 3 Reeves Lane. The site was assessed by officers and concluded 

that whilst the appearance of the dwelling was as previously approved, it was not 

constructed in its approved location. The dwelling been constructed 50cm max closer to the 

northern boundary than approved under the 2008 permission (08/01603/F). 

The change in the location of the dwelling and its impact on neighbour amenity 

Notwithstanding the history of the site, an assessment needs to be made of the impact of the 

dwelling as built compared to that approved under the 2008 permission. 

In 2008, the position of the main part of the dwelling was approx 6.5-7m from the north 

boundary (a 2m high wall with trellis on top). The flank wall of the two storey extension 

element was shown to be located 1.5m from the boundary wall and 2.5m from the south 

elevation of 3 Reeves Lane. These distances were considered acceptable given the extant 

2003 permission and the fact that a dwelling could still be built with an extension within 2m of 

the boundary with a window at two storey level directly overlooking the private garden area 

to 3 Reeves Lane. The removal of the first floor window and the repositioning of the two 

storey extension adjacent to an area of blank wall to 3 Reeves Lane meant that there would 

be less overlooking (at very close proximity) and overshadowing of the private garden area. 

The case officer therefore tried to improve matters for the occupiers of 3 Reeves Lane. 

However, the dwelling built on site is closer to the boundary than previously approved by 

approx 0.5m. The main building is scaled at being 6m from the boundary the two storey 

extension being between 0.95m to 1.14m. The windows at first floor level on the north 

elevation of Plot 3 are as previously approved being a window to bedroom 4 and a 

bathroom. There is also a window on the west facing elevation of the two storey extension 

which overlooks the garden to Plot 3 and over towards Plot 4. 

With regard to overlooking of the neighbouring property, no additional windows have been 

inserted at first floor level and therefore the same level of overlooking occurs as previously 

approved. The building is closer to the boundary but the impact of 0.5m is marginal. 3 

Reeves Lane has a ground level slightly higher than Plot 3 but no overlooking occurs from 

ground floor windows as a result of the high wall and trellis. Again, it must be remember that 

the 2003 permission had a window in the gable wall within 2m of the boundary (which was 

an extant permission in 2008) which would have affected the occupiers of 3 Reeves Lane far 

more than that approved in 2008. 

With regard to overshadowing and whether the property is overbearing, again the distance of 

0.5m would have a minimal effect when compared against the previous 2008 approval. The 

building is to the south of 3 Reeves Lane and clearly overshadowing will occur at certain 

times of the year but the majority of overshadowing during the summer months would be to 

Plot 3 and not 3 Reeves Lane. 




The Agent has submitted a comparison of overshadowing as approved (2008 approval) and 

as built which shows that overshadowing occurs more during the period with the shortest 

daylight hours of the year i.e. December. 

Overall, the dwelling as built raises little additional impact over that previously approved in 

2008. Having said this, given the proximity of the property to 3 Reeves Lane, a condition 

should be imposed restricting the insertion of windows, extensions/alterations and 

outbuildings etc. 

Other Issues 

Amended plans have been requested following a site meeting with the Agent as the 

elevations on plan were not the same as the dwelling as built. These changes are very 

minor in nature but include decorative detailing, the window positions have changed slightly 

(but not materially) on the north elevation at ground and first floor level, the porch is slightly 

higher due to the addition of decorative detailing above the door and similarly in the garage 

a window size has been enlarged at ground floor on the east elevation. 

Crime and Disorder 

This application does not raise issues regarding crime and disorder. 

CONCLUSION 

The key issue in this case is the impact of the change in location of the dwelling 0.5m closer 

to the north boundary wall than previously approved under the 2008 permission. The 2003 

permission approved a dwelling with a window in the gable end approx 2m from the 

boundary with 3 Reeves Lane and this dwelling was capable of being implemented prior to 

the submission of the 2008 application. In 2008, the case officer, with the 2003 permission 

in mind, tried to improve the environment for the occupiers of 3 Reeves Lane by handing the 

extension so that it sat to the south of an area of blank wall which would alleviate some 

overlooking and overshadowing of the garden area to 3 Reeves Lane. The dwelling that has 

been built albeit 0.5m further to the north, is essentially the same dwelling (bar minor 

detailing) as approved in 2008. The difference in overlooking, overshadowing and whether 

the dwelling has an overbearing impact on 3 Reeves Lane is marginal and has little 

additional impact than that previously approved in 2008. On this basis, the retention of the 

dwelling is acceptable subject to a condition restricting permitted development rights 

regarding the insertion of windows and extensions and alterations to the property and 

outbuildings. 






1 Condition Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, E of the Town and 

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking 

and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions, improvements 

or other alterations to the house including the insertion of windows; 

additions/alterations to the roof; or buildings, enclosures, swimming or other pool or 

containers shall be allowed without the granting of specific planning permission. 



mentioned Order. 








11/00732/CU 

94 Tennyson Road King's Lynn 

nd 

6 

Court 

Recreation Ground 

Car Park 

33 

35 

3.0m 

LB 

Scale: 

3.0m 

El Sub Sta 

37 

1:2500 

SP 

3.7m 

Avenue House 

Posts 

SP 

SB 

2.7m 

3.0m 

St James' Clinic 

St 

Grounds Hospital 

James 

3.0m 

LB 


PW 

Post 

120 

3.0m 

3.0m 

SLA Number 

Kensington Mews 

3.4m 

Tennis Courts 

SP 

Allotment Gardens 

100024314 

Pon 

Pond 



1:2500 


Parish: King's Lynn 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(g) 

Proposal: Change of use from private dwelling to House of Multiple 

Occupancy 

Location: 94 Tennyson Road King's Lynn Norfolk PE30 5NG 

Applicant: Mrs Debra Burgess-Lim 

Case No: 11/00732/CU (Change of Use Application) 

Case Officer: Mrs K Lawty 

Tel: 01553 616403 


30th June 2011 

Reason for Referral to DCB – objection from Highways Authority which is at variance with 

Officer recommendation. 

Case Summary 

The site comprises a two-storey end of terraced property, 94 Tennyson Road and 

associated garden with detached garage and shed. It is the end of a row of large terraced 

properties, sited at the corner of the junction with Avenue Road. The site is within an 

established residential area and the property faces The Walks which is on the opposite side 

of the road to the west. King’s Lynn Football Ground is to the south west. 

Vehicular access to the site is from Avenue Road. 

In planning policy terms the site is within the town of King’s Lynn and within the Built 

Environment Type C. The Conservation Area boundary runs on the opposite side of the 

road and includes the Walks, but the application site is outside the Conservation Area. 

This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the property from a 

private dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). 

Key Issues 

Principle of development 

Impact upon neighbouring occupiers 

Form and character 

Highway implications 

Other material considerations 


APPROVE 


The application proposes the change of use of the existing property from a single 

dwellinghouse to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Currently the property has five 

bedrooms and the application proposes a revised internal layout which would result in seven 

separate bedrooms with a communal living room, two communal kitchens (one on each 

11/00732/CU Development Control Board 


121

floor) and shared bathroom and toilet facilities. No physical changes are proposed to the 

building as a result of this application. 

The site is within an established residential area with other dwellings to the north, east and 

south. The site faces The Walks, a park within King’s Lynn’s Conservation Area. 

The site is within the Built Environment Type C as depicted on the Local Plan Proposals 

Map. In principle new development will be permitted provided it has regard for and is in 

harmony with the building characteristics of the locality. 


The application has been supported by a Design and Access Statement which refers: 

Use: The proposal is for an 'HMO' to be created from an existing domestic dwelling. The 

dwelling is situated conveniently for the College of West Anglia plus both the Town Centre 

and Railway/Bus Stations via 'The Walks' public park. This location makes it ideally suited to 

providing short term student accommodation, which is the desired outcome of making this 

application. 

Amount: The proposal neither creates extra nor loses any part of the existing structure. The 

existing generous proportions of the rooms within the current dwelling lend themselves 

perfectly to creating a good balance of private rooms and communal areas. 

Layout: The proposal is to retain the existing structure and layout of the building. Making 

best use of the existing dual ground and first floor kitchen and bathroom arrangement. 

Scale: The scale of the proposal remains unchanged from the existing. 

Landscaping: the garden and amenity areas remain unchanged as does the existing garage 

and area of hardstanding and access for off-street parking. 

Appearance: All external elements of the building remain unchanged. 

Access: Access to the site from the highway is historically established, as shown on plan 

and will remain unchanged. 


None 


Highways Authority: OBJECT - the proposal, as submitted, does not incorporate adequate 

on-site vehicular parking facilities to the standard required by the local Planning Authority. 

The proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on- 

street parking to the detriment to highway safety. 

Environmental Health & Housing – Environmental Quality: No objection - conditionally 

Norfolk Constabulary: No comments received 



122

Environment Agency: No objection – made comments that as the site is within Flood 

Zone 2 they would recommend no bedrooms be provided on the ground floor. 


16 representations received referring to the following:- 

� Parking problems already exist in the area and this will exacerbate the problem (10) 

� Noise, disturbance and loud music (9) 

� HMO occupants do not look after the property, the gardens or clear up rubbish (4) 

� Demise of the area and will increase crime and vandalism (4) 

� Driveways already blocked by irresponsible drivers (2) 

� Impact on The Walks which is a family area (2) 

� Loss of Edwardian house (2) 

� Not compatible with family orientated residential area 

� Will become a bin park 

� Area/site is surrounded by double yellow lines forcing parking problems elsewhere 

� Impact on road safety 

� Will become a car park 

� Will spoil the aesthetics of the area 

� Blocking of rights of way and pavements by bins and parked cars which form barriers 

to wheelchair users and people with buggies 

� Problems with anti-social behaviour and groups congregating 

� Rubbish is becoming a problem 

� Will set a precedent 











reduce the need to travel, especially by car. 








123













Policy WAT4: Flood Risk Management - States that the priorities are to defend existing 

properties from flooding and locate new development where there is little or no risk of 

flooding. 



application: 






locality. 


CS03 - King's Lynn Area 


A short explanation regarding recent changes to HMO legislation is considered useful in this 

case. 

Background to HMO legislation 

In 2010 changes to legislation took place concerning the control of HMOs. The previous 

government felt that the concentration of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) can result in 

unintended consequences that can create friction with the local community and can also 

lead to both positive and negative effects upon a local housing market area including social, 

economic, as well as environmental and physical impacts. 



124

Particular concern had been raised about the impact of HMOs occupied by students. These 

concerns focus around the creation of summer 'ghost towns', increased noise, litter, 

pressure on car parking and anti-social behaviour. 

The changes in legislation were intended to allow local authorities greater control over the 

unwanted effects of HMOs where there are problems by increasing the number of new 

HMOs which require planning permission allowing local authorities the opportunity to 

consider the impacts of such proposals. 

However, whilst the negative impact of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) can cause 

concern, they can also make an important contribution to the private rented sector by 

providing housing to meet the needs of specific groups/households and by making a 

contribution to the overall provision of affordable housing stock. 

In response to these issues the previous government brought in The Town and Country 

Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 SI 2010 No. 653 which created 

a new, separate use class for HMOs. Class C4 was created which defined ‘houses in 

multiple occupation’ as the use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a 

‘house in multiple occupation’. The meaning of a HMO is defined in Section 254 of the 

Housing Act 2004. This came into force on 6 April 2010. 

However, the new Government felt that some of these measures were too stringent, and 

subsequently introduced the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) 

(Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2010 SI No. 2134, which came into force on 1st 

October 2010. This permits the change of use from a use falling within Class C3 

(dwellinghouses) to a use falling within Class C4 (houses in multiple occupation) or from 

Class C4 to Class C3. 

Class C3 allows for not more than six residents living together as a single household (with or 

without provided care). Class C4 allows for the use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six 

residents as a house in multiple occupation. The key difference being that occupants of the 

building are unrelated but share basic amenities in living accommodation. A fuller definition 

is set out in Section 254 of the Housing Act 2004. This revised development order 

effectively allows as permitted development certain sizes of HMO’s. As this proposal is for 

one more than the threshold of 6, permission is required. 

The key issues identified in the consideration of this application are as follows: 

� Principle of development 

� Highway implications 

� Residential Amenity, noise and anti-social behaviour 

� Impact on Conservation Area 

� Other material considerations 


The existing property is a large, Edwardian, corner property which currently has five 

bedrooms, a living room, a dining room, a study, two kitchens and two bathrooms. There 

are also facilities for three vehicles to be parked within the site. 

Currently, under permitted development rights the property can convert from a C3 

dwellinghouse to a HMO for up to six people without the need to apply for planning 

permission. 



125

In this case, however, planning permission is required as the internal layout shows that 

seven bedrooms are proposed with shared cooking facilities and bathrooms. No physical 

changes are proposed to the building and the parking arrangements are shown to remain 

the same. 

The site is in a residential area and within the Built Environment Type C where, in principle 

new development will be permitted provided it has regard for and is in harmony with the 

building characteristics of the locality. 

The site faces The Walks which is within the Conservation Area. The impact upon the 

Conservation Area should be considered as part of the consideration of the application. 

Highway implications 

The main objection from third parties relates to the exacerbation of on-street parking 

problems. Neighbours have commented that already there is a lack of parking provision 

within the area and the increase in the number of occupants at the property will make the 

situation worse. 

The property currently has five bedrooms and facilities for three vehicles to be parked within 

the site. The proposal shows no change to the parking arrangement but an increase in the 

number of bedrooms from five to seven. 

The Highways Authority has objected to the application. They state that the proposal site is 

located on the comer of Tennyson Road and Avenue Road, which together with the 

surrounding roads are subject to a scheme of waiting restrictions. These restrictions protect 

both the junctions and also areas with limited carriageway widths, where parking needs to be 

strictly controlled. 

They feel that there is limited opportunity to park on-street and the locations which are 

available are already fully utilised. The addition of further competition for on-street parking at 

this location would have the effect of pushing existing on-street traffic into more unsuitable 

locations and exacerbate problems on parts of the highway network that need to remain free 

from obstruction. 

Whilst it is noted that the applicants indicate the accommodation is expected to appeal to 

students, the highways authority states there is no guarantee students would/ could occupy 

the property or indeed that any such students would walk and not own a car. It is equally 

possible the accommodation will appeal to teaching staff who require a car to transport 

teaching materials/ homework etc that they review at home back to the College. 

The parking allocation for this site is limited to that required for a single unit of 

accommodation and the Highways Authority are of the view that the subdivision of this 

dwelling will engender an increase in on-street parking at locations where parking is already 

at a premium with no ability to introduce further waiting restrictions. 

In light of the above reasons, a highway objection is raised with regard to the fact that the 

proposal, as submitted, does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking facilities to 

the standard required by the local Planning Authority. The proposal, if permitted, would 

therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on- street parking to the detriment to 

highway safety. 

The Highways Authority has based the parking standard on a requirement of one space per 

single unit of accommodation. Currently, however, the adopted parking standards for 

Norfolk do not contain a standard for Class C4. 



126

Generally speaking residents of HMOs would be expected to have a low level of car 

ownership. However, planning cannot control the age, occupation or lifestyle of persons 

occupying a property. It is likely that the occupants may be students of the nearby college 

which is within walking distance, thereby having no need for a car, but this cannot be 

guaranteed. It has been reported by neighbours, however, that students in the area 

generally do have cars but don’t use them for college and keep them parked near their place 

of residence. 

Conversely, it may be argued that premises may lawfully be used for the accommodation of 

a large family or 6+ individuals living together as a family and that such occupation may give 

rise to even greater parking requirements than a multiple occupation use. 

In terms of parking provision the government has relaxed the need for minimum standards 

for parking. PPG13 states that local authorities "should revise their parking standards to 

allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision, particularly for 

developments in locations, such as town centres, where services are readily accessible by 

walking, cycling or public transport”. 

In this case the site is close to the college, within walking distance of King’s Lynn town 

centre, railway station, buses and shops. The site also provides for three off-street parking 

spaces, so contributes someway to the local parking provision. Given that permitted 

development rights allow for the use of the building as a HMO for up to 6 residents and the 

fact that the current use of the property could house a large family with equal demands for 

car parking facilities it is not considered that the demands for parking generated by this 

proposal (1 additional bedroom over permitted development) would be significantly greater 

or lead to significant highway safety concerns. 

Residential Amenity, noise and anti-social behaviour 

Third party objection has been made to the general noise and disturbance which may be 

generated by the proposed change of use. Concern has also been raised regarding the 

playing of loud music, groups of occupants congregating late at night and the general 

demise of the area and increase in crime and vandalism. Concern has been raised regarding 

the compatibility of the use in a family orientated residential area. 

However, these issues could already occur with use of the site by a large family or smaller 

HMO arrangement which would not require planning permission. In this case it is not 

considered the proposal would lead to such an increase in general noise and disturbance to 

warrant the refusal of planning permission. 

The Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer has not objected to the proposal 

but requests that due to the potential amount of people using the property, the applicant 

should show that they are going to provide additional insulation to protect the neighbouring 

residents. However, as this application would result in only one additional bedroom over the 

permitted development limits it is not considered necessary to impose such a condition. 

Impact on Conservation Area 

PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment states that local planning authorities should 

take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the 

character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The site itself is not within the 

Conservation Area but it can be seen from the opposite side of the road where the 

Conservation Area boundary runs. 



127

Third party objection has been made to the proposal on the ground that generally HMO 

residents do not look after the property, maintain the gardens or dispose of rubbish in a 

satisfactory manner. Concern has been raised regarding the impact of the proposal upon 

The Walks and the general aesthetics of the area. 

The proposal shows no physical changes to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse 

and no changes to the parking arrangements are proposed. The use of the property as a 

HMO could have an impact however on the character and amenity of the area through 

inadequate facilities for bin storage. In this case, however, the site has ample space for the 

storage of wheelie bins within the confines of the garden area, which is screened by existing 

hedges and walling. This will not have a significantly detrimental impact upon the character 

of the area or the Conservation Area. 


The site is located within Flood Zone 2. The Environment Agency raises no objection to the 

proposed development but they do recommend that no ground floor bedrooms are provided. 

In this case the dwelling already exists and has a bedroom at ground floor level. The 

proposal would result in three bedrooms at ground floor level. Both uses of a dwellinghouse 

and a HMO are in the same ‘vulnerability’ category within Table D2 of PPS25 ('More 

Vulnerable'). Given that the property could be used as a HMO for up to 6 people without the 

need for planning permission where bedrooms could be on the ground floor it is not 

considered this would be a valid reason for refusal in this case, or reasonable to impose a 

condition restricting such use. 

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 

Section 17 of the above act requires Local Authorities to consider the implications for crime 

and disorder in the carrying out of their duties. Norfolk Constabulary has been consulted 

with regard to the application but at the time of writing the report no feedback has been 

received. 

Despite concerns raised about anti-social behaviour by local residents, it is not considered, 

however, that the application before the Board will likely have a significant impact upon 

crime and disorder. 

CONCLUSION 

In this case the property is already a five bedroom dwelling and the application proposes 

seven separate bedrooms with a communal living room, two communal kitchens (one on 

each floor) and shared bathroom and toilet facilities. Permitted development rights would 

allow six people to live together as a single household without the need for a planning 

application. Assuming each room is occupied by one person this is only one more resident 

than would be permitted under the 2010 amended regulations. 

In this case it is not considered the occupation of the dwellinghouse by potentially one extra 

person would lead to such significant highway, amenity and noise issues to warrant the 

refusal of planning permission. Accordingly the application has a recommendation of 

approval. 



128








the following approved plans: 

Drawing No. 607-02 



Application file reference: 11/00732/CU 





129

11/00713/F 

80 Peddars Way North Ringstead 

tone 

Scale: 

1:5000 

Mill Farm 

(disused) Windmill 

31.9m 

34.7m 


36.4m 

130 

Pp 

Pp 

39.5m 

Pp 

Pp 

SLA Number 



1:5000 


100024314

Parish: Ringstead 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(h) 

Proposal: Proposed demolition of 80 Peddars Way, Ringstead and 

construction of one residential dwelling 

Location: 80 Peddars Way North Ringstead Norfolk PE36 5JP 

Applicant: Mr D Benton 

Case No: 11/00713/F (Full Application) 


Tel: 01553 616403 



Reason for Referral to DCB – Parish Council at variance with Officer recommendation. 

Case Summary 

The site comprises a single storey detached property and associated garden land. The 

property is surrounded by open countryside. 

In planning policy terms the site is within the countryside and within the AONB. 

This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the bungalow and its 

replacement with a two storey dwelling and detached garage/store. 

Key Issues 

The principle of development; 

Form and character / impact on the countryside and AONB; 

Neighbour amenity; 

Access and highways impact; and 

Other considerations. 


APPROVE 


The application proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow at 80 Peddars Way North 

and its replacement with a two storey property and a detached garage/store building. 

The site is within the countryside as depicted on the Local Plan Proposals Maps and within 

the North Norfolk AONB. 

The site is immediately surrounded by open countryside in agricultural use, but there is 

residential and agricultural development along Peddars Way both to the north and south of 

the site. 

11/00713/F Development Control Board 


131


The application has been supported by a Design and Access Statement which states: 

‘We were approached in November 2010 to evaluate a site in Ringstead situate along 

Peddars Way at the northern end of the village. Our discussion centred on the demolition of 

the existing dwelling and associated outbuildings. 

The existing site is substantial with an area of 3279m². The site is fairly secluded. To the 

south relatively modern properties form a linear development along the eastern side of the 

highway. To the north uninterrupted views to Holme-Next the-Sea and the coast itself 

present an ideal opportunity to construct a dwelling worthy of the site. The existing bungalow 

has little architectural merit. Our proposal includes the demolition of the bungalow, 

constructed of commons brickwork with multi red faced brick ashlars, white UPVC windows 

and slate roof. 

Local materials and vernacular details form part of our proposal. We have designed the 

property to include the above whilst creating a dwelling with contemporary features both 

externally and internally. It is our opinion that the marriage of the two has worked 

successfully. 

A site position such as this demands living areas that can fully appreciate the views over the 

open countryside to coast. As part of the design large glazed areas face the north with the 

semi-circular section providing a 180 degree vista. Proposed materials include red clay 

pantiles, red clay pintiles, multi-red facing bricks, random flintwork, horizontal timber 

boarding, painted render and purpose made timber joinery. 

The dwelling will have enclosed gardens to the East & South with generous parking and 

turning areas to the west. The proposed outbuilding provides a 3 bay garage incorporating a 

large store. The proposed materials for the outbuilding are red clay pantiles, multi-red facing 

bricks, random flintwork, plain casement painted timber joinery and timber double garage 

doors 

It is proposed that the existing boundary shrubbery & trees will remain. These are not 

affected by our proposals. The details of the method of protection for trees on site are shown 

within the DAS. 

The improved access provides excellent visibility in both directions to Peddars Way. It is 

estimated that the new proposal could add a further 6 traffic movements to that which exists. 

The proposed finish for parking and turning areas is a hardcore base with a shingle finish. 


2/99/1297/F - Garage extension to bungalow - Application Permitted 


Parish Council: OBJECTION – this structure is not particularly in line with the current 

surrounding buildings. Although the plot itself is large enough, it would have a severe impact 

on an area of natural outstanding beauty; it encroaches on the view of the village coming 

from Holme along the Holme Road. The area labelled as ‘paddock’ in the plans is actually 

agricultural land and was cultivated as such until approximately a year ago (therefore a 

change of use is required). According to the Borough Council plans, the site also appears to 



132

e outside the current ‘built’ envelope area. It is felt that a lower, less-imposing structure 

would be more sympathetic to the surrounding area. 

Highways Authority: No objection - conditionally 

Environmental Health & Housing – Environmental Quality: No comment 

Norfolk Constabulary: Forwarded comments to the applicant relating to crime prevention 


One third party comment received referring to the following:- 

� No objection; in favour of development 




























133



CS07 - Development in Coastal Areas 



� The principle of development; 

� Form and character / impact on the countryside and AONB; 

� Neighbour amenity; 

� Access and highways impact; and 

� Other considerations. 

The Principle of Development 

The application site is situated within the countryside as defined on the King’s Lynn & West 

Norfolk Local Plan (1998) Proposals Map. 

The application seeks full planning permission for a replacement dwelling on the same site 

as the existing bungalow. 

The adopted local plan contained a policy relating to replacement dwellings in the 

countryside, however, this is not one of the saved policies. The principle of replacing 

dwellings in the countryside is generally considered to be acceptable. PPS7 refers to the 

replacement of suitably located, existing buildings of permanent design and construction in 

the countryside but these comments relate to buildings for economic development purposes 

rather than dwellinghouses. 

PPS7 states that with regard to replacement buildings for economic development purposes 

these should be favoured where this would result in a more acceptable and sustainable 

development than might be achieved through conversion, for example, where the 

replacement building would bring about an environmental improvement in terms of the 

impact of the development on its surroundings and the landscape. 

This approach is generally applied to applications for replacement dwellings whereby the 

environmental benefits of the proposal should be considered. 

Form & Character / Impact on the Countryside and AONB 

AONB’s have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. 

The site is within the AONB, where development which has a significantly detrimental impact 

upon the natural beauty of the landscape in this designated area will not be permitted. 

The existing bungalow is a very modest building with no specific architectural features which 

reflect its position in the north Norfolk countryside. The site is at a high point along Peddars 

Way and has sea views from its northern boundary between the trees. However, views of 

the bungalow itself are restricted in part due to the degree of planting to the majority of the 

boundary of the site. 

Despite its position in the countryside, the site is not completely isolated as there is a row of 

residential properties to the south and to the south west are two large properties; one a 



134

detached, two storey dwelling with dormers in the roof and one the former mill building. Both 

of these properties are prominent in the landscape, particularly when approached from the 

north as the ground level rises and they are sited at the higher level. 

Further north, between the site and the village of Holme –next –the Sea, are large 

agricultural buildings and residential properties. The proposed dwelling has some barn-like 

qualities and uses traditional, external building materials. In context therefore a two storey 

dwelling of this design in this location is not considered to be out of keeping with 

development which already exists in the vicinity. 

Whilst the proposed replacement dwelling is larger than the existing property in terms of the 

overall floorspace to be created, its proposed footprint is not considered unreasonable for 

the site and its surroundings, particularly when taking into account that the current bungalow 

benefits from permitted development rights and could potentially be extended without 


Overall it is considered that the size, scale and design of the proposed dwelling is 

appropriate for the site and would not have any detrimental impact on the character or 

appearance of the streetscene or wider countryside. It will not significantly detract from the 

character and appearance of the AONB. Whilst views of the existing bungalow are relatively 

limited due to the existing boundary landscaping, the proposed replacement should result in 

an overall visual improvement. 

It is however recommended that should planning permission be granted permitted 

development rights should be removed for development within the curtilage of a 

dwellinghouse (Classes A to E) to allow the local planning authority to retain control over 

development which may be detrimental to the character of the area and the amenities of the 

locality if not otherwise controlled. 

The Parish Council has objected to the proposal which they state is not particularly in line 

with surrounding buildings and a lower, less imposing structure would be more sympathetic. 

However, for the reasons given above this view is not shared by your officers. 

Neighbour Amenity 

The closest neighbouring property to the proposed replacement dwelling is No 70 Peddars 

Way North which is a semi-detached property situated nearly 100 metres away to the south. 

Given the distance between the properties and the planting which exists between the two 

properties it is not considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would result in any 

harm to residential amenity in terms of either loss of light or overlooking. 

Access & Highways Impact 

The proposed development includes provision of satisfactory access, turning and parking 

areas that comply with adopted standards. As a result the Local Highways Authority has 

raised no objection to the proposal subject to specified conditions, relating to the provision of 

the access and parking facilities, being attached to any planning permission. 

Other Considerations 

The site already has a significant degree of landscaping and tree planting to the boundary. It 

is acknowledged that the site commands sea views to the north and a break in tall planting 

would be expected in order to take advantage of these views. However, in this case it is 

also important that much of the existing planting is retained to ensure that the new dwelling 

assimilates successfully into the countryside and does not harm the landscape character of 



135

the AONB. Accordingly it is recommended that if permission is forthcoming a condition be 

imposed to retain the existing boundary planting and also for a landscaping scheme to 

enhance this planting. 

The Parish Council refers to the area to the north of the site which is outside of the 

application site and shown as ‘blue’ land or land within the applicant’s ownership. This has 

been labelled as ‘paddock’ on the plans but the Parish Council states this is agricultural land 

and was cultivated until approximately a year ago and therefore a change of use is required. 

As this field does not form part of the application site its use is not for consideration as part 

of the determination of this application. However, the Parish Council are correct in stating 

that the use of land as a paddock would require a change of use application which would be 

considered on its own merits. 

One representation has been received from a local resident who supports the application. 

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires Local Authorities to consider the 

implications for crime and disorder in the carrying out of their duties. The application before 

the Board will not have a material impact upon crime and disorder. 

CONCLUSION 

The principle of a replacing the existing dwelling is considered to be acceptable and in this 

case the proposal would not have any significantly detrimental impact on the character or 

appearance of the AONB or cause any significant harm to residential amenity or highway 

safety. Conditionally there are no outstanding landscaping issues. As a result the proposal 

complies with the provisions of PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13, Regional Policy SS1 and 

ENV2 and Core Strategy Policy CS06. It is therefore recommended that planning permission 

be approved subject to conditions. 







2 Condition No development shall commence on site until a sample panel of the 

materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and/or extension(s) 

hereby permitted has been erected on site for the inspection and written approval of 

the Local Planning Authority. The sample panel shall measure at least 1 metre x 1 

metre using the proposed materials, mortar type, bond, and pointing technique. The 

development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. 





136

3 Condition Prior to the commencement of the first use hereby permitted the vehicular 

access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan. Additionally from 

the property boundary to the near channel edge of the carriageway the construction 

specification shall be in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 

3 Reason To ensure satisfactory access into the site. 

4 Condition Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the 

proposed on-site car and turning area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced 

and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for 

that specific use. 

4 Reason To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the 

interests of highway safety. 

5 Condition No development or other operations shall commence on site in connection 

with the development herby approved (including any tree felling, tree pruning, 

demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction and/or widening, or any 

operations involving the use of motorised vehicles and machinery) until the trees to be 

retained are protected in accordance with the details contained within the submitted 

Design and Access Statement. 

5 Reason To ensure that the development is properly landscaped in the interests of the 

visual amenities of the locality. 

6 Condition No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft 

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. These details shall include finished levels or contours, hard 

surface materials, refuse or other storage units, street furniture, structures and other 

minor artefacts. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written 

specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and 

grass establishment) schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed 

numbers and densities where appropriate. 

6 Reason To ensure that the development is properly landscaped in the interests of the 

visual amenities of the locality. 

7 Condition All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the 

approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation or use of any 

part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing 

with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that within a period of 5 years 

from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously 

damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of 

similar size and species as those originally planted, unless the Local Planning 

Authority gives written approval to any variation. 

7 Reason To ensure that the work is carried out within a reasonable period. 

8 Condition Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A - E of the 

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any 

order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions, 

roof alterations, porches or incidental buildings shall be allowed without the granting of 

specific planning permission. 



137



mentioned Order. 



Drawing No. D3.1-046-SL 

Drawing No. D2.6-046-PRO 

Drawing No. D4.1-046-PRO GARAGES 



Application file reference: 11/00713/F 





138


The Old Smithy Church Lane Sedgeford 

Well 

ng) 

Pond 

Brookdale 

Scale: 

Brookdale Cott 

Brookdale Barn 

25.6m 

The Old Vicarage 

1:2500 

FB 

1 

St Mary's 

Church 


139 

Highfield 

Westfield LodgeHouse 

30.9m 

The 

Forge 

The Old 

Buck 

22.3m 

West Hall 

Farm 

4a 

4 

New Barn 

Pond 

Jacobs 

Folly 

Buck 

StonecuttersThe 

Cottage Voss 

Cornerstone 

26.6m 

Yard 

Hill 

House 

Bank 

The 

House 

Pond 

SLA Number 

20.0m 

Aisling House 

19.4m 

Pond 

28.9m 

Serendipity 

Nestleford 

100024314 

Slipstream 

Fernlea 

The Barn 



1:2500 


19 

1

Parish: Sedgeford 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(i) 

Proposal: Conversion of Old Smithy Barn into Domestic dwelling and 

extension. Demolition of part of outbuilding and one barn wall. 

Location: The Old Smithy (The Old Buck) Church Lane Sedgeford 

Applicant: Mrs Janie Preece 



Tel: 01553 616403 



Reason for Referral to DCB – Parish Council at variance with officer recommendation. 

Case Summary 

The application site comprises land to the north of The Old Buck, a Grade II listed 

seventeenth century house, formerly the Buck Inn. The site comprises a range of single 

storey, red brick, carstone and chalk outbuildings, which are currently within the curtilage of 

The Old Buck, set within sloping ground and formerly used as a smithy. 

To the north and west of the site are existing residential properties. There are also 

residential properties and their gardens to the east on the opposite side of the lane. 

This application proposes the conversion and extension of the Old Smithy barn into a 

dwelling. The works would result in the demolition of some of the walling of the barn and a 

new vehicle access from Church Lane. 

Previously planning permission has been approved for the conversion and extension of the 

barn into a dwelling; this is an amended scheme. 

Key Issues 


Impact on form and character 

Impact on listed building and Conservation Area, 

Impact on the AONB, 

Impact on any protected species, 

Impact upon neighbouring occupiers, and 

Impact on highway safety 


APPROVE 


The application proposes the conversion of the Old Smithy Barn into a dwellinghouse and 

also an extension to the building. It proposes the demolition of part of the outbuilding and 

one barn wall. 



140

Previously planning permission was approved for the conversion and extension of the Old 

Smithy barn in 2009. However, this was a more modest proposal with a smaller extension. 

This current scheme shows extensions to the north and south of the main barn, with the 

northern extension running at right angles to the road. The northern extension makes use of 

the changing levels across the site and this two storey section appears as a single storey 

extension when viewed from the north. 

A new access is proposed leading to a parking area at a higher level in the north west corner 

of the site. Sunken terraces are shown and the garden is partly stepped due to the change 

in ground levels. 

The site is within the Built Environment Type B, the Conservation Area, the AONB and close 

to a SSSI. The building is within the grounds of The Old Buck to the south, which is a Grade 

II listed building. An application for listed building consent for the works has also been 

submitted and has been approved. 


The application has been supported by a Design and Access Statement which refers: 

This existing disused forge, with previous permission to be converted and extended into a 

house, will be used as a house. The existing single storey southern extension will be made 

into two storey as the existing planning permission. There will be a new extension to the 

west. 

The new extension to the south involves raising the roof only, as the existing wall is already 

at the right height. The west extension, which will appear as single storey, due to the ground 

levels distinguishes the access from the private garden behind. 

The existing building will be raised by 225 mm. The scale of the building will be therefore be 

similar. Existing openings are maintained and no new ones are added on the street scene. 

Looking at the axonometric view from the NE the way that the ground level rises shows how 

the new west wing appears to be single storey. This will be articulated by a strip of glazing 

between new and old on the road side. A Horizontal workshop style window is shown on this 

semi-public elevation. 

The newly raised southern extension hides behind the existing tall wall. The roofs gradually 

rise as the building climbs up the hill and will all be pantiled with secondhand pantiles. 

Looking at the rear the sunken garden can be seen. The back wall of the existing building 

will need to be rebuilt in similar materials to existing. The new raised southern extension will 

be built to match this. 

However the new west wing will be in render and timber reflecting a more modern style with 

large glazed windows and a small roof terrace. This is all invisible from outside the site and 

does not overlook or overshadow the Old Buck. In order to get more light into the lower 

ground kitchen low level rooflights are shown like cold frames against the new building. 

The sunken garden area relating to the lower ground floor levels is hidden from public view. 

A new access is to be formed at the upper end of site. This enables a more logical progress 

through the house from North to South 



141

The forge is listed because of it's proximity to the Old Buck. It forms an attractive streetscape 

with the Old Buck adjacent. The building is Grade 2 listed because it is within the Old Buck's 

curtilage, but is not mentioned specifically. 

It is an outbuilding of no particular architectural merit but within the curtilage of the Grade II 

listed building. There is no record of the original build date, but it contains bricks of similar 

age to the Old Buck next door (Cl7th). It was used as blacksmith's in the early part of 20th 

century. 

There were some repairs sometime around 1970 in modern brick inside and chalk outside. 

Some crude pointing and renewed timber roof support beams to form loft space. The 

previous owner built dog kennels inside in breeze blocks but it is now very damp, especially 

the west wall. 

There are no particular features that merit the listing of the building, although its haphazard 

mixture of materials has a certain charm. The proposed alterations in no way damage the 

listed qualities of the building and will ensure a use for this building into the foreseeable 

future. 


11/00882/LB – Listed Building Application: Conversion of Old Smithy Barn into Domestic 

dwelling and extension. Demolition of part of outbuilding and one barn wall. - Approved 

09/00964/F – Construction of single storey extension to dwelling and alterations to existing 

building - Application Permitted 

09/00965/LB which is the listed building application accompanying this application for 


98/0815/LB – Construction of rear single storey extension removal of chimney insertion of 4 

windows reform front door partial demolition of garden wall and installation of burglar alarm - 

Application Permitted 

98/0814/F - Construction of single storey extension to dwelling and alterations to existing 

building- Application Permitted 


Parish Council: OBJECT – access onto Holly Hill; road too narrow and previous 

applications have been refused by the borough council. 

Highways Authority: No objection - conditionally 

Environmental Health & Housing – Environmental Quality: No objection - conditionally 

Norfolk Constabulary: Forwarded comments to the applicant relating to crime prevention 

Historic Environment Service: No objection - conditionally 



142


No third party comments received. 

































4/20 - indicates that in order to protect important undeveloped spaces or well treed areas 

that contribute to the character of towns or villages, development will not be permitted in 

areas identified on the Proposals Map as Built Environment Type A. In areas identified as 

Built Environment Type B only small-scale ancillary development will be allowed. 



143





The main issues for consideration are:- 

� Principle of development 

� Impact on form and character 

� Impact on listed building and Conservation Area, 

� Impact on the AONB, 

� Impact on any protected species, 

� Impact upon neighbouring occupiers, and 

� Impact on highway safety 


The site is located within the settlement of Sedgeford and within the Built Environment Type 

B as depicted on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The property is a building within the 

curtilage of a Grade II listed building within the Conservation Area. 

PPS1, PPS5, PPS7 and PPS9 are the relevant central government guidelines and the 

relevant policies of the Development Plan with regard to this proposal would be Policies 

SS1, ENV2, ENV6, ENV7 and WAT4 of the East of England Plan 2008 and Policy 4/20 of 

the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 1998. 

Within the Built Environment Type B, in principle, new development will only be permitted 

where it is ancillary to the existing building or involves the alteration, extension or change of 

use of existing buildings and where such development would not disturb the spatial 

relationship between existing buildings and their open or heavily treed settings and 

preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area. The site is within the AONB 

where development which will have a significantly detrimental impact upon the natural 

beauty of the landscape will not be permitted. 

Previously planning permission has been approved for the conversion and extension of the 

Old Smithy into a dwelling (09/00964/F), so the principle has already been established. This 

proposal shows an amended design with a larger extension to the Old Smithy and a new 

vehicle access to the north of the existing barn. 

Form and character 

The proposal uses the existing building and proposes extensions to it. The extensions have 

been designed to take advantage of the change in levels across the site. Thus the two 

storey extension to the north of the barn will appear as single storey when viewed from the 

north. From the streetscene the original building and window openings will still remain and 

be the dominant building and its character will be retained. 

Behind the original building the part two storey and part single storey extensions will contrast 

in terms of design and building materials as the sections above ground will be constructed of 

a mixture of chalk and carstone, render and timber boarding. 



144

The proposed extension can be achieved without harm to the form and character of the 

area. It is not considered the proposal will disturb the spatial relationship between existing 

buildings and their open or heavily treed setting. As such, the proposal accords with the 

provisions of Local Plan Policy 4/20. 

Impact on listed building and Conservation Area 

An application for listed building consent has been submitted and has been approved. Preapplication 

discussion has taken place and the Conservation Officer considered the scheme 

has limited impact on the setting of the listed building. Minor alterations only are proposed to 

the external appearance of the outbuilding and the design of the extensions is sympathetic 

to the Old Smithy and the Old Buck. 

Only part of the works will be seen from outside the site. The works to the roadside frontage 

reflect the design, scale, dimension and materials of the building. Ground levels will need to 

be changed significantly to obtain the vehicular access and the lower terracing but this will 

not be greatly apparent from beyond the site. It is considered the character of the 

Conservation Area will be preserved and the proposal accords with the provisions of PPS5. 

Impact on the AONB 

The works involve a significant extension to the existing building. However, most of the 

works will be set behind the existing buildings and will not be seen from the streetscene. 

Although the ground rises at this point much of the development will be built into the ground. 

Only a small proportion will be slightly higher than the existing building on site. As the two 

storey extension is at right angles to the existing barn the overall mass of the development is 

broken up. There will be no harm to the natural beauty of the landscape as a result of this 

application and consequently there will be little impact on the landscape character of the 

AONB. 

Impact on any protected species 

The application has been supported by an updated Protected Species Survey which 

concluded that no evidence of barn owls or great crested newts was found. Evidence of 

bats was found and mitigation measures are proposed, including the provision of bat boxes, 

the checking of cavities before any work is carried out to them and the avoidance of works 

during the bat breeding period (May – September) which could secure their retention. 

Impact upon neighbouring occupiers 

The site is very well screened by existing peripheral planting which is not proposed to be 

affected by the proposed development. The land levels change dramatically and this assists 

with potential overlooking to the north, east and west. The relationship between the dwelling 

as proposed and existing dwellings has been examined and there will be no significantly 

detrimental impact upon the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties in terms of 

overlooking, being overshadowed or the development being over bearing, as a result of this 

proposal. 

The relationship between the proposed new dwelling and the existing Old Buck has been 

considered. The proposed plans show a terraced area at first floor level and several first 

floor windows facing south. However, due to the changes in levels, the distance apart and 

the construction of a boundary wall between the two properties, there will be no significantly 

detrimental impact upon the amenity of the occupants of this neighbouring property in terms 

of overlooking, being overshadowed or the development being over bearing. 



145

Impact on highway safety 

Objection has been raised by the Parish Council to the proposed new access onto the lane 

to the west of the site known as Holly Hill. They state that the road is too narrow and 

previous applications to gain access onto this road have been refused by the borough 

council. 

In this case a widened access is proposed onto Holly Hill which is acceptable to the 

Highways Authority in terms of visibility, dimension and access onto the lane. 

The Parish Council is most likely referring to the application for the construction of a 

vehicular access to serve plot 7 (amended scheme) (lpa ref: 2/03/0913/F) now known as 

Peddars View, Buck Hill, Heacham Road, Sedgeford. Initially concerns were had regarding 

the original proposed plans but following discussion an amended scheme was submitted 

which reduced the amount of hard surfacing and the loss of hedgerow. Planning permission 

was ultimately approved for the creation of a new access from Holly Hill, as it was 

considered that the soft landscaping and the character of the country lane would still prevail 

and the proposal would not have such a harmful effect upon the Conservation Area or erode 

the character of the area to a level significant enough to warrant the refusal of planning 

permission. This access has not been implemented and the permission has now lapsed. 

In this case there are highway benefits to the proposed new access and the works will not 

harm the character of the lane or the Conservation Area. There are no outstanding highway 

safety issues with regard to the width of the carriageway in this case. 

Crime and Disorder 

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires Local Authorities to consider the 

implications for crime and disorder in the carrying out of their duties. The application before 

the Board will not have a material impact upon crime and disorder. 

Other matters 

The proposal will result in the loss of some garden trees at the northern part of the site but 

the peripheral hedgerow to the north and west boundaries will remain. Trees, shrubs and 

planting will remain to the southern part of the site and this proposal will not have a 

significantly detrimental impact upon the overall character of the area. 

The Historic Environment Service have requested a photographic record of the building prior 

to commencement of development and an appropriately worded condition is recommended 

to be added to any permission granted. 

CONCLUSION 

It is considered that the overall scale, massing, height, materials and access arrangements 

of the proposed scheme relate to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally 

and will not have a significant impact on the character of the area, the Conservation Area or 

the AONB. Neither will it have a harmful impact upon the adjacent listed building or its 

setting. The design of the proposal promotes local distinctiveness. The proposal can be 

achieved without significant harm to the amenity of occupants of existing adjoining properties 

as well as residents of the proposed new dwelling. 

There are no outstanding highways, landscape or nature conservation issues. 



146

The proposed development is considered to comply with Local Plan Policy 4/20 and advice 

within PPS1, PPS5, PPS7 and PPS9, Policies SS1, ENV2, ENV6 and ENV7 of the East of 

England Plan 2008 and Policies CS02 and CS06 of the Core Strategy. Therefore it is 

recommended that the proposal for the development be approved. 







2 Condition No development shall commence on site until a sample panel of the 

brick/stone to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s)/extension(s) hereby 

approved has been prepared on site for the inspection and written approval of the 

Local Planning Authority. The sample panel shall be at least 1m x 1m and show the 

proposed material, bond and pointing technique. The development shall be 

constructed in accordance with the approved details. 




vehicular access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved. Additionally 

from the property boundary to the near channel edge of the carriageway the 

construction specification shall be in accordance with details to be approved in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 

3 Reason To ensure satisfactory access into the site. 

4 Condition The gradient of the vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 for the first 5 

metres into the site as measured from the near channel edge of the adjacent 

carriageway. 

4 Reason In the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the 

highway. 

5 Condition Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a 2.0 metre 

wide parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent 

highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site’s roadside 

frontage. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any 

obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway. 

5 Reason In the interests of highway safety. 


proposed access / on-site car parking and turning area shall be laid out, levelled, 

surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter 

available for that specific use. 



147

6 Reason To ensure the permanent availability of the parking and manoeuvring area, in 

the interests of highway safety. 

7 Condition Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit a 

scheme showing the position and design of the installation of bat boxes The agreed 

boxes shall be installed prior to commencement of any works of construction or 

demolition. 

7 Reason In the interests of the protection of bats. 

8 Condition The mitigation measures relating to the timing of the works and the checking 

of cavities which may affect bats, referred to in the Summary (paragraphs 9.1 – 9.4 

inclusive) of the Updated Protected Species Survey by Philip Parker Associates, dated 

19 November 2010 shall be implemented as recommended. 

8 Reason To safeguard the interests of a protected species in accordance with Planning 

Policy Statement 9, Policy ENV3 of the East of England Plan 2008 and Policy CS12 of 

the King's Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy. 

9 Condition No development shall commence until full details of the foul water drainage 

arrangements for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. The drainage details shall be constructed as approved before any 

part of the development hereby permitted is brought into use. 

9 Reason To ensure that there is a satisfactory means of drainage serving the site. 

10 Condition Prior to the commencement of the development, an investigation and risk 

assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, 

must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of 

any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of 

the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The 

investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a 

written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the 

approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must 

include: 

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; 

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: 

� human health, 

� property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, 

pets, 

woodland and service lines and pipes, 

� adjoining land, 

� groundwaters and surface waters, 

� ecological systems, 

� archaeological sites and ancient monuments; 

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). 

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s 

‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. 



148






11 Condition Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed remediation 

scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing 

unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and 

historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the 

Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, 

proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site 

management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as 

contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation 

to the intended use of the land after remediation. 

11 Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land 





12 Condition The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with 

its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry 

out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of 

commencement of the remediation scheme works. 

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a 

verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the 

effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the 

approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. 






13 Condition No development shall take place within the site until the applicant, or their 

agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of 

historic building recording which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in 

writing by the local planning authority. 

13 Reason To safeguard archaeological interests in accordance with the principles of 

PPS5. 



Drawing No. EX 03 

Drawing No. GA 01 Rev No. 1 


Drawing No. GA 03 Rev No. 




149

Drawing No. GA 04B, Rev No. 1 


Drawing No. GA 07 








150

11/00812/O 

The Beeches 122 Grimston Road South Wootton 

Scale: 

LB 

1:1250 

21.6m 


151 

El Sub Sta 

SLA Number 

Ty Gwyn 

Angles 

Edlington 

House 

Lower Farm Nursing Home 



1:1250 


100024314 

Po

Parish: South Wootton 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(j) 

Proposal: Two detached houses in grounds of existing property 

Location: The Beeches 122 Grimston Road South Wootton King's Lynn 

Applicant: Mr Andrew McKelvey 

Case No: 11/00812/O (Outline Application) 

Case Officer: Mr A Fillmore 

Tel: 01553 616230 



Reason for Referral to DCB – The Officer recommendation is contrary to the views of the 

Parish Council. 

Case Summary 

The application proposal seeks outline planning permission for the construction of two 

detached residential dwellings within the rear garden of the property at 122 Grimston Road, 

King’s Lynn. Only access is to be determined at this stage. 

The site is located within a residential estate with vehicular access provided off Sandy Lane. 

A number of trees can be found to the southern boundary with the adopted Local Plan Inset 

Maps defining the site as Built Environment Type D. 

Key Issues 



Neighbour Amenity 

Highways Safety 

Trees and landscape issues 


APPROVE 


The application seeks outline consent for the construction of two detached dwellings with 

matters reserved relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. A plan detailing the 

access arrangements and an indicative site layout has been provided. 

The application site is situated to the west of Sandy Lane within the rear curtilage of the 

dwelling at 122 Grimston Road and has a substantial hedge running along the length of the 

western boundary with numerous trees to the southern boundary. Residential properties 

abut the site to the north, west and south and can be found on the opposite side of Sandy 

Lane to the east. 

The site lies within Built Environment Type D as defined on the Local plan Inset Maps. 

11/00812/O Development Control Board 


152


The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which notes the garden 

is surplus to the requirements of the house and leaves a reasonable amount of garden to the 

south of the proposed site. This statement notes the buildings are in a residential area with 

eaves proposed between 5½ and 6 metres and there is no significant need for landscaping 

given the extent of hedges and shrubs to be retained. A 1.8m close boarded fence is to run 

between the properties and separate the site from the dwelling at 122 Grimston Road. 


None 


Parish Council: OBJECT. The Parish Council in principle is not against the development of 

the site however, feels the proposed two properties would be over development. The Parish 

Council would agree to support the application for 1 x 4 bed, 2 storey dwelling. 

Highways Authority: No objection. Having visited the site and examined the plans 

submitted with the application I believe that the site would be acceptable for some form of 

development with a central point of access and therefore recommend conditions relating to 

construction specification of the vehicular access and provision of visibility splays. 

Environmental Health & Housing – Environmental Quality: Following a review of the 

information submitted and held within this section I have no comments to make for this 

application from a contaminated land perspective. 

Norfolk Constabulary: ‘Secure by Design’ is the UK flagship initiative supporting the 

principles of ‘Designing Out Crime’ by use of effective crime prevention and security 

standards for a range of applications. Research shows that ‘Secure by Design’ can reduce 

burglary and car crime by 50% and criminal damage by 25%. It is far cheaper and more 

practical to ‘Build in security’ from the beginning – so involvement from the start is more cost 

effective. I have enclosed literature which I hope will be of assistance. 

Arboriculture Officer: There will be a significant loss of tree and vegetation cover, but the 

trees themselves do not merit further protection. In addition it is likely that T10-13 will come 

under pressure for removal post development as they will obscure the natural sunlight from 

the southern most property for the whole of the day. Mitigation for this loss should be sought 

and a landscape planting scheme produced as a pre-commencement condition, to ensure 

that adequate planting is proposed at that stage and the future planting sites are protected 

from compaction during the construction process. 

In addition the tree protection plan does not make adequate provision for the protection of T 

24 which has a RPA of 3m. Also there will be conflict with the canopies of trees 10-13 as 

well as T23, unless pruned back the tree protection fencing will have to be moved back to 

allow for this. 

In the case of T10-13 this is unlikely to happen as this is the edge of the building line. With 

that in mind there will be need for details of ground protection measures to allow work 

access within the RPA. There were no details of ground protection measures submitted with 

the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Tree Protection Plan. 



153

Recommend conditions relating to tree protection, tree works, tree retention and provision 

and implementation of a landscaping scheme. 


Two letters of representation have been received opposing the application on grounds the 

development would result in a loss of privacy, exacerbate the parking problems on Sandy 

Lane caused by the nearby care home, devalue property prices and the building work would 

create disruption and distress. 




















locality. 



CS09 - Housing Distribution 


Parish Plans – South Wootton Design Statement 



154



The site lies within the built environment as defined on the Local Plan inset maps where 

there is a presumption in favour of new residential development as set out in the saved 

policies. Additionally the Core Strategy seeks to locate new housing development within 

King’s Lynn where a significant level of services are offered. The principle of the scheme is 

therefore supported. 

Although in outline form the siting of the properties inline with the dwellings opposite and to 

either side along with retaining sufficient space between buildings ensures the development 

respects the form along Sandy Lane. This level of development (2 detached dwellings) is 

only achievable due to the above average size of the garden of the dwelling at 122 Grimston 

Road. Whilst the recent changes to PPS3 classify the site as Greenfield land this does not 

undermine the acceptability of the proposal which respects the form and character of the 

area. 

Highway safety 

Norfolk County Council Highways Authority note the central point of access is acceptable 

and recommend conditions retaining the access arrangements, prevention of surface water 

drainage discharging onto the highway carriageway, prevention of any obstacles within the 

first 5m of the access into the site and provision of visibility splays. These conditions are 

considered reasonable and necessary in the interests of highway safety. 

Neighbour amenity 

Given the orientation of the properties fronting Sandy Lane and siting inline with and 

distance from the dwellings to either side along with those to the rear the proposal will not 

adversely impact on neighbour amenity. 

Both neighbouring properties opposite the site on the eastern side of Sandy Lane oppose 

the scheme on grounds of loss of privacy. These properties are 18m, at their closest point, 

from the proposed dwellings and only their front gardens will be overlooked. The 

development is therefore not considered to result in a material loss of privacy. 


The Borough Council Arboriculture Officer notes there will be significant loss of tree and 

vegetation cover; however the trees to be removed do not merit further protection. A further 

three trees, which are proposed to be retained, are likely to come under post development 

pressure for removal as they will obscure natural sunlight from the southern side of one 

property for most of the day. Additionally the submitted tree protection plan does not make 

adequate provision for the protection of a further tree. 

In order to adequately address the impact of the trees to be removed, those likely to be 

removed in the future and prevent any further loss of trees mitigation in the form of an 

appropriate landscaping scheme and ground protection measures is necessary. As outline 

consent is sought with ‘landscaping’ reserved this can be addressed as part of the reserved 

matters application. 



155

CONCLUSION 

The site lies within the built environment where Local Plan policy and the ‘sound’ Core 

strategy are supportive of new residential development. The proposed form is reflective of 

the built environment along Sandy Lane and retains sufficient spacing between the buildings 

to prevent a cramped layout. The impact on trees/landscape can be addressed at the 

reserved matters stage. 



1 Condition Application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local 

Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 



2 Condition The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the 

expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of 

approval on different dates, the final approval of the latest such matter to be approved. 



3 Condition Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of 

the site (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the Local 

Planning Authority before any development is commenced. 



4 Condition No development or other operations shall commence on site until the 

existing trees and/or hedgerows, along with any future planting sites have been 

protected in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development must be implemented in 

accordance with these agreed details. This is in accordance with BS 5837 (2005) and 

should include any ground protection where there will be a requirement for access and 

working areas within the root protection areas (RPA) of the retained trees. The 

scheme shall provide for the erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree 

or hedge before any equipment, machinery, or materials are brought onto the site for 

the purposes of development or other operations. The fencing specification will need 

to be detailed and comply with BS 5837:2005. 

The fencing shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development until all 

equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. If the 

fencing is damaged at any time during the development all the operations shall cease 

until it is repaired or replaced in accordance with the approved details. Nothing shall 

be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the 

ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavations be 

made without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 



156





vehicular access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan. 

Additionally from the property boundary to the near channel edge of the 

carriageway the construction specification shall be in accordance with details 

to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with 

the Highway Authority. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage 

to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge 

from or onto the highway carriageway. 

5 Reason To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous 

material or surface water from or onto the highway. 

6 Condition Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted any access 

gate(s), bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall be hung to open inwards, set 

back, and thereafter retained a minimum distance of 5 metres from the near channel 

edge of the adjacent carriageway. Any sidewalls/fences/hedges adjacent to the access 

shall be splayed at an angle of 45 degrees from each of the (outside) gateposts to the 

front boundary of the site. 

6 Reason To enable vehicles to safely draw off the highway before the gate(s) or 

obstruction is opened. 

7 Condition Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a visibility 

splay measuring 2.4 X 43 metres shall be provided to each side of the access where 

it meets the highway and such splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free 

from any obstruction exceeding 1.00 metres above the level of the adjacent highway 

carriageway. 


8 Condition Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details 

(in the form of scaled plans and / or written specifications) shall be submitted 

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with 

the Highway Authority to illustrate the following: 

i) Parking provision in accordance with adopted standard. 



Application file reference: 11/00812/O 





157

11/00630/CU 

Red Hart Inn Main Road Three Holes Norfolk 

Scale: 

3.1m 

1:2500 

2.5m 

West Hoathly 

3.4m 

Fen 

Cott 

The Row 

Three Holes 


TCB 

Church 

158 

The 

Red Hart 

Inn 

Pipen 

The Bungalow 

SLA Number 

The Bungalow 

Rose Cottage 

2.9m Javicjameen 



1:2500 


100024314

Parish: Upwell 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8/3(k) 

Proposal: Change of use from Public House to one residential dwelling with 

no alteration to the structure of the property 

Location: Red Hart Inn Main Road Three Holes Norfolk 

Applicant: Elgood & Sons Ltd 

Case No: 11/00630/CU (Change of Use Application) 

Case Officer: Mr K Wilkinson 

Tel: 01553 616794 



Reason for Referral to DCB – Due to the level of opposition to the proposed change of use 

Case Summary 

The site is that of the Red Hart Inn on the eastern side of Main Road/A1101 at the centre of 

the village of Three Holes. The site covers an area of 0.2Ha and contains the public house, 

car parking areas at front and back, with a lawned area plus detached garage. 

This application seeks change of use of the public house to a dwelling with no alteration to 

the structure of the building. 

Key Issues 




APPROVE 


The site is that of the Red Hart Inn on the eastern side of Main Road/A1101 at the centre of 

the village of Three Holes. The site covers an area of 0.2Ha and contains the public house, 

car parking areas at front and back, with a lawned area plus detached garage. 

This application seeks change of use of the public house to a dwelling with no alteration to 

the structure of the building. 



159


A Design & Access Statement has been prepared to accompany a planning application for 

the property, currently a public house. The proposal for the site has taken account of the 

characteristics of the site and surrounding area in terms of its size, features, surrounding 

properties and uses, and has been used to assess the best form of development for the 

property. The application is for a change of use from public house to residential use, and 

deals with the principle of use of the site. There are no proposed structural changes and no 

proposed external changes other than removal of the existing public house signage, and 

thus no design implications. 

The site lies within the development area boundaries of Three Holes and as such 

the proposed use in this location is in accordance with adopted planning policy. 

A separate Planning Statement deals with the business history and trading information 

relating to the current use and justification for the proposal under draft policy CS10 of the 

Draft Core Strategy. 

The property has been a public house for many years. The proposal is to change 

this use to a single residential dwelling, without structural or external alteration. The currently 

adopted plan has this property within the development area boundary within which housing 

is generally permitted subject to design considerations. The Draft Core Strategy designates 

Three Holes as a Rural Village, and Draft Policy CS09 envisages small scale development 

mainly comprising infilling in such settlements. Thus the provision on one dwelling in such a 

location is entirely in accordance with both existing and emerging policy. Policy CS10 deals 

with business premises in villages and whilst their retention is encouraged, it does permit a 

change away from business use where that use in not viable. A separate Planning 

Statement deals with this aspect. 

The Property is shown on the Environment Agency Flood Maps as being within 

Flood Risk Zone 1 (low risk) and also on the maps within The Borough Council of 

Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (Dec2008) with 

allowance for climate change as also being Category 1 (Little or no risk). No Flood Risk 

Assessment for the property is therefore required to be submitted with the application. 


10/00827/CU – C/u from public house to one residential dwelling with no alterations to the 

structure of the building – Refused 13.07.2010 

05/00275/CU – C/u of land to site static caravans for overflow B & B accommodation – 

Withdrawn 01.07.2005 

CONSULTATIONS 

Town/Parish Council: APPROVE 

Local Highway Authority (NCC): Requests a single point of access not open frontage 

parking. 



160

Environment Agency: No Comment 

Internal Drainage Board: No Comments received 

Environmental Health & Housing – Environmental Quality: No Comments 

Environmental Health & Housing – Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance: No 

Comments 


SEVENTY SIX signature petition received raising OBJECTION to the proposed change of 

use, plus a letter on behalf of the West Norfolk branch of CAMRA raising the following 

grounds: 

We believe that a Public House is a vital local amenity, especially when other amenities such 

as local shops and post offices are under threat. A well run Public House offers a controlled 

drinking area which can reduce nuisance in the local area as well as providing a focus for 

village life. It is even more important if it is the last remaining pub in a village or area. It can 

also provide valuable local jobs and reduce the temptation to drink and drive. There are 

many examples of well-run and profitable pubs in the West Norfolk area and we feel that the 

Red Hart could join these if given the chance. 

TWO letters from a third party interested in purchasing the public house and has made an 

offer to the applicants. 










reduces the need to travel, especially by car. 


Policy WAT4: Flood Risk Management - States that the priorities are to defend existing 

properties from flooding and locate new development where there is little or no risk of 

flooding. 



161



CS10 - The Economy 

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 

The principal planning concerns relate to the principle of this proposed change of use and 

the potential loss of a community facility. 

National planning guidance and policy seek to provide sustainable development and keep 

villages as self-contained settlements, thus reducing the need to travel. The provision of 

local facilities such as public houses, shops and post offices are vital to this ethos and 

contribute towards meeting the needs of rural communities. The loss of such facilities is 

generally discouraged and advice to Local Planning Authorities in determining such 

proposals is contained in Policy EC13 of PPS4. LPAs should consider the importance of the 

service to the local community or the economic base of the area if the proposal would result 

in its loss or change of use. Planning applications should be refused which fail to protect 

existing facilities that provide for people’s day-to day-needs. The village has the public 

house, shop, two commercial garages and a village hall as facilities. 

An earlier application to change the use of the public house into a dwelling was refused in 

July 2010, due to lack of evidence to the viability of the pub, there was no demand or 

opportunity to retain this or any other facility to serve the locality. 

Since that refusal there has been an attempt to market the property in excess of 12 months 

on the agents’ website, showcase website, www.rightmove.co.uk website, ‘for sale’ sign on 

the premises and advertised in the local press 14 times. The property has been marketed 

with the indication that other commercial uses may be possible subject to planning 

permission. There were a total of 2856 searches on Maxey & Son’s website during that 

period with 594 ‘hits’ on the pub (plus 290 on the showcase site), 22 requests for details 

were received resulting in 8 parties viewing the premises. Two offers were made one which 

could not be pursued as a financial package could not be acquired by the interested party; 

the other most recent offer was turned down by the owners as being unrealistic. 

The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) provides criteria for thorough assessment of any 

proposal to close/redevelop public houses. Whilst this is not formal adopted planning policy, 

it is widely recognised as a tool for assessing such proposals. The issues have been 

addressed in the agents’ submission which claims that the premises are not economically 

viable to keep open which is evidenced by financial information. It identifies 7 change-overs 

of tenants/management since April 2007, plus evidence of trading figures during this period. 



162

The applicants’ agent addresses the CAMRA Viability tests as follows: 

Population density 

Three Holes is a small rural village of approx 418 Adults (source Council Electoral Services) 

who would live within an area with about 2 miles of the property. Very few of these are within 

1/2 mile that might be considered convenient walking distance, and drink driving regulations 

deter those living further away from significant consumption. Numbers within the village 

during the day make it uneconomic to open at lunchtime, although this has been tried by 

most licencees during their initial period of occupation. 

Upwell (including Three Holes) as a electoral district has 2260 electors but this is within an 

area having 3 other licenced outlets – The Globe, The Five Bells and the Village Hall – plus 

The Crown and Crown Lodge at Outwell. 

There is a local shop but no other significant employment in Three Holes which acts as a 

dormitory village. Few businesses are sufficiently close to consider using this for staff / visitor 

entertainment. There is no significant development planned for Three Holes within the Local 

Development Framework – categorised as a rural village. 

Visitor Potential 

Although the Council seeks to promote tourism in the area, there are few visitor attractions in 

close proximity. Any tourism is likely to be either Fishermen, or Birdwatchers at Welney. 

However given the property is west of Welney Wash and the road is shut by flooding for a 

significant period of the winter, when the Swans are in residence, such potential is limited 

and better served by other outlets such as the Lamb and Flag at Welney or other properties 

further east. Passing trade on the A1101 is generally short distance traffic rather than longer 

distance travellers likely to stop for refreshment. 

The property has advertised Sunday lunch carveries, but the unpredictability of numbers 

means food was often wasted and profitability therefore limited. 

The property has had darts and domino teams in the past, but customer apathy means there 

is no longer sufficient support to maintain such activities. Sky TV is prohibitively expensive 

other than in high trading public houses. 

Competition 

The Planning Statement sets out a total of 8 other licenced outlets within a 3 mile (5km 

radius). There is therefore significant competition and choice for customers. The property 

has attempted to cater for all customers with separate bar and games rooms, good size beer 

garden and a dedicated dining room, and has had the facility for Bed & Breakfast 

accommodation in 4 rooms. Demand for all has been extremely limited and uneconomic for 

a business even with all these elements/facilities. 

Flexibility of the Site 

The property has ample accommodation and a large site. Indeed one of the factors affecting 

its viability is the significant running costs of a building this size. There is no need for 

additional accommodation to meet the very limited demand that has been experienced. The 

Planning Statement sets out the numerous operators that have attempted to create a viable 

business at the property - all have failed, despite attempting differing ideas and themes. 



163

Parking 

There is adequate parking on site and scope to extend this if parking became an issue. It 

has never been fully occupied in recent years. 

Transport 

The property is in a rural area with sporadic bus/public transport and customers are unlikely 

to visit the public house by bus. There are not believed to be any taxi firms close at hand 

likely to be able to give a short notice local service. 

Multiple Use 

The property has tried to be a multi-use venue – bar, restaurant and bed and breakfast. The 

business is not viable on that basis. There is already a shop in the village and not sufficient 

trade for a second from the limited local and passing population. 

Competition Case Studies 

The majority of rural public house businesses are experiencing limited trade. 

Those in the centre of large settlements have a greater catchment population and do better 

than those in the smallest villages such as Three Holes. Other public houses doing well are 

generally up market and food led, and a destination property where people are prepared to 

drive several miles for particular quality or service, but there is only limited demand at that 

end of the market, and this sector of the market is already served in the area by for example 

the Crown Lodge at Outwell which provides fine dining, sports facilities, accommodation, 

function rooms and bar, as a result of very significant investment in better economic 

conditions, exceptional personal goodwill of the owner built up over many years and it is 

within a much larger village. 

Large speculative investment in such a poorly trading property as this is not viable or likely to 

produce a return. 

The Business at Present 

The business is currently not trading having shut its doors recently when, again, the 

licencee, who was occupying on a rent free basis, could not afford to continue operating and 

left. The freeholders have given significant support to all the recent occupiers by way of 

reduced or waived rents, as set out in the Planning Statement. There is just too little support 

from customers to provide a viable trade. These occupiers have tried varied opening times - 

even to the extent of all day 7 days a week by some, and varied food offerings but it has just 

led to little effect on sales and revenue. The business has claimed the allowable rate reliefs 

to reduce costs where possible. 



164

The Sale 

Full details of the sale process have been provided in the Planning Statement and additional 

information. Offers have been invited to ensure that no interest has been deterred. An offer 

was made at a level that the freeholders were prepared to accept, even though it was 

significantly below the value of the property as a private house. However even though then 

trading, no mortgage could be obtained. 

An expression of interest has also been made by a further third party subject to finances 

being acquired. To date that has not been followed up with a firm offer to purchase. It is 

expected that finances have not been forthcoming. 

A more recent offer for an option to buy has been tabled at a substantially lower price than 

that referred to above with additional links to beer sales over a given period. This offer has 

been rejected as being unacceptable and an unconditional cash basis offer has not been 

responded to. The Council has limited in-house expertise in relation to commercial valuation 

but an offer linked to beer supplies is rather unorthodox, and the owners’ stance is not 

considered to be unreasonable. 

The case officer concurs with the above findings. 

Policies CS06 and CS10 of the Core Strategy of the emerging LDF are a material 

consideration, which state that: within villages, priority will be given to retaining local 

business/employment sites unless it can be clearly demonstrated that continued use is not 

economically viable, or cannot overcome an overriding environmental objection, or a mixed 

use can continue to provide local employment opportunities and also meet other local needs. 

Given the marketing exercise that has been undertaken and the information submitted, it is 

considered that on balance it has been demonstrated that the public house is no longer 

viable and there are no demands for mixed use or other local needs to be met. The proposal 

therefore accords with Policies CS06 and CS10. 

It is noted that the West Norfolk Branch of CAMRA and a petition have been received 

objecting to the loss of the public house, however the information regarding the marketing 

and financial details are sensitive, considered as confidential and not available for third party 

scrutiny. The assessment has been undertaken using the CAMRA tests and this level of 

opposition was not forthcoming when the original application was processed and determined 

in July 2010. 

Other matters 

County Highways raise no objection to the proposed change of use, subject to the vehicular 

access to the premises being rationalised and removing the open forecourt parking. This 

may be achieved by condition and would have the added benefit of improving the 

appearance of the street scene. The re-instatement of the full footway with raised kerbing 

across the site frontage is considered to be onerous as the pavement already exists. If a 

boundary treatment is agreed closing it off effectively this would meet highway safety issues. 

The site lies within Flood Zone 3 of the SFRA but it is a change of use to premises to a 

slightly higher vulnerability classification; on the earlier application the Environment Agency 

raised no comment. As a dwelling with a first floor refuge/accommodation the proposal is 

considered to be acceptable in relation to PPS25. 



165

CONCLUSION: 

Given the marketing exercise that has been undertaken and the information submitted, it is 

considered that on balance it has been demonstrated that the public house is no longer 

viable and there are no demands for mixed use or other local needs to be met. The proposal 

therefore accords with national policy contained in PPS1 and PPS4, and Core Strategy 

Policies CS06 and CS10 of the emerging Local Development Framework. 







2 Condition Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the vehicular access 

shall be limited to one point (which currently serves the rear parking area) and the 

forecourt shall be permanently closed off in a treatment to be agreed in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority. 

2 Reason In the interests of highway safety in accordance with PPG13. 


Application file reference: 11/00630/CU 





166

AGENDA ITEM: 9 

167 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD – 25 JULY 2011 

APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 

PURPOSE OF REPORT 

(1) To inform Members of the number of decisions issued between the production of the 4 July DCB agenda and 25 July agenda. 80 

decisions issued, 70 decisions issued under delegated powers with 10 decided by the Development Control Board. 

(2) To inform Members of those applications which have been determined under the officer delegation scheme since your last meeting. These 

decisions are made in accordance with the Authority’s powers contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and have no financial 

implications. 

(3) This report does not include the following applications – Prior Notifications, Discharge of Conditions, Pre Applications, County Matters, 

TPO and Works to Trees in a Conservation Area 


That the reports be noted. 

Number of decisions issued from 23/06/11 – 13/07/11 

DCB decision 

National 

target % 

Performance 

% 

Under 13 

weeks 

Total Approved Refused Under 8 

weeks 

Approved Refused 

Major 1 1 0 0 0 0% 60 0 0 

Minor 37 32 5 28 7 76% 65 5 3 

Other 42 42 0 37 3 88% 80 2 0 

Total 80 75 5 65 

DCB made 10 of the 80 decisions, 8%

168 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD - 25 JULY 2011 

APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 

PURPOSE OF REPORT 

To inform Members of those applications which have been determined under the officer delegation scheme since your last meeting. 

These decisions are made in accordance with the Authority’s powers contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 

have no financial implications. 


That the report be noted. 

DETAILS OF DECISIONS 

PARISH/AREA 

REF NUMBER APPLICANT 

PROPOSED DEV 

DATE 

DETERMINED/ 

DECISION 

DATE 

RECEIVED 

Bagthorpe with Barmer 

11/00420/EXF Trustees of Longsdon Barmer 

Trust 

Barmer Hall Farm Fakenham Road 

Barmer Syderstone 

yEXTENSION FOR TIME FOR 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A 

PLANNING PERMISSION 

REFERENCE 08/00559/F: 

Conversion of Redundant barns to 

Four Dwellings (Holiday use), 

including removal of existing portal 

frame shed. 

17.03.2011 30.06.2011 

Application 

Permitted

169 

Brancaster 

11/00514/F Mr S Glyn & Hillpride Oartners LLP 

North House The Cricket Pasture 

Burnham Deepdale Norfolk 

One New Dwelling: Annexe 

incidental to North House 

11/00768/F Mrs Val Carpenter 

11 Boughey Close Brancaster 

King's Lynn Norfolk 

Alterations to and extensions of an 

existing dwelling 

10/00217/NMA_2 Mr Nigel Stonebridge 

Tidal Shore Main Road Brancaster 

Staithe King's Lynn 

NON-MATERIAL AMENDMENT 

TO PLANNING CONSENT 

10/00217/F: Proposed rear 

extension and alterations 

08/01330/NMA_1 C/o Agent 

Garners Station Road Burnham 

Market King's Lynn 



08/01330/F: Construction of 

dwelling following demolition of 

existing 

08/01330/NMA_2 Client of R C F Waite 

Garners Station Road Burnham 

Market King's Lynn 



08/01330/F: Construction of 

dwelling following demolition of 

existing 


Application 

Permitted 

Brancaster 


Application 

Permitted 

Brancaster 


Application 

Permitted 

Burnham Market 


Application 

Permitted 

Burnham Market 


Application 

Refused

170 

Burnham Overy 

11/00796/F Mr & Mrs G Martin 

Pembroke Cottage Wells Road 

Burnham Overy Staithe King's 

Lynn 

Extension to existing house to 

provide kitchen, play room and 

garage on the ground floor, with 

new bedroom on the first floor. 

Demolition of existing rear lean-to 

extension 

11/00830/F Mr & Mrs Hubbard 

Barleywood Back Lane Castle 

Acre King's Lynn 

Porch 

11/00642/CU Mrs Suzanne Statham 

Meadow View Black Horse Road 

Clenchwarton King's Lynn 

Continued use as surfacing and 

associated ground works 

compound with related office and 

storage 

11/00720/LB Mr M Simper 

Rose Cottage Manor Farm St 

Andrews Lane Congham 

Listed Building Application: 

Conversion of domestic garage to 

residential "grandad" annexe 

11/00780/F Mr Nick Robinson 

Meadow View 14 Sandy Lane 

Denver Downham Market 

First Floor Extension to dwelling 

13.05.2011 11.07.2011 

Application 

Permitted 

Castle Acre 


Application 

Permitted 

Clenchwarton 


Application 

Permitted 

Congham 


Application 

Permitted 

Denver 


Application 

Permitted

171 

Dersingham 

11/00744/O Mrs Angela Lancaster 

Brambles 2 Sugar Lane 

Dersingham King's Lynn 

1 x 4 bedroom bungalow 

11/00767/F Mr Peter York 

Brent Cottage 5 New Terrace 

Cottages Station Road Docking 

Demolish existing rear 

conservatory and replace with 

single storey flat roof rear 

extension. 

11/00723/EXF Mr Martin Stewart 

Blacksmith House 5B Priory Road 

Downham Market Norfolk 

EXTENSION FOR TIME FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 



construction of dental surgery and 

change of use of existing surgery 

to residential 


Application 

Refused 

Docking 


Application 

Permitted 

Downham Market 


Application 

Permitted

172 

Emneth 

11/00662/F Morrisons Supermarket Plc 

Petrol Filling Station 40 Elm High 

Road Emneth Wisbech 

Demolition of existing PFS and 

retail units and construction of new 

PFS with associated works. 

Development including 

decommissioning the existing 

tanks, dispensers and pipework, 

demolition of existing structures, 

construction of new kiosk, car 

wash, jet washes, air and vacuum 

facilities, new tank farm and 

pipework, new canopy and 5No 

new dispensers including LPG 

dispenser 

11/00709/F Mr K R Sykes 

Hollycroft Cottage 46 Hollycroft 

Road Emneth Wisbech 

Extension to dwelling 

11/00792/F Mr G Russell 

58 Long Lane Feltwell Thetford 

Norfolk 

Demolition of existing single storey 

extension and construction of 2 

storey side extension 

11/00712/CA Ms Rachel Hodgkinson 

15 Hunstanton Road Heacham 


Conservation Area Application - 

demolition of existing bungalow 


Application 

Permitted 

Emneth 


Application 

Permitted 

Feltwell 


Application 

Permitted 

Heacham 


Application 

Permitted

173 

Hilgay 

11/00612/F Mr & Mrs Gilbert 

Church Farm 20 Church Road Ten 

Mile Bank Norfolk 

Proposed first floor side extension 


Application 

Permitted 

Hillington 


12 Wheatfields Hillington King's 

Lynn PE31 6BH 

Extensions and alterations to 

Dwelling 


Application 

Permitted 

Hockwold cum Wilton 

11/00677/F Mr Kim Peckham 

East Fen Lodge Nursery Lane 

Hockwold cum Wilton Norfolk 

Erection of an agricultural building 

11/00540/CU Guyan Executive Travel Ltd 

11 Westgate Hunstanton Norfolk 

PE36 5AL 

Use the office area within 11 

Westgate as a taxi office 

11/00472/F Mr James Wilson 

Warren Farm Hill Road 

Ingoldisthorpe King's Lynn 

Erect 2No three bedroomed semidetached 

dwellings 

10/01905/A Mr Faik Oter 

127 London Road King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 5ES 

Externally illuminated fascia sign 

and illuminated projecting sign 


Application 

Permitted 

Hunstanton 


Application 

Permitted 

Ingoldisthorpe 


Application 

Permitted 

King's Lynn 

09.11.2010 07.07.2011 

Application 

Permitted

174 


10/00457/NMAM_2 Clients of 

6 - 7 Railway Road King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1NE 



10/00457/FM: 12 Units of self 

contained supported 

accommodation plus staff 

accommodation and communal 

facilities 

11/00714/F Mr Wareham 

109 Gaskell Way Gaywood King's 

Lynn Norfolk 

First floor pitched roof extension 

above existing garage and lean-topitched 

roof extension to rear 

elevation 

11/00735/F Mr & Mrs R Hendry 

276 Wootton Road King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 3BJ 

Single storey extensions to front 

and side 

11/00742/F Mr Christopher Whiteford 

99B Norfolk Street King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1AQ 

Internal and external alterations to 

flat 

11/00743/LB Mr Christopher Whiteford 

99B Norfolk Street King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1AQ 


Application 

Refused 



Application 

Permitted 



Application 

Permitted 



Application 

Permitted 



Application 

Permitted 

Listed Building Application - 

Internal and External alterations to 

flat

175 


11/00747/CU College of West Anglia 

Polar Systems Austin Fields Austin 

Fields Industrial Estate King's Lynn 

To extend the existing temporary 

change of use of the existing 

building for one year from light 

industrial to educational use 

11/00753/F Mr J Livoti 

3 Albion Street King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE30 1NJ 

New personnel access door 

11/00766/A Tesco Stores Ltd 

Tesco Stores Ltd St Faiths Drive 

Gaywood King's Lynn 

Advertisement Consent - New and 

replacement signage for retail 

store including, internally 

illuminated fascia signs, non 

illuminated gantry sign, nonilluminated 

banner and directional 

signs, and window vinyls. 

11/00822/CU Mr Ismail Tezgel 

120 High Street King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1DD 

Change of use from shop (A1) to 

Restaurant/Cafe (A3) 

11/00875/LB Mrs Agnes Woods 

33 London Road King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 5QE 

Listed Building Consent - 

Demolition and rebuilding of 

chimney and replacement of 

second floor windows 


Application 

Permitted 



Application 

Permitted 



Split Decision - 

Part 

approve_refuse 



Application 

Permitted 



Application 

Permitted

176 

Leziate 

11/00957/CM Director of Children's Services 

Ashwicken Volunary Aided First 

School East Winch Road 

Ashwicken King's Lynn 

COUNTY MATTERS 

APPLICATION: Provision of 6-bay 

modular accomodation to south of 

Main school building for a period of 

5 years. Accomodation to provide 

3 No classbases;toilets;access 

ramp/steps; fire exit steps; paving 

and associated works. 

11/00705/F Mr R Price 

The Stables Gooses Lane 

Marshland St James Wisbech 

Retention of a dayroom and three 

sheds 

10/00299/NMA_1 Mr & Mrs Martin 

Land Between 32 - 38 Old 

Severalls Road Methwold Hythe 

Thetford Norfolk 

NON MATERIAL AMENDMENT 


10/00299/F: Construction of one 

dwelling 

11/00756/F Mr D Sherwood 

4 Chalk Way Methwold Thetford 


Retention of new chimney stack 

11/00834/F Mr D Merrick 

5 White Road Methwold Thetford 


Single storey rear extension 


OBJECTION TO 

NCC APP 

Marshland St James 


Application 

Permitted 

Methwold 


Application 

Permitted 

Methwold 


Application 

Permitted 

Methwold 


Application 

Permitted

177 

Middleton 


Application 

Permitted 

North Creake 


Application 

Permitted 

North Wootton 

04/02384/NMA_1 Mr & Mrs Barclay 

The Engine House Station Road 

Middleton King's Lynn 



04/02384/CU: Conversion of 

former engine house to dwelling 

10/00090/NMA_1 Mr C Gregory 

Outbuildings West of 31 West 

Street North Creake Norfolk 



10/00090/F: Construction of two 

cottages following demolition of 

existing outbuildings 

11/00639/F Mr M Francis 

2 Bungalow Nursery Lane North 

Wootton King's Lynn 

Proposed siting of static caravan to 

the rear of nungalow for occasional 

use 

11/00760/F Big K Charcoal Merchants Ltd 

Big K Charcoal Merchants Ltd 

Whittington Hill Whittington King's 

Lynn 

Erection of a store in the north 

west corner of the site to store 

charcoal products 

11/00724/F Mr And Mrs John Clifton 

Priory Farm Downham Road 

Outwell Wisbech 

Construction of garage/ancillary 

accomodation following demolition 

of existing garage 


Application 

Permitted 

Northwold 


Application 

Permitted 

Outwell 


Application 

Permitted

178 

Runcton Holme 

11/00733/F Mr Leslie Gaskins 

108 School Road Runcton Holme 

King's Lynn PE33 0AW 

Extension of dwelling to provide 

annexed accommodation with 

replacement of existing garage 

11/00265/NMA_1 Mr Andrew Hitchings 

7 Rose Court Docking Road 

Sedgeford Hunstanton 

NON MATERIAL AMENDMENT 


11/00265/F: single storey 

extension 

11/00162/F Mr Michael McNamara 

Park Farm Bircham Road 

Snettisham King's Lynn 

Alteration to units 1, 11 and 14 of 

approved scheme for conversion 

of farm buildings to form 10 

residential units and 4 new 

replacement dwellings planning 

consent ref 05/00006/F 

11/00355/F Mr William Dickson 

Caravan 65a The Beach 


Retention of caravan and shed 

11/00476/F Mr & Mrs Holman 

81 Lynn Road Snettisham King's 

Lynn PE31 7QA 

Change of use of shop and ground 

floor to flat together with other 

associated alterations so as to 

provide two flats, one at ground 

floor and one at first floor 


Application 

Permitted 

Sedgeford 


Application 

Permitted 

Snettisham 


Application 

Permitted 

Snettisham 


Application 

Permitted 

Snettisham 


Application 

Permitted

179 

Snettisham 

11/00539/F Mr & Mrs Holman 

81 Lynn Road Snettisham King's 

Lynn PE31 7QA 

Construction of single storey 

dwelling including alterations to 

existing garden and amenity space 

11/00729/F Mr D Ebbs 

Memorial Field Church Road 


Proposed new exit onto Church 

Road 

11/00784/F Mrs G A Rafe 

The White Bungalow The Common 

South Creake Fakenham 

Construction of replacement 

bungalow 


Application 

Permitted 

Snettisham 


Application 

Permitted 

South Creake 

11.05.2011 27.06.2011 

Application 

Permitted 

South Wootton 

10/00959/NMA_1 Mr C Pasapula 

Ashfield House Hall Lane South 




10/00959/F: Rear first floor 

extension, rear and side single 

storey extensions and detached 

garage 


Application 

Permitted

180 

South Wootton 

11/01004/CM Director of Children's Services 

South Wootton Junior School Hall 

Lane South Wootton King's Lynn 

COUNTY MATTERS 

APPLICATION: Provision of 6 bay 

modular accommodation to 

provide 2no classbases, toilets, 

access ramp, steps, paving, 

installation of external lighting and 

associated works 

11/00855/F Mr & Mrs R Skeels 

11 Church Lane Southery 


Construction of one dwelling 

10/02115/FM Broadland Housing Association 

Land Adjacent To Manor Road 

Stoke Ferry Norfolk 

Amendment of 5 no. affordable 

dwellings with associated parking 

and landscaping and materials 

across the site (amendment to 

application 10/00080/FM) 

11/00650/F Mr S Smalls 

9 Church Bank Terrington St 

Clement King's Lynn PE34 4NA 

Removal of present conservatory 

and construction of single storey 

extension to form new lounge area 

11/00778/F Mrs Gillian Eddy 

Greenacre 63 Sandygate Lane 

Terrington St Clement King's Lynn 

Construction of replacement barn 

to include offices and retention of 

garage 


NO OBJECTION 

TO NCC APP 

Southery 


Application 

Permitted 

Stoke Ferry 

15.12.2010 11.07.2011 

Application 

Permitted 

Terrington St Clement 


Application 

Permitted 


11.05.2011 08.07.2011 

Application 

Permitted

181 

Thornham 

11/00455/NMA_1 Mr A Morris 

Park House Hall Lane Thornham 

Hunstanton 



11/00455/F: Two storey and single 

storey extension to private dwelling 

11/00715/F Mr & Mrs S Walden 

61 St Johns Road Tilney St 

Lawrence Norfolk PE34 4QJ 

Extension and brick outer skin leaf 

to existing dwelling 

08/01742/NMA_1 Mr A Dover 

Heatherfield 37 School Road 

Tilney St Lawrence King's Lynn 



08/01742/F: Extension to existing 

bungalow 

11/00727/F Upwell Playing Field 

Upwell Playing Field New Road 

Upwell Norfolk 

Erection of new pavilion to replace 

existing 

11/00785/EXO Mr G Mallett 

Land South-East And South-West 

of Audley House Workhouse Lane 

Upwell 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 

PLANNING CONSENT 

08/01124/O: Construction of 3 

dwellings 


Application 

Permitted 

Tilney St Lawrence 


Application 

Permitted 

Tilney St Lawrence 


Application 

Permitted 

Upwell 


Application 

Permitted 

Upwell 


Application 

Permitted

182 

Walpole 

11/00531/F Dene Homes Ltd 

Land At Townsend Farm Church 

Road Walpole St Peter Norfolk 

Construction of terrace of 3 

dwellings (amendment to planning 

permission 05/00107/F 

11/00777/F Mr Ron Larby 

Miller Farm Trinity Road Walpole 

Highway Wisbech 

Retention and completion of sand 

based horse exercise circle within 

post & rails. Sand to be mixed 

with 8% rubber to prevent windblown 

sand 

11/00656/F J T Campion & Son 

Land At Grassgate Lane Walsoken 

Wisbech Cambs 

Extension to existing agricultural 

building to form grain store 

11/00695/F Mr A Buschman 

Orchard House The Row West 

Dereham King's Lynn 

Proposed conversion and 

extension of domestic outbuilding 

to residential dwelling making use 

of an altered access to form 

shared driveway with Close View. 

Application to also include the 

alteration of existing land to form 

rear amenity space and parking 

and turning to the front 


Application 

Refused 

Walpole Highway 


Application 

Permitted 

Walsoken 


Application 

Permitted 

West Dereham 


Application 

Permitted

183 

West Rudham 

11/00741/F Client of Wilson Dicks 

Westwix Lynn Road West Rudham 


Two storey extension to dwelling 

and construction of covered 

walkway 

11/00745/EXF Mr William Hooper 

Hall Farm School Road West 

Rudham Norfolk 

EXTENSION FOR TIME FOR 

THER IMPLEMENTATION OF A 



Demolition of modern agricultural 

shed and grain silos. Conversion 

of barns within the curtilage of a 

listed farmhouse to 4no. private 

dwellings 

11/00770/F Mrs Christine Brooker 

All Goods Farm Wretton Row 

Wretton King's Lynn 

Retention of solar PV panels in 

garden 


Application 

Permitted 

West Rudham 


Application 

Permitted 

Wretton 


Application 

Permitted

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 

184 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD 

PLANNING ENFORCEMENT 

AGENDA ITEM NO: 11 

25 JULY 2011 

1.1 This report provides Members with an update on service performance 

for planning enforcement during the second quarter of 2011 (01 April 

2011 to 30 June 2011). 

2.0 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SERVICE PERFORMANCE 

(QUARTERLY) 

2.1 Set out below is a breakdown of figures in relation to received, closed 

and live cases: 

Number of received general cases* 162 

Number of received monitoring cases 1 

Total received cases 163 

Number of closed general cases* 167 

Number of closed monitoring cases 7 

Total closed cases 174 

Number of live general cases* 352 

Number of live monitoring cases 14 

Total live cases* 366 

(*Includes High Hedge cases & Section 106 Monitoring) 

2.2 A full schedule of all 366 cases is produced as Appendix 1. 

2.3 The total number of cases closed is 174. Set out below is a breakdown 

of all 174 closed cases during this quarter, including the reason for 

closure. 

Reason Count 

Advertisement Consent Granted 1 

Amendment approved 1 

Conditions Discharged 2

De minimis 2 

Delegated Authority - no further 15 

No breach established 67 

Notice issued - complied 5 

Permitted development 18 

Planning App Approved 14 

Referred to other service 9 

Remedied following informal action 36 

Use/operational development lawful 4 

Total 174 

2.5 Please note that all received cases are prioritised 1 (high) to 4 (very 

low), a copy of the schedule can be found at Appendix 2. 

2.6 During this period the BCKLWN issued or served the following formal 

notices: 

Enforcement Notice 5 

Listed Building Enforcement Notice 0 

Planning Contravention Notice 13 

Requisition for Information 2 

Breach of Condition Notice 1 

Stop Notice (excluding Temporary Stop Notice) 0 

Temporary Stop Notice 0 

Enforcement Injunction granted 0 

Section 215 Notice 0 

High Hedge Remedial Notice 0 

Total 21 

3.0 RECOMMENDATION 

3.1 That this report is noted. 

185 

Case Officer: Mr N Langley, Team Leader - Enforcement � (01553) 616449.

186 

General Live Case Report Report Date: 01/04/2011 to 30/06/2011 

Priority Parish Date Reference Site Breach Status 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised change of 

use 

Evergreen Sheds 91 

Railway Road Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 9EN 

01-Jun- 

10 10/00188/UNAUTU 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

Land At Little Acre Blunts 

Drove Walton Highway alleged unauthorised building 

30-Sep- 

10 10/00429/UNOPDE 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised commercial 

use of fishing lake 

Oakwood Park Lakes Black 

Dyke Road Hockwold cum 

Wilton Norfolk 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00449/UNAUTU 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

Former Chapel And Sunday 

School Downham Road 

Fincham PE33 9HF alleged untidy land 

26-Oct- 

10 10/00487/UNTIDY 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised siting of 

caravans / mobile home under ref: 

2/94/0249/F 

White Gates The Common 

South Creake 

03-Nov- 

10 10/00500/UNAUTU 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged siting of marquee, caravan 

and laying of hardcore 

alleged unauthorised use of laying 

concrete bases for at least two 

buildings and laying of hardcore 

driveway to land from the road. 

Possible caravan site 

29-Nov- 

10 10/00564/UNAUTU Baldwins Drove Outwell 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

Land Only 34 The Drove 

Barroway Drove Norfolk 

29-Jun- 

11 11/00344/UNAUTU 

P2

187 

Installation of upvc windows in 

conservation area Notice Issued 

Alleged unauthorised change of 

roof materials and addition of 

UPVC replacement windows in 


3 St Johns Terrace 

Blackfriars Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 1NW 

15-Aug- 

05 05/00465/UWLB 

P3 

29 Norfolk Street King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 1AL 

11-Jun- 

07 07/00189/UWCA 

P3 

alleged breach of condition s 

relating to planning application 

2/03/2053/F Notice Issued 

3 Shepherds Port The 

Beach Snettisham King's 


03-Sep- 

10 10/00396/BOC 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised 

advertisements 

East Winch Road Brow O' 

The Hill Junction A149 

Roundabout 

20-Oct- 

09 09/00513/UADV 

P4 

The Sand Boy Gayton 

Road Bawsey King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1EP Unauthorised car wash Notice Issued 

18-Mar- 


P2 Bawsey 


use of land for camping and 

caravanning Notice Issued 



Norfolk PE32 1EP 

05-May- 

09 09/00205/UNAUTU 

P3 Bawsey 

Pending 

Consideration 

4 Innisfree Caravans 

Gayton Road Bawsey 

Norfolk PE32 1EX Alleged unauthorised building. 

13-Sep- 

10 10/00411/UNOPDE 

P3 Bawsey 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised advertising 

signs 



Norfolk PE32 1EP 

21-Apr- 

09 09/00193/UADV 

P4 Bawsey 

Alleged breach of condition 5 of 

planning permission 2/03/1638/CU Notice Issued 

Moor Farm Barn Docking 

Road Great Bircham 

Norfolk PE31 6QP 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00453/BOC 

P2 Bircham

188 

Alleged Failure to discharge 

conditions prior to occupation - 

08/01529/F Notice Issued 

Moor Farm Stables Docking 

Road Great Bircham King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE31 6QP 

24-Jan- 

11 11/00053/BOC 

P2 Bircham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised works to a 

building within the curtilage of a 

Listed Building 

1 High House Front Street 

Burnham Market King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE31 8EJ 

04-May- 

10 10/00147/UWLB 

Burnham 

Market 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised advertising sign at 

first floor level. 

The Bowery Market Place 


Lynn Norfolk PE31 8HF 

24-Mar- 

11 11/00162/UADV 

Burnham 

Market 

P2 

DC Application 

Submitted 

alleged breach of condition relating 

to planning reference number 

04/00719/A 

Church House Overy Road 


Lynn Norfolk PE31 8HH 

18-Nov- 

10 10/00538/BOC 

Burnham 

Market 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised external 

signage 

21 North Street Burnham 

Market King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE31 8HG 

24-Jun- 


Burnham 

Market 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised painted sign 

(eastern gable) 

The Hoste Arms The Green 


Lynn Norfolk PE31 8HD 

The Moorings Tower Road 

Burnham Overy Staithe 

King's Lynn Norfolk PE31 

05-May- 


Burnham 

Market 

P4 

Pending 

Consideration 

8JB unauthorised vent/extraction flues 

14-Jun- 

11 11/00322/UWLB 

Burnham 

Overy 

Pending 

Consideration 


to planning permission 10/00237/F 

Cuckstool Cottage 

Cuckstool Lane Castle Acre 

Norfolk PE32 2AH 

16-Aug- 

10 10/00338/BOC 

P2 Castle Acre 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised satelitte dish 

without planning consent 

5 Chimney Street Castle 

Acre King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE32 2AB 

06-May- 

11 11/00230/UNOPDE 

P4 Castle Acre

189 

Unauthorised change of use of 

land (business use and curtilage 

extension) and breach of 

agricultural restrictive condition 

attached to M2714 dated 24th 

August 1965 Notice Issued 

Meadow View Black Horse 

Road Clenchwarton King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE34 4DN 

16-Aug- 

10 10/00334/UNAUTU 

P2 Clenchwarton 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged change of use from 

agricultural use to garden business 

and unauthorised siting of 

portacabin 

Kenfield Farm 254 Main 

Road Clenchwarton King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE34 4AF 

13-May- 

09 09/00221/UNAUTU 


Pending 

Consideration 


to planning reference 07/002220/F 

111 Main Road 

Clenchwarton King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE34 4BG 

Land Opposite Telephone 

Call Box And Letter Box St 

Andrews Lane Congham 

18-Nov- 

10 10/00547/BOC 


Pending 

Norfolk Alleged anauthorised caravan Consideration 


Land At Grassy Lane use of land for the siting of a 

Congham King's Lynn portacabin and the storage of 


building materials Notice Issued 

29-Jun- 


P2 Congham 

P4 Congham 21-Jul-09 09/00363/UNAUTU 


Submitted 

New Road Crimplesham 

Norfolk alledged unauthorised building 

03-Nov- 

10 10/00492/UNOPDE 

P3 Crimplesham 

Pending 

Consideration 


to planning approval 10/01134/F 

Victory Cottage Main Road 

Crimplesham King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE33 9DX 

Yard To the Rear of No. 90 

Sluice Road Denver 


15-Jun- 


P3 Crimplesham 

Pending 

Consideration 

PE38 0DZ alleged unauthorised use of yard 

26-Oct- 

10 10/00477/UNAUTU 

P2 Denver

190 

Pending 

Consideration 


use of land for siting of container 

Bishops Retreat High Street 

Docking King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE31 8NH 

P4 Docking 17-Jul-07 07/00300/UNAUTU 


Submitted 

96 Retreat Estate 


PE38 9QH alleged unauthorised extension 

12-May- 

10 10/00165/UNOPDE 

Downham 

Market 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

65A Railway Road 


PE38 9EL alleged unauthorised business 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00368/UNAUTU 

Downham 

Market 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

The Annexe Meads Cottage 

Brickfields Lane Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 9ED alleged unauthorised use 

18-Feb- 


Downham 

Market 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised works to a 

Listed Building 

82 Bridge Street Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 9DJ 

14-Mar- 


Downham 

Market 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised business from a 

residential property 

Willowdene Orchard Close 


PE38 9LW 

30-Mar- 


Downham 

Market 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

65A Railway Road 


PE38 9EL Construction of dwelling 

23-Jan- 

02 05/00399/UNOPDE 

Downham 

Market 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 


to 09/01222/RM 

79 Greenwich Close 


PE38 9TW 

24-May- 


Downham 

Market 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Snaresbrook 204 Broomhill 


PE38 9QY alleged unauthoised use 

06-Jun- 


Downham 

Market 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised care sales 

business and a caravan as a sales 

office 

Broomhill Car Showroom 

220 Broomhill Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 9QY 

29-Jun- 


Downham 

Market 

P3

191 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised replacement 

windows in a Listed Building 

21 Paradise Road 


PE38 9HS 

30-Mar- 


Downham 

Market 

P4 


to planning reference 2/04/01345/F Notice Issued 

Chapel Farm Downham 

Road Salters Lode Norfolk 

PE38 0BA 

18-Nov- 

10 10/00549/BOC 

Downham 

West 

P3 


Submitted 

Redgate House Lady Drove 


PE38 0AG Alleged unauthorised cart shed 

13-Jun- 

11 11/00311/UNAUTU 

Downham 

West 

P3 

Alleged failure to comply with 

repairs notice Notice Issued 

Newstead The Green East 

Rudham King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE31 8RD 

29-Jan- 

09 09/00075/OTHER 

P1 East Rudham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised siting of 

caravan on site 

Land Adjacent 21-22 

Station Road East Rudham 

Norfolk PE31 8SU 

(old Bernard Matthews Site) 

next Door To Heathlands 

Ashwicken Road East 

Winch King's Lynn Norfolk 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00441/UNAUTU 

P3 East Rudham 

Pending 

Consideration 

PE32 1LJ alleged unauthorised use 

21-Jan- 


P3 East Winch 

alleged unauthorised operational 

development Notice Issued 

87 Elm High Road Emneth 

Norfolk PE14 0DH 

03-Feb- 


P2 Emneth 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged untidy land having an 

adverse impacct on the amenity 

56 Ladys Drove Emneth 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8DF 

07-Mar- 

11 11/00126/UNTIDY 

P2 Emneth 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised use of fruit 

and veg store 

Emneth Village Stores 22 

Gaultree Square Emneth 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8DD 

20-Apr- 


P2 Emneth

192 

Alleged unauthorised use of the 

land and buildings Notice Issued 

Westfield Guesthouse 85 

Elm High Road Emneth 


24-Feb- 

10 10/00047/UNAUTU 

P3 Emneth 

Unauthorised siting of mobile 

home and construction of detached 

structures Notice Issued 

Land South Of Tramways 

Outwell Road Emneth 


01-Jun- 

10 10/00201/UNAUTU 

P3 Emneth 

Pending 

Consideration 


land (plant hire business) 

Land South of 178 Hungate 

Road Emneth Norfolk PE14 

8EQ 

P3 Emneth 27-Jul-10 10/00306/UNAUTU 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised use of land 

for siting of touring caravans used 

for residential purposes 

Westfield Guesthouse 85 

Elm High Road Emneth 


08-Mar- 


P3 Emneth 

Breach of condition 2 attached to Pending 

09/00329/F 

Consideration 

Breach of Condition 2 attached to 

planning permission reference 

05/00865/F dated 1st June 2005. 

Construction of replacement 

dwelling after demolition of existing 

dwelling. Notice Issued 

Strawberry Fields Mill Road 

Emneth Wisbech Norfolk 

PE14 8AE 

30-Mar- 


P3 Emneth 

Pine Tree Bungalow 

Southery Road Feltwell 

Norfolk IP26 4EJ 

04-Jan- 


P2 Feltwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged land and buildings 

adversley affecting amenity of 

area, building falling into disrepair 

Old School High Street 

Fincham Norfolk PE33 9EH 

04-Nov- 

10 10/00508/UNTIDY 

P2 Fincham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised shed outside any 

residential curtilage 

1 Lynn Road Fincham 


9HE 

24-Mar- 


P4 Fincham 


use of countryside to garden land Notice Issued 

Acrefield House Winch 

Road Gayton King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1QP 

03-Mar- 

09 09/00113/UNOPDE 

P3 Gayton

193 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised business 

from a residential property 

Sandown 17 Leziate Drove 

Pott Row King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1DB 

07-Jun- 


P2 Grimston 

Alleged breach of condition in 

relation to occupancy of 

agricultural dwelling Notice Issued 

Border Lane Farm Fen 

Lane Pott Row King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1DA 

16-Nov- 

09 09/00546/UNAUTU 

P4 Grimston 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged breach of condition of 

08/02780/F in respect of the 

windows 

Old Methodist Church 

Nethergate Street Harpley 


17-Dec- 

10 10/00588/BOC 

P2 Harpley 

Pending 

Consideration 


caravans 

61 North Beach Heacham 


7LJ 

27-Aug- 

08 08/00358/UNAUTU 

P2 Heacham 

Pending 

Consideration 


caravan/mobile home 



7LJ 

02-Sep- 

10 10/00384/UNAUTU 

P2 Heacham 

Pending 

Consideration 


advertisement 

Breach of Condition 6 P.P. 

09/00189/F Failing to adhere to 

tree protection condition in 

accordance with Arboricultural 

Implications Assessment Report 

38 - 40 Station Road 

Heacham King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE31 7EY 

04-Feb- 


P2 Heacham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Poplars 28 Station Road 


Norfolk PE31 7EX 

13-May- 


P2 Heacham 

Alleged garage conversion into 

annexe Notice Issued 

3A Jubilee Road Heacham 


7AR 

Norfolk Lavender Ltd Caley 

P2 Heacham 05-Jul-11 11/00358/UNAUTU 

Mill Lynn Road Heacham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged use of land as an 

unauthorised car park 


7JE 

13-Sep- 

10 10/00407/UNAUTU 

P3 Heacham

194 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised caravan as 

accommodation for warden. 

Wardens Caravan Long 

Acres Caravan Park South 

Beach Road Heacham 

Norfolk PE31 7BA 

Summer Hill House 2 

19-Jan- 


P3 Heacham 

Alleged unauthorised use of 

premises as a commercial 

business. 

Lamsey Lane Heacham 

Pending 

Consideration 


7LB 

02-Feb- 


P3 Heacham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised replacement 

Caravan 

64 The South Beach 


Norfolk PE31 7LH 

30-Jun- 


P3 Heacham 


Submitted 



7LJ Unauthorised storage container 

24-Mar- 


P4 Heacham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged breach of planning 

permission - failure to discharge 

conditions 

Cold Harbour Farm 

Cottages Blackhorse Drove 

Hilgay Norfolk CB6 1EH 

10-Feb- 

09 09/00093/BOC 

P3 Hilgay 

Pending 

Consideration 


development 

Agricultural Building Site 

Ely Road Hilgay 

20-Apr- 


P3 Hilgay 


Submitted 

alleged unauthorised use of 

garage 

Fairfield Garage Bridge 

Street Hilgay Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 0LL 

09-May- 


P3 Hilgay 

Pending 

Consideration 

15 Stevens Crescent Ten 

Mile Bank Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 0EF alleged untidy land 

30-Jun- 


P3 Hilgay 

Alleged urgent works required to 

Grade II Listed Building Notice Issued 

East Gatehouse Hillington 

Hall Hillington Park 

Hillington King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE31 6BN 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00370/OTHER 

P1 Hillington

195 


Submitted 

alleged development not in 

accordance with planning 

application 08/01603/F 

4 Webbs Way Hockwold 

cum Wilton Norfolk IP26 

4JY 

08-Feb- 


Hockwold cum 

Wilton 

P2 

Alleged breach of conditions Pending 

relating to 06/02512/LB 

Consideration 


agricultural building which was 

determined on applicacation Pending 

reference number 09/00373/AG Consideration 

Alleged temporary permission for 

stationing of mobile home for use 

as temporary dwelling expired 

31.10.08 - no new application 

found Notice Issued 

White Dyke Farm Black 

Dyke Road Hockwold cum 

Wilton Norfolk IP26 4JW 

20-Aug- 

10 10/00348/BOC 

Hockwold cum 

Wilton 

P3 

Winchester House Cowles 

Drove Hockwold cum 

Wilton Norfolk IP26 4JQ 

04-May- 


Hockwold cum 

Wilton 

P3 

Island Farm Cowles Drove 

Hockwold Cum Wilton 

Thetford Norfolk IP26 4JQ 

28-Jan- 

09 09/00063/OTHER 

Hockwold cum 

Wilton 

P4 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged works to a LB without 

specific prior consent 

Homeside Cottage 45 

Kirkgate Holme next the 

Sea Norfolk PE36 6LH 

Coach House Holme House 

34 Westgate Holme Next 

The Sea Hunstanton 

Norfolk PE36 6LF 

05-Aug- 

10 10/00325/UWLB 

Holme next 

the Sea 

P1 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised works to 

building within the curtilage of the 

listed building 

27-Mar- 

09 09/00150/UWLB 

Holme next 

the Sea 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

Land At Busseys Lane 

Holme next the Sea Norfolk 

PE36 6NU Alleged unauthorised log cabin 

10-May- 


Holme next 

the Sea 

P2 

Not built in accordance with 

approved plans Notice Issued 

Holme House 30 Westgate 

Road Holme Hunstanton 

Norfolk PE36 6LF 

10-Apr- 

07 07/00110/UWLB 

Holme next 

the Sea 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Monitoring - Section 106 

obligations 

Tesco Southend Road 

Hunstanton Norfolk PE36 

5AR 

10-Sep- 

10 10/00403/S106 

P2 Hunstanton

196 

Pending 

Consideration 

Subdivision of bungalow into 2 

units 

Pebblecroft Park Road 


5DL 

30-Nov- 

10 10/00571/UNAUTU 

P2 Hunstanton 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised 

caravan/mobile home 

91 South Beach Road 


5BA 

15-Apr- 


P2 Hunstanton 

Breach of highways conditions to 

planning permission 09/01331/F Notice Issued 

1 Downs Road Hunstanton 

Norfolk PE36 5HX 

03-Mar- 

11 11/00115/BOC 

P3 Hunstanton 

Land causing a detrimental impact 

on the visual amenity of the 

surrounding neighbourhood Notice Issued 

Stanton 19 South Beach 

Road Hunstanton Norfolk 

PE36 5BA 

04-Mar- 


P3 Hunstanton 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged breach of condition 2 

relating to 06/00350/CU 

Eaton Lodge 16 Westgate 


5AL 

05-May- 


P3 Hunstanton 

Pending 

Consideration 

Southern Fried Chicken 40 

High Street Hunstanton 

Norfolk PE36 5AF Alleged unauthorised sign 

10-May- 


P3 Hunstanton 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised use as a taxi 

office 

11 Westgate Hunstanton 

Norfolk PE36 5AL 

11-May- 


P3 Hunstanton 

Pending 

Consideration 

Breach of Condition 2: 

2/94/0645/CU opening hours 

3 Le Strange Terrace 


5AJ 

20-May- 


P3 Hunstanton 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised use of hall 

possibly relating to planning 

application 07/00411/CU 

Ingoldisthorpe Hall Brickley 

Lane Ingoldisthorpe King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE31 6PD 

24-Feb- 

10 10/00045/UNAUTU 

P2 Ingoldisthorpe 

Pending 

Consideration 

Coaly Lane Lynn Road 

Ingoldisthorpe Norfolk Alleged unauthorised business use 

01-Sep- 

10 10/00376/UNAUTU 

P2 Ingoldisthorpe

197 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised works to LB to 

subdivide into flats 

89 London Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5EU 

17-May- 

10 10/00169/UWLB 

P1 King's Lynn 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged derelict land and building/s 

detrimental to visual amenity of the 

area 

Blacksmiths Cottage 1B 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1NR 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00351/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 



area 

Ex East Anglian Hotel 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1NT 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00353/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 



area 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 5QH 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00360/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 



area 

53 Railway Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 1NE 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00367/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised works in a 

Conservation Area 

18A Valingers Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5HD 

05-Oct- 

10 10/00457/UWCA 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged damaged railings at front 

of property 

11 St Johns Terrace 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1NW 

05-Feb- 

08 08/00055/UWLB 


Pending 

Consideration 



Morston Assets A47 West 

Bound Saddlebow Entry 

Slip Kings Lynn 

13-Oct- 

08 08/00472/UADV 


Alleged Unauthorised Windows in 

King's Lynn Article 4 Area Notice Issued 

R S Seaman 31 Tower 

Street King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE30 1EJ 

06-Nov- 

08 08/00514/UWCA 


2 County Court Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5EJ Unauthorised UPVC windows Notice Issued 

12-Nov- 

08 08/00518/UWCA 

P2 King's Lynn

198 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised works to 

listed building and unauthorised 

change of use 

17 King Street King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1ET 

13-Jan- 

10 10/00007/OTHER 


Unauthorised compound on land 

designated for access/loading in Pending 

service area. 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised UPVC 

replacement windows in KL Article 

4 Area where pd rights are 

removed Notice Issued 

Ciao Coffee 42 Broad 


PE30 1DP 

08-Jun- 

10 10/00211/UNAUTU 


5 South Everard Street 


5HJ 

30-Jun- 

10 10/00254/UWCA 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged breach of condition 3 4 

of planning permission 08/01054/F 



30-Jun- 

10 10/00258/BOC 


Pending 

Consideration 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1AQ Unauthorised Advertisement 

P2 King's Lynn 23-Jul-10 10/00292/UADV 

Pending 

Consideration 

18 Kent Road Gaywood 


4AU Alleged untidy property and garden 

04-Aug- 

10 10/00316/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised placing of 

tables and chairs in walkway area 

Vancouver Centre Old 

Sunway King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE30 1DS 

03-Sep- 

10 10/00392/UNAUTU 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged derelict building having an 

adverse impact on amenity 

9 - 11 St James Street 


5DA 

10-Sep- 

10 10/00404/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 


Agreement 

Land At Winston Churchill 

Drive Gaywood King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 4YQ 

15-Sep- 

10 10/00417/S106 


199 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged replacement windows 

without consent 

Family Support Centre 

Church Lane King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 5AE 

30-Sep- 

10 10/00431/UWCA 


Pending 

Consideration 


obligations 

181 St Peters Road West 

Lynn King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE34 3JF 

22-Nov- 

10 10/00559/S106 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged untidy derelict building 

having an adverse impact on the 

amenity (listed building) 

53 High Street King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1BE 

01-Dec- 

10 10/00575/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged untidy derelict building 

having an adverse impact on the 

amenity 

8 Pilot Street King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1QL 

01-Dec- 

10 10/00576/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1AL Unauthorised advertisement 

10-Dec- 

10 10/00585/UADV 


Pending 

Consideration 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1AQ Unauthorised advertisement 

10-Dec- 

10 10/00586/UADV 


Pending 

Consideration 

alleged failure to maintain a Listed 

Building 

7 South Lynn Plain King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5HG 

13-Jan- 



Pending 

Consideration 


windows in KL Article 4 Area 

30 Tower Street King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 1EJ 

13-Jan- 

11 11/00024/UWCA 



windows in KL Article 4 Area Notice Issued 

10 Checker Street King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5AS 

27-Jan- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised conversion 

into two self contained flats 

112 - 113 High Street 


1DD 

08-Feb- 



200 

Pending 

Consideration 


windows on front elevation within 

the Conservation Area 



04-Mar- 



Unauthorised replacement 

windows and door Notice Issued 

18 North Everard Street 


5HQ 

17-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 

11 St Johns Terrace 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1NW Unauthorised satellite dishes 

23-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised exterior lights 

installed on a Grade 2 Listed 

Building 

Bank House Kings Staithe 

Square King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE30 1RD 

24-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised works to a Listed 

Building 

26 St James Street King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5DA 

24-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 


use 

Chalet Waterlow Nurseries 

Waterlow Road Terrington 

St Clements PE34 4PS 

03-May- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Former Stables Adj 121 

Austin Street King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1QH Alleged unauthorised signs x 2 

09-May- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised mobile trailer 

unit 

Broad Street King's Lynn 





Pending 

Consideration 

Land At Kettlewell Lane 

And Eastgate Street King's 

Lynn Norfolk Alleged untidy land 

27-May- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Breach of conditions 4 and 5 

attached to 07/01704/RMM and 

07/01620/RMM 

Phase 3 Land West of 

Anthony Nolan Road King's 


28-Jun- 



201 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised car repairs 

and sales. 

Land West of 39 St 

Edmundsbury Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 2DU 

Site For Offices And 

29-Jun- 



Workshop Bergen Way 

Pending 

Consideration 

Works started on site without 

discharging conditions 


2JG 

P2 King's Lynn 01-Jul-11 11/00349/BOC 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised painting of 

shop front unauthorised 



Lynn Norfolk PE30 1AQ 

P3 King's Lynn 10-Jul-09 09/00342/UWCA 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised installation of 

UVPC windows in conservation 

area 

71A Friars Street King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5AP 

02-Oct- 

09 09/00487/UWCA 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised increase in 

curtilage to north of barn 

The Barn Eastgate Drove 

Hillington King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE31 6DJ 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00440/UNAUTU 


Building adversely affecting 

amenity of the area. Notice Issued 

Hot Pot 95 Norfolk Street 


1AQ 

04-Nov- 

10 10/00510/UNTIDY 


Pending 

Consideration 


to planning permission 04/00883/A 

Cobblestones 1 Blackfriars 


PE30 1NN 

18-Nov- 

10 10/00542/BOC 


Pending 

Consideration 



Omex Agrifluids Ltd 

Saddlebow Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE34 3JA 

Merchants Close 

Oldmedow Road Hardwick 

Industrial Estate King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 4JX 

18-Nov- 

10 10/00543/BOC 


Pending 

Consideration 


to planning reference number 

04/01752/F 

18-Nov- 

10 10/00544/BOC 


202 

Pending 

Consideration 

Without Planning Permission the 

storage of circus equipment and 

vehicles 

Appletons Yard Rope Walk 


2BD 

26-Nov- 

10 10/00561/UNOPDE 


Pending 

Consideration 


advertisement 

5 New Conduit Street 


1DF 

17-Dec- 

10 10/00592/UADV 


Pending 

Consideration 

Splinters Diy 24 - 25 

Wisbech Road King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 5JP Unauthorised wooden structure 

16-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 

10 Tower Street King's Unauthorised scaffolding stair case 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 1EJ at rear of property 

Land West of A149 

Opposite Junction of Beach 

Road Snettisham King's 

Lynn Norfolk Unauthorised Advertisement 

24-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 

31-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Land Adjacent A149 


Norfolk Unauthorised Advertisement 

31-Mar- 



Pending 

Consideration 


windows in front of house 

31 South Everard Street 


5HJ 

05-May- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Windows removed and not 

replaced, adversely affects a 

Conservation Area 

3 Priory Lane King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 5DU 

05-May- 



Pending 

Consideration 

The Green Thornham 


5NH Alleged unauthorised development 

10-May- 



203 

Pending 

Consideration 

School House Dental 

Laboratory 31 London 

Road King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE30 5PY Alleged unauthorised satellite dish 




Pending 

Consideration 

8 St James Street King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5DA Alleged unauthorised use as a cafe 

13-May- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged building has been 

constructed too close to access 

road 

Unit 6 Bergen Way King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 2JG 

07-Jun- 



Alleged breach of conditions Pending 

attached to 09/00992/CU 

Consideration 

Construction of two buildings and 

water storage tanks also storage of 

a large quantity of commercial 

timber in the form of tree trunks Notice Issued 

Ciao Coffee 42 Broad 


PE30 1DP 

07-Jun- 



Parish Council Allotments 

Back Street South Creake 


07-Jun- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged overflow car park being 

used for storage. 

Tullip Ltd Beveridge Way 

Hardwick Narrows King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 4ND 

28-Jun- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised use as HMO 

and car sales 

17 Beloe Crescent King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5LF 

P3 King's Lynn 01-Jul-11 11/00351/UNAUTU 

Unauthorised flue 

Alleged breach of condition 2 - 

08/01531/CU Notice Issued 


Lynn Norfolk PE30 1AL 

P4 King's Lynn 06-Jul-09 09/00334/UNOPDE 

Pending 

Consideration 




Lynn Norfolk PE30 1AH 

P4 King's Lynn 13-Jul-09 09/00343/UADV

204 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised erection of 

satellite dish in conservation area 

4 Kings Staithe Lane King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 1JE 


Pending 

Consideration 

61 Railway Road King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 1NE Unauthorised advertisements 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised erection of 

satellite dishes in conservation 

area. 

Flats At Southgate Street 


5AZ 

06-Aug- 

09 09/00393/UWCA 


Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised satellite dish 

in conservation area 

Kings Staithe Mill 5 Kings 

Staithe Square King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE30 1JE 

11-Sep- 

09 09/00459/UWCA 


Pending 

Consideration 


satellite dishes 

Hillington Square King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 5HP 

16-Nov- 

09 09/00545/UWCA 


Pending 

Consideration 



A149 From Hardwick 

Roundabout To Holme next 

Sea 

09-May- 



Land adversely affecting the visual Pending 

amenity of the surrounding area Consideration 

Without planning permission, the 

construction of a single storey 

wooden building with concrete 

base/foundation Notice Issued 

68 Regency Avenue King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE30 4UH 

P4 King's Lynn 05-Jul-11 11/00356/UNTIDY 

Whichway House The 

Street Marham King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE33 9JP 

26-Feb- 

10 10/00042/UNAUTU 

P3 Marham 

Pending 

Consideration 


residential caravans 

The Stables Gooses Lane 


Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8DR 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00361/UNAUTU 

Marshland St 

James 

P2

205 

Pending 

Consideration 

One Acre Jubilee Lane 


Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8JD alleged unauthorised use 

11-Jan- 


Marshland St 

James 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 


use of an agricultural field into 

garden land 

243 Smeeth Road 


Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8ES 

01-Mar- 

10 10/00060/UNAUTU 

Marshland St 

James 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 


land 

Rhosaf House Middle 

Drove Marshland St James 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8JP 

Field View 1 Church Farm 

Cottages School Road 


19-Nov- 

10 10/00552/UNOPDE 

Marshland St 

James 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Norfolk PE14 8JR alleged unauthorised extension 

14-Jan- 


Marshland St 

James 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised use of land 

for the siting of a caravan for 

residential use 


construction/use of a number of 

kennels for a dog breeding/kennels 

business 

86 Smeeth Road Marshland 

St James Wisbech Norfolk 

PE14 8JF 

09-Mar- 


Marshland St 

James 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

St Peters Farm Middle 

Drove Marshland St James 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8JT 

17-May- 


Marshland St 

James 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 


development 

Little Acres 103 Smeeth 

Road Marshland St James 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8JF 

06-Jun- 


Marshland St 

James 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unathorised stationing of 

residential caravans 

Poppylot Bungalow 

Southery Road Feltwell 

Thetford Norfolk IP26 4EP 

15-Sep- 

10 10/00416/UNAUTU 

P2 Methwold 

Pending 

Consideration 

Glebe Wood Lodge 

Brandon Road Methwold 

Thetford Norfolk IP26 4RH alleged unauthorised use 

03-Nov- 

10 10/00494/UNAUTU 

P2 Methwold

206 

Alleged unauthorised untidy land in 


34-36 High Street Methwold 

Thetford Norfolk IP26 4NT 

16-Apr- 

09 09/00185/UNTIDY 

P3 Methwold 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised advert(s) on 

a Listed Building 

The Crown Inn Lynn Road 

Middleton Norfolk PE32 

1RH 

22-Jun- 


P2 Middleton 

Breach of conditions attached to 


The Crown Lynn Road 

Middleton King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1RH 

Barn Adjacent To Ivy Farm 

01-Jun- 

10 10/00195/BOC 

P3 Middleton 

East Winch Road Middleton 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged untidy building having an 

adverse impact on the amenity 


1SF 

P3 Middleton 27-Jul-10 10/00301/UNTIDY 

Pending 

Consideration 

Rear of the Crown Inn Lynn 

Road Middleton King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1RH alleged unauthorised use 

02-Nov- 

10 10/00491/UNAUTU 

P3 Middleton 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised agricultural 

building 

Beech Farm Bungalow 

Setch Road Middleton 


1SL 

15-May- 

09 09/00230/UNOPDE 

P4 Middleton 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged change of use from 

agricultural land to garden land 

Mill Cottage Boothes Road 

Nordelph Norfolk PE38 0BU 

07-Mar- 


P2 Nordelph 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised residential 

caravan 

Mill Barn Boothes Road 

Nordelph Downham Market 

Norfolk PE38 0BU 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00447/UNAUTU 

P3 Nordelph 

Land West 30 West Winch 

Road West Winch King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE33 0ND Unauthorised residential caravan Notice Issued 

23-Apr- 

10 10/00138/UNAUTU 

P2 North Runcton

207 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of condition and 

unauthorised use of field for 

camping and caravanning 

King's Lynn Caravan And 

Camping Park Parkside 

House New Road North 

Runcton Norfolk PE33 0QR 

17-Aug- 

10 10/00341/BOC 

P2 North Runcton 

Pending 

Consideration 

139 Nursery Lane North 


Norfolk PE30 3QB 40-50 feet tall leylandii trees 

11-Feb- 

11 11/00083/HHC 

P3 North Wootton 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged untidy land which is having 

an adverse impact on the amenity 

The Manor House 52 High 

Street Northwold Thetford 

Norfolk IP26 5LA 

28-Jun- 

10 10/00244/UNTIDY 

P1 Northwold 


caravan Notice Issued 

Unauthorised conversion of 

outbuilding into two bedroom 

cottage, erection of stables and Pending 

siting of mobile home 

Consideration 


use of land to land used in 

connection with vehicle based 

activity. Notice Issued 

Caravan 3 Watermill Farm 

Little London Road 

Northwold Norfolk IP26 5NJ 

14-Apr- 

09 09/00172/UNOPDE 

P3 Northwold 

Keepers Cottage 5 Little 

London Road Northwold 

Thetford Norfolk IP26 5NJ 

14-Jun- 


P3 Northwold 

Horseshoe Cottage Basin 

Road Outwell Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 8TH 

17-Apr- 

08 08/00142/UNAUTU 

P2 Outwell 

Alleged unauthorised mobile living 

units Notice Issued 

Oakwood Farm Marsh 

Road Outwell Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 8PY 

15-Jun- 


P2 Outwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised ponds dug 

on agricultural land. Spoil 

mounted around the ponds. 

Unauthorised expansion of 

business, construction of 

buildings/storage areas and hours 

of use/operation causing 

Sandy Lodge Langhorns 

Lane Outwell Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 8SH 

29-Jun- 


P2 Outwell 

disturbance Notice Issued 

Doug Clark Produce Ltd 

Basin Road Outwell 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8TJ 

01-Jun- 

05 05/00387/UNAUTU 

P3 Outwell

208 


material change of use of 

agricultural land and garden land 

to a mixed use of agricultural land 

and garden land for the stationing 

of a caravan/mobile home for 

residential purposes, including the 

storage of residential par Notice Issued 

Alleged unauthorised erection of a 

Land NE Of The Grange 

Hall Road Outwell Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 8PE 

01-Mar- 

10 10/00063/UNAUTU 

P3 Outwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

polytunnel, domestification of 

Grade 1 Agricultural Land and 

excavation of a pond/lake. 

Brampton House 

Langhorns Lane Outwell 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 8SH 

14-Apr- 

10 10/00132/UNAUTU 

P3 Outwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised use of A1 

agricultural land as curtilage 

Derby House Langhorns 

Lane Outwell Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 8SH 

Chapman & Dollmore Hall 

Road House Hall Road 

Outwell Wisbech Norfolk 

14-Apr- 

10 10/00133/UNAUTU 

P3 Outwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

PE14 8PE Alleged unauthorised use 

29-Nov- 

10 10/00565/UNAUTU 

P3 Outwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

36 Well Creek Road 

Outwell Wisbech Norfolk 

PE14 8SA alleged unauthorised use 

Alleged unauthorised construction 

of storage shed and pergola, both 

Land At Hall Dike Robbs on hard standing without planning 

Lane Outwell Norfolk permission 

21-Jan- 


P3 Outwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

P4 Outwell 20-Jul-09 09/00357/UNOPDE 

Alleged breach of condition related 

to occupancy Notice Issued 

Plot 61 Log Cabin Pentney 

Lakes Caravan And Leisure 

Park Common Road 

Pentney Norfolk PE32 1LE 

Pentney Lakes Caravan 

And Leisure Park Common 

Road Pentney King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1LE 

02-Apr- 

08 08/00128/BOC 

P2 Pentney 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unathorised siting of 

caravans with electricity points 

13-May- 

08 08/00186/OTHER 

P2 Pentney

209 

Alleged breach of planning 

permission - condition 11 Notice Issued 

Great Ketlam Farm Low 


Norfolk PE32 1JF 

10-Feb- 

09 09/00095/BOC 

P2 Pentney 

Pending 

Consideration 


development 

73 Pentney Lakes Common 

Road Pentney Norfolk 

PE32 1LE 

Pentney Lakes Leisure 

Park Common Road 

Pentney King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1NN 

P2 Pentney 27-Jul-10 10/00303/UNOPDE 

Pending 

Consideration 


Agreement 

22-Sep- 

10 10/00428/S106 

P2 Pentney 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised siting of a 

mobile home 

The Pines Abbey Road 

Pentney King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE32 1JT 

07-Mar- 


P2 Pentney 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised static 

caravan 

73a Pentney Lakes 

Common Road Pentney 


Plot 26 Pentney Lakes 

Leisure Park Common 


29-Jun- 


P2 Pentney 

Pending 

Norfolk PE32 1NN Breach of occupancy condition Consideration 

Plot 22 Pentney Lakes 

Leisure Park Common 


Norfolk PE32 1NN Breach of occupancy condition Notice Issued 

Land And Buildings North 

West of Dutch House Alleged unauthorised siting of 

Pentney Lane Pentney portacabin, mobile home, steel 


container and blue polytunnel Notice Issued 

Bird Lake Lodge 11 

Pentney Lakes Common 

Road Pentney Norfolk Alleged breach of conditions 6 and 

PE32 1LE 

7 relating to 04/01739/O Notice Issued 

25-Jan- 

07 07/00295/BOC 

P3 Pentney 

25-Jan- 

07 07/00292/BOC 

P3 Pentney 

18-May- 

09 09/00241/UNOPDE 

P3 Pentney 

27-May- 

09 09/00262/BOC 

P3 Pentney

210 

Pending 

Consideration 


to planning permission 2/04/0490/F 

Unauthorised timber shed situated 

on land forward of a wall forming 

the principal elevation of the 

original dwellinghouse. 

NW Corner Playing Field 

Narborough Road Pentney 


18-Nov- 

10 10/00550/BOC 

P3 Pentney 

Pending 

Consideration 

4 Holme Close Runcton 

Holme King's Lynn Norfolk 

PE33 0AB 

14-Jan- 


Runcton 

Holme 

P2 

alleged failure to comply with 

conditions Notice Issued 

Rose Cottage 21 Norwich 

Road Shouldham King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE33 0DA 

Land West of Thistledew 

42A Common Road 


Norfolk PE31 7PF 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00372/BOC 

P2 Shouldham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Failure to comply with tree 

protection plan as submitted, 

25-May- 


P1 Snettisham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Poppyfields Garden Centre 

Poppyfields Drive 

Snettisham Norfolk Unauthorised advertisements 

17-Sep- 

10 10/00425/UADV 

P2 Snettisham 

Pending 

Consideration 


greenhouse 

Lucky Stones 92 The 

Beach Snettisham King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE31 7RB 

22-Nov- 

10 10/00557/UNAUTU 

P2 Snettisham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised touring 

caravan 

Caravan 51c The Beach 


Norfolk PE31 7RB 

29-Jan- 

09 09/00076/UNAUTU 

P3 Snettisham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised caravan on 

common land. 

Caravan 113 The Beach 



20-Jan- 


P3 Snettisham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised caravan on 

common land 

Caravan 77 The Beach 



20-Jan- 


P3 Snettisham

211 

Pending 

Consideration 

KC 2000 Ltd Kim Cairns 

Common Road Snettisham 


7PF Unauthorised Advertisement 

31-Mar- 


P3 Snettisham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Workshop 6 Beach Road 


Norfolk PE31 7QU Unauthorised advertisements 

22-Sep- 

06 06/00285/UADV 

P4 Snettisham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised caravan, two 

storage units 

Land Behind Fairview The 

Common South Creake 

Fakenham Norfolk NR21 

9JB 

P2 South Creake 22-Jul-10 10/00291/UNAUTU 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised sub division 

of dwelling 

30 Upgate Street Southery 


PE38 0NA 

17-Feb- 


P2 Southery 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of condition(s) 

relating to planning approval 

07/00441/F 

70 Feltwell Road Southery 


PE38 0NS 

15-Jun- 


P3 Southery 

Pending 

Consideration 

The Duck Inn Burnham 

Road Stanhoe Norfolk 

PE31 8QD Alleged unauthorised caravan site 



P3 Stanhoe 

Pending 

Consideration 


of new roadway/path/fencing 

Land North Of The 

Moorings Off Bridge Road 

Stoke Ferry Norfolk 

Land South of Ferry End 

House Greatmans Way 

Stoke Ferry King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE33 9SZ 

27-Feb- 

09 09/00109/UNOPDE 

P2 Stoke Ferry 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised new 

structure without the relevant 

planning permission 

04-May- 

10 10/00146/UNOPDE 

P2 Stoke Ferry 


mobile homes and portacabins Notice Issued 

Barn To Rear Of Osbourne 

House High Street Stoke 

Ferry Norfolk PE33 9SF 

18-Aug- 

09 09/00405/UNAUTU 

P4 Stoke Ferry

212 


Submitted 



Land Adjacent To the 

Hunny Pot Furlong Road 

Stoke Ferry Norfolk PE33 

9SU 

10-Aug- 

10 10/00330/BOC 

Stoke Ferry 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised breach of 

selling wooden items 

Keepers Cottage 82 The 

Drove Barroway Drove 

Norfolk PE38 0AJ 

05-Oct- 

10 10/00461/UNAUTU 

P2 Stow Bardolph 


Submitted 


building for motor vehicle 

workshop 

MRC Primrose Farm 


PE38 0AL 

26-Oct- 

10 10/00476/UNAUTU 


Pending 

Consideration 

Gullpit House Gullpit Drove 

Stow Bridge King's Lynn 

PE34 3PU alleged unauthorised use 

12-Jan- 



Pending 

Consideration 


scrapped vehicles on highway and 

neighbouring property 

Midway 271 The Drove 


PE38 0AN 

04-Mar- 

11 11/00118/UNAUTU 


Pending 

Consideration 


agricultural land to garden and 

marquee erected on land 

Field View Cuckoo Road 

Stow Bridge King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE34 3NZ 

14-Jun- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Breach of Condition 7 of 

10/01069/F and Condition 4 of 

10/01468/F 

MRC the Yard 182 The 


Norfolk PE38 0AL 

14-Jun- 



Pending 

Consideration 

1 Taylors Row 281 The 


Norfolk PE38 0AW alleged unauthorised use 

P2 Stow Bardolph 06-Jul-11 11/00361/UNAUTU 

Pending 

Consideration 

Ivansway Barroway Drove 

Norfolk PE38 0AN Unauthorised use of land 

07-Apr- 

10 10/00111/UNAUTU 

P3 Stow Bardolph

213 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised use of static 

caravan being used as a residence 

Mobile Home Adjacent To 

223 The Drove Barroway 

Drove Norfolk PE38 0AN 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00452/UNAUTU 


Pending 

Consideration 

alleged granny annexe not built in 

accordance with approved plans 

Viewfield House 112 The 



18-Feb- 

11 11/00101/NIA 


Pending 

Consideration 

Willow Green 101 The 


Norfolk PE38 0AL alleged unauthorised building 

20-Apr- 



Pending 

Consideration 


use from agricultural land to 

garden land and unauthorised 

structure sited on land 

Viewfield House Barroway 

Drove Downham Market 


P4 Stow Bardolph 06-Jul-09 09/00336/OTHER 

Pending 

Consideration 


use from agricultural land to 

garden land 

Shelamar Barroway Drove 

Barroway Drove Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 0AL 

P4 Stow Bardolph 06-Jul-09 09/00337/UNAUTU 

Pending 

Consideration 

Tarn Hows The Street 

Syderstone King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE31 8SD Alleged untidy land and property 

16-Sep- 

10 10/00420/UNTIDY 

P2 Syderstone 

Birches Mill Lane 

Syderstone King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE31 8RX High hedge Notice Issued 

22-Mar- 

10 HH/10/02 

Syderstone 

Pending 

Consideration 



area 

Village Hall Churchgate 

Way Terrington St Clement 


4LZ 

Land Adjacent To Hay 

Green Road South 


Norfolk PE34 4PU 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00364/UNTIDY 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P1 


of building without planning 

permission Notice Issued 

20-Nov- 

09 09/00552/UNOPDE 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P2

214 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of condition 4 and 5 

relating to planning refereence 

number 

Light Industrial Units 71 

Station Road Terrington St 

Clement King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE34 4PL 

28-Jun- 

10 10/00245/BOC 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P2 


Submitted 

alleged unauthorised industrial 

building 

23 Chapel Road Terrington 

St Clement King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE34 4ND 

Platts Corner Pack House 

Halstead Farm Tuxhill Road 



Wildfowler Public House 

Sutton Road Terrington St 

Clement King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE34 4PQ 

Terrington St 

Clement 09-Jul-10 10/00266/UNOPDE 

P2 


residential caravans Notice Issued 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00451/UNAUTU 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised replacement 

of Upvc double glazed windows 

10-Nov- 

10 10/00526/UWCA 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

15 Rhoon Road Terrington 

St Clement King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE34 4HY alleged siting of mobile home 

15-Apr- 


Terrington St 

Clement 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised siting of mobile 

home and construction of 

associated structures 

Southfork Waterlow Road 



4PS 

Orchard Stables 

Brokencross Lane 



29-Oct- 

07 07/00469/UNOPDE 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 



18-Nov- 

10 10/00548/BOC 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Marlian House Church 

Road Terrington St John 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7SA alleged untidy land 

07-Dec- 

10 10/00579/UNTIDY 

Terrington St 

Clement 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Balsam Fields 95 Station 

Road Terrington St Clement 


4PL alleged unauthorised use 

09-Mar- 


Terrington St 

Clement 

P3

215 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of condition 3 and 4 

of planning permission 10/00325/F 

61 Station Road Terrington 

St Clement Norfolk PE34 

4PL 

Omerta 8 Eastgate Lane 

19-May- 


Terrington St 

Clement 

P3 


Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised 

summerhouse 


4NU 

18-Feb- 


Terrington St 

Clement 

P4 

Pending 

Consideration 


advertisement 

Supreme Windows A47 

Eastbound Terrington St 

John Church Road Junction 

13-Oct- 

08 08/00463/UADV 

Terrington St 

John 

P2 

Breach of condition 2 relating to 


Jacks Plaice Old Church 



Terrington St 

John 14-Jul-10 10/00277/BOC 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised use of portocabin 

Land South of 18 Old 

Church Road Terrington St 

John Norfolk 

Firtree Farmhouse 40 Old 

Church Road Terrington St 

John Wisbech Norfolk PE14 

7XA 

30-Nov- 

10 10/00572/UNAUTU 

Terrington St 

John 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 


caravan 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00355/UNAUTU 

Terrington St 

John 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 


use 

alleged unauthorised increase of 

garden area over and above that 

approved as part of barn 

conversion reference 06/01450/CU 

Bella View 2 Old Church 


Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7XA 

10-Jan- 

11 11/00011/UNAUTU 

Terrington St 

John 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Cowslip Barn School Road 

Terrington St John Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 7SG 

20-Apr- 


Terrington St 

John 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 


caravan 

Supreme Windows Fence 

Bank Walpole Highway 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7QT 

19-May- 


Terrington St 

John 

P3

216 

Pending 

Consideration 

Breach of Condition 3 P.P. 

10/01986/F and failing to adhere 

to tree protection condition 

1 Shepherds Pightle 

Thornham Hunstanton 

Norfolk PE36 6NA 

Forge Bungalow High 

Street Thornham 


6LY 

1 Tapp Row Cottage 

Church Road Tilney St 

Lawrence King's Lynn 

13-May- 


P2 Thornham 

Pending 

Consideration 

Removal of rubble filled boundary 

wall to the front and side wall to a 

very short distance 

P2 Thornham 04-Jul-11 11/00355/UWCA 

Pending 

Consideration 

Norfolk PE34 4QQ Alleged unauthorised use 

Springfields Caravan Park 

101 School Road Tilney St 

Lawrence Norfolk PE34 

4QZ alleged unauthorised use 

29-Nov- 

10 10/00567/UNAUTU 

Tilney St 

Lawrence 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 

12-Jan- 


Tilney St 

Lawrence 

P2 


Submitted 

119-121 Magdalen Road 

Tilney St Lawrence King's 

Lynn Norfolk PE34 4RG alleged unauthorised use 

14-Mar- 


Tilney St 

Lawrence 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 


residential caravan 

Fairview 115 Magdalen 

Road Tilney St Lawrence 


4RG 

Tilney St Lawrence Pet 

Centre 24 St Johns Road 

Tilney St Lawrence Norfolk 

PE34 4QL 

Tilney St 

Lawrence 26-Jul-10 10/00295/UNAUTU 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 


use to pet food supplies centre 

04-Aug- 

10 10/00319/UNAUTU 

Tilney St 

Lawrence 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 



White Hall Farm 181 High 

Road Tilney cum Islington 

Norfolk PE34 3BL 

Mobile Home 41A School 

26-Oct- 

10 10/00486/BOC 

Tilney St 

Lawrence 

P3 

Road Tilney St Lawrence 

Pending 

Consideration 




4QY 

18-Nov- 

10 10/00546/BOC 

Tilney St 

Lawrence 

P3

217 

5 Magdalen Road Tilney St 

Lawrence King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE34 4QX Notice Issued 

17-May- 

10 HH/10/03 

Tilney St 

Lawrence 

Pending 

Consideration 

Old Mill Cottage Lynn 

Road Tottenhill King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE33 0RH alleged unauthorised use 

08-Dec- 

10 10/00581/UNAUTU 

P3 Tottenhill 


Submitted 

Unauthorised substitution of 

wooden chalets with mobile homes 

Townsend Fishing Lakes 

Townsend Road Upwell 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 9HJ 

04-Sep- 

08 08/00382/BOC 

P2 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

Furniture repair business being run 

from barn 

Land North Of Bramley 

Cottages Town Street 


26-Apr- 

10 10/00141/UNAUTU 

P2 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

Fountain Foods Ltd New 

Road Upwell Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 9AB alleged unauthorised fence 

12-Jan- 


P2 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of conditions 

relating to planning permission 

09/01417/F 

Janis 176 New Road 

Upwell Wisbech Norfolk 

PE14 9HP 

03-Feb- 


P2 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 


use of land for the siting of a 

caravan 

Waterways 125 Small Lode 


PE14 9BL 

17-Feb- 


P2 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised conversion of barn to 

dwelling 

Orchard Barn Flint House 

Road Lotts Bridge Three 

Holes Norfolk PE14 9JN 

29-Jun- 


P2 Upwell 


caravans on agricultural land Notice Issued 

Land North/North West Of 

Downfields Small Lode 


16-Nov- 

09 09/00544/UNAUTU 

P3 Upwell 


change of use of agricultural land 

to a mixed use of agriculture and Notice Issued 

New Bridge Farm 84 

Baptist Road Upwell 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 9DU 

03-Feb- 

10 10/00032/UNAUTU 

P3 Upwell

218 

Pending 

Consideration 

residential by the siting of a 

caravan/mobile home, wooden 

clad side extension and raised 

decking used for residential 

purposes. 


use of agricultural land to the 

keeping of non agricultural horses 

including the erection of buildings 

and storage of caravan 

Land Rear Of No. 58 Croft 

Road Upwell Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 9HE 

04-Aug- 

10 10/00324/UNAUTU 

P3 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

Bramley House 75 Town 

Street Upwell Norfolk PE14 

9DF alleged unauthorised annexe 

03-Feb- 


P3 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

Russells 97 School Road 


PE14 9EW Unauthorised agricultural building 

01-Apr- 


P3 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged siting of a static mobile 

home 

Dunroamin Stonehouse 

Road Upwell Norfolk PE14 

9DX 

06-May- 


P3 Upwell 

Pending 

Consideration 


fence 

Melrose 24 Listers Road 


PE14 9BW 

09-Jun- 


P4 Upwell 

alleged unauthorised breach of 

condition relating to planning 

application 06/02088/F Notice Issued 

Harwood Bustards Lane 

Walpole St Peter Norfolk 

PE14 7PQ 

16-Aug- 

10 10/00333/BOC 

P2 Walpole 

Pending 

Consideration 


Agreement 

Land At Townsend Farm 

Church Road Walpole St 

Peter Norfolk PE14 7NS 

16-Sep- 

10 10/00419/S106 

P2 Walpole 

Pending 

Consideration 


orchard land 

Walnut Cottage School 

Lane Walpole St Peter 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7PA 

01-Oct- 

10 10/00434/UNAUTU 

P2 Walpole

219 




Phoenix Cottage And 

Mariedown Bustards Lane 


PE14 7PQ 

16-Feb- 


P2 Walpole 

Pending 

Consideration 

Strawberry Farm Follens 

Road Walpole St Andrew 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7JX alleged unauthorised building work 

30-Sep- 

10 10/00432/UNOPDE 

P3 Walpole 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised breach of 

planning conditions 

The Orchards 21 Sutton 

Road Walpole Cross Keys 


4HD 

01-Feb- 

10 10/00026/BOC 

Walpole Cross 

Keys 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Breach of Condition 3 attached to 

07/02550/CU 

Humans Farm Market Lane 

Walpole St Andrew 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7LT 

13-Jun- 


Walpole Cross 

Keys 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Beba & Sons Fence Bank 

Walpole Highway Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 7QR 

03-Feb- 


Walpole 

Highway 

P2 

Pending 

Consideration 


vehicles and equipment being 

stored 


planning permission 08/00520/F as 

very bright floodlights have been 

installed. 

Miller Farm Trinity Road 


Norfolk PE14 7SR 

13-Jan- 

10 10/00008/BOC 

Walpole 

Highway 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Fenland Motorcycling 

Training Mill Road Walpole 

Highway Norfolk PE14 7QJ alleged unauthorised use 

02-Nov- 

10 10/00489/UNAUTU 

Walpole 

Highway 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 



09/01752/F 

Land North of 1 Ratten Row 

Walpole Highway Norfolk 

29-Nov- 

10 10/00569/BOC 

Walpole 

Highway 

P3 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised timber stable 

building and siting of metal 

container 

Willow Farm Trinity Road 

Walpole Highway Norfolk 

PE14 7SR 

29-Jun- 


Walpole 

Highway 

P3

220 

Pending 

Consideration 


planning permission 08/00520/F 

Miller Farm Trinity Road 


Norfolk PE14 7SR 

30-Mar- 


Walpole 

Highway 

P4 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised caravan 

within the property curtilage 

Sundale West Drove South 


Norfolk PE14 7RA 

30-Mar- 


Walpole 

Highway 

P4 

Land adversely affecting the visual 

amenity of the surrounding 

neighbourhood. Notice Issued 

Victoria Cafe Lynn Road 

Walsoken Wisbech Norfolk 

PE14 7AN 

04-May- 

10 10/00144/UNTIDY 

P1 Walsoken 

Change of use to garden land and 

associated operational 

development Notice Issued 

81 Broad End Road 


PE14 7BQ 

03-Jun- 

04 05/00144/UNAUTU 

P2 Walsoken 

Pending 

Consideration 

Paradise Cottage 99 Broad 

End Road Walsoken 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7BQ Dog Breeding Business 

alleged unauthorised extension of 

P2 Walsoken 06-Jul-06 06/00206/UNAUTU 

Pending 

Consideration 

fishing lakes without planning 

permission and use of land and 

buildings/caravans for 

accomodating migrant workers 

Unauthorised residential use of 

static caravan, and conditions 

relating to muck heap location / 

storage have not been followed 

Fishing Lakes Biggs Road 

Walsoken Norfolk PE14 

7BD 

09-Mar- 

10 10/00065/UNAUTU 

P2 Walsoken 

Pending 

Consideration 

Tarrazona S-Bend Lynn 

Road Walsoken Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 7AP 

Land West Of Bronte 

House - Proposed Football 

16-Aug- 

10 10/00335/UNAUTU 

P2 Walsoken 

Stadium Lynn Road 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged failure to comply with 

conditions relating to planning 

permission 


7AL 

27-Aug- 

10 10/00359/BOC 

P2 Walsoken 

alleged unauthorised use, 

additional caravans Notice Issued 

Long Acre Biggs Road 


PE14 7BD 

12-Jan- 


P2 Walsoken

221 


Submitted 

alleged unauthorised use of field to 

form caravan site and extension to 

existing day room 

107 Green Lane Walsoken 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7BJ 

07-Apr- 

10 10/00110/UNAUTU 

P3 Walsoken 


Submitted 

Alleged breach of condition in 

relation to acoustic fence 

Warehouse Lynn Road 


PE14 7AN 

01-Jun- 

10 10/00192/BOC 

P3 Walsoken 

Pending 

Consideration 

Maipop Farm Biggs Road 


7BD alleged unauthorised building 

01-Jun- 

10 10/00203/UNOPDE 

P3 Walsoken 

Pending 

Consideration 



10/01799/F 

Wisbech Roadways Ltd 

Lynn Road Walsoken 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7AW 

03-Nov- 

10 10/00495/BOC 

P3 Walsoken 

Pending 

Consideration 

Unauthorised operational 

development 

Lyndale Lynn Road 


7DB 

30-Nov- 

10 10/00573/UNOPDE 

P3 Walsoken 

Alleged unauthorised development 

and siting of mobile home Notice Issued 

Pond World Aquatics Lynn 

Road Walsoken Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 7DA 

P4 Walsoken 06-Jul-09 09/00333/UNAUTU 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of highway 

condition relating to planning 

permission 06/02009/FM 

Claybrook Park 38 

Broadend Road Walsoken 

Norfolk PE14 7BQ 

10-Aug- 

10 10/00329/BOC 

P4 Walsoken 

Hedge obscuring light to house 

and garden Notice Issued 

8 All Saints Avenue 


PE13 3RQ 

Land To the West And 

North of Watlington School 

Rectory Lane Watlington 


04-Jan- 

10 HH/10/01 

Walsoken 

Pending 

Consideration 


to planning application 

2/03/2088/D 

P2 Watlington 06-Jul-11 11/00359/BOC

222 

Pending 

Consideration 

Stanborough House Main 

Road Lakesend Wisbech 

Norfolk PE14 9QB alleged unauthorised fence 

09-May- 


P3 Welney 


Submitted 


caravan 

Land To the North of 

Chapel House Wisbech 

Road Tipps End Welney 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 9SQ 

26-May- 

09 09/00253/UNOPDE 

P4 Welney 

Alleged that hedge due to its 

height is causing loss of light to 

property. Notice Issued 

The Sands March Road 

Welney Norfolk PE14 9SA 

29-Jan- 

09 HH/09/01 

Welney 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged breach of conditions 

relating to Planning Application 

09/01865/F 

Land South Of Manor 

House Church Road 

Wereham Norfolk 

P1 Wereham 09-Jul-10 10/00264/BOC 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged change of use from 

agricultural land to cricket pitch 

Land On the East Side of 

Wretton Road Boughton 


26-Jan- 


P2 Wereham 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of condition 3 


2/99/0243/F 

Ashcroft Farm Main Road 

Crimplesham King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE33 9EB 

P3 West Dereham 01-Jul-11 11/00350/BOC 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of conditions 4,5,7 

and 8 relating to planning 

application 10/00953/FM 

Worzals Farm Shop Lynn 

Road Walsoken Norfolk 

PE14 7DA 

06-May- 


P2 West Walton 

Unauthorised use of land for 

stationing of mobile home used for 

residential purposes. Notice Issued 

Land At Harps Hall Road 

West Walton Highway 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7DL 

30-Mar- 

07 07/00091/UNAUTU 

P3 West Walton 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged breach of condition 1 


10/00717/F 

White House Farm Lynn 

Road West Walton Highway 

Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7DB 

26-Oct- 

10 10/00480/BOC 

P3 West Walton

223 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised breach of 

condition 2 relating to 2/03/2221/F 

Heywood Mill Road West 

Walton Wisbech Norfolk 

PE14 7EU 

P4 West Walton 16-Jul-09 09/00352/BOC 

Pending 

Consideration 

Alleged unauthorised fence, 

enclosure and shipping container 

Archdale Manor 14 Back 

Lane West Winch Norfolk 

PE33 0LF 

01-Sep- 

10 10/00375/UNOPDE 

P2 West Winch 

Pending 

Consideration 

alleged unauthorised car sales 

operation 

284 Main Road West Winch 


0NZ 

16-Feb- 



Pending 

Consideration 

Sienna Autos 1A Garage 

Lane Setchey King's Lynn 

Norfolk PE33 0BE alleged unauthorised use 

P2 West Winch 06-Jul-11 11/00360/UNAUTU 

Pending 

Consideration 

240 Main Road West Winch 


0NZ alleged unauthorised building 

17-May- 

10 10/00171/UNOPDE 


Land South of 86 Hall Lane 

Pending 

West Winch Norfolk alleged unauthorised use 

Consideration 

Spriggs Hollow Magdalen 

High Road Wiggenhall St 

Mary Magdalen King's Lynn Alleged unauthorised siting and 

Norfolk PE34 3BQ 

occupation of caravan Notice Issued 

Meadow Lodge 29 St 

Peters Road Wiggenhall St 

Germans King's Lynn 

Pending 

Norfolk PE34 3HB alleged unauthorised development Consideration 

P4 West Winch 07-Jul-11 11/00362/UNAUTU 

29-May- 

08 08/00201/UNAUTU 

Wiggenhall St 

Germans 

P3 

31-May- 


Wiggenhall St 

Germans 

P3

224 

Monitoring Live Case Report Report Date: 01/04/2011 to 30/06/2011 

Priority Parish Date Reference Site Breach Status 

R & S Engineering 

Burnthouse Drove 

Marham King's Lynn Alleged breach of condition attached to Pending 

P2 Marham 17-Jun-08 08/00003/MON Norfolk PE33 9JP 

appealed planning decision 05/01222/CU Consideration 

8 - 12 High Street 

Downham 

Downham Market Norfolk Condition Monitoring - 07/00183/FM and Pending 

P2 Market 08-Oct-08 08/00006/MON PE38 9DB 

07/00185/LB 

Consideration 

44A Cliff Parade 

30-Nov- 


Pending 

P2 Hunstanton 

10 10/00017/MON 6EH Condition Monitoring - 10/01404/RM 

Consideration 

181 St Peters Road West 

Lynn King's Lynn Norfolk 

Pending 

P2 King's Lynn 21-Jan-11 11/00003/MON PE34 3JF Condition Monitoring - 10/00269/FM 

Consideration 

Redgate House Lady 

Downham 

Drove Barroway Drove Condition Monitoring attached to planning Pending 

P2 West 18-Feb-11 11/00004/MON Norfolk PE38 0AG permission 09/01694/F 

Consideration 

Land To The North East 

And South Of Rowan Condition Monitoring relating to 2/00/1530/F, Pending 

P3 Watlington 04-Jun-09 09/00027/MON Close Watlington Norfolk 06/01396/F 08/00232/FM 

Consideration 

Orchard View 118 Small 

Lode Upwell Norfolk PE14 Condition Monitoring attached to planning Pending 

P3 Upwell 14-Mar-11 11/00005/MON 9BL 

application 08/02750/DISC/A 

Consideration 

Oxburgh Hall Meadowgate 

28-May- 

Lane Emneth Wisbech 

Pending 

P4 Emneth 

09 09/00026/MON Norfolk PE14 0DS Condition Monitoring relating to 06/01568/F Consideration

225 

Pending 

Consideration 

Condition Monitoring relating to planning 


Land At Townsend Farm 

Church Road Walpole St 

Peter Norfolk PE14 7NS 

Lakshmi Lodge 62 

Pentney Lakes Common 

Road Pentney Norfolk 

PE32 1LE 

Smeeth House Farm 

Dades Lane Marshland St 

James Wisbech Norfolk 

PE14 8JJ 

P4 Walpole 05-Oct-09 09/00033/MON 

Pending 

Consideration 

Condition monitoring relating to planning 


14-Dec- 

09 09/00046/MON 

P4 Pentney 

Pending 

Consideration 

Condition monitoring attached to planning 

permission 2/02/0571/CU 

Condition Monitoring - Residential 

Development site for Abbey Developments 

Limited - for the erection of 155 1,2,3,4 & 5bedroom 

dwellings 

15-Dec- 

09 09/00049/MON 

Marshland 

St James 

P4 

Pending 

Consideration 

Bennett Street Downham 

Market Norfolk PE38 9EE 

Dunton Chalk Road 


PE14 7PN 

Land North Of Crossways 

Ringstead Road Docking 


8PL 

Downham 

Market 22-Jun-07 07/00057/MON 

Pending 

Consideration 

Condition Monitoring attached to planning 


Walpole 03-Feb-10 10/00004/MON 

Pending 

Consideration 

Condition Monitoring attached to planning 

permission 07/01149/F 

Docking 03-Feb-10 10/00006/MON

Prioritisation Schedule 

Priority One 

� A serious threat to health and / or safety. (E.g. traffic hazard, storage of 

hazardous substances, development creating pollution problems, 

dangerous structures). 

� Permanent damage to the environment (e.g. loss of protected tree, 

unauthorised and irreversible work affecting the character of a listed 

building) 

Where a case is categorised as Priority One, immediate action will be initiated 

to address the breach of control. 

Priority Two 

� Building work, which is unlikely to be given planning permission without 

substantial modification. (E.g. excessively large house extension) 

� Unauthorised uses causing severe nuisance through noise, smells, 

congestion etc. 

Where a case is categorised as Priority Two and the development does not 

meet the objectives of local, regional and national policies, action will be 

initiated to address the breach of planning control. 

Priority Three 

� A breach causing problems, which may be resolved by, limited 

modification (E.g. restrictions on hours of use etc.) 

� Property whose condition adversely affects the amenity of the 

surrounding neighbourhood. The severity of the property’s condition 

will depend whether it is given a priority three or two rating. 

Where a case is categorised as Priority Three and the development meets the 

objectives of local, regional and national policies, then a ‘retrospective’ 

planning application will be invited. 

Priority Four 

� Breaches of a minor nature raising minimal planning concerns. (E.g. house extension 

built to acceptable standards.) 

Where a case is categorised as Priority Four and deemed minor with no significant effects, no 

further action may be taken. 

Dated 1 st October 2007 

226

227 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD AGENDA ITEM NO: 11 

Parish: WALSOKEN 

25 JULY 2011 

Purpose of report: TO RECONFIRM THE DECISION TO TAKE DIRECT ACTION IN VIEW 

OF RECENT CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES 

Location: Land at 81 Broad End Road, Walsoken, Norfolk 

Site owner/occupier: Mr. R Wilson & Ms P Wenn 

Grid Ref: 548805 : 309222 Dated: 09 June 2011 

RECOMMENDATION – Authority is granted to the Executive Director of Development 

Services, to implement and execute direct action to comply with part of the 

enforcement notice, the removal of the unauthorised park home, thus remedying 

the breach of planning control. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 This report sets out the latest position on the long-standing breach of planning 

control on this site. It is brought to the Board because of a change in 

circumstances since authority was last granted for direct action. This change 

in circumstances is the granting of planning permission on the site, at appeal, 

for the stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a person of gypsy status 

with additional tree planting and landscaping for a temporary period of two 

years. That appeal decision (16 August 2010) was then followed up with a 

further planning application which was approved at the DCB on 10 January 

2011, for the siting of mobile home for persons of gypsy status with additional 

tree planting, landscaping, access and gateway. 

1.2 This report seeks to explain how the change in circumstances described 

above impacts upon the enforcement notice served in 2006. Details of the 

enforcement notice are set out later in this report, and a copy of the latest 

appeal decision is appended to this report. 

2.0 THE SITE 

2.1 The site is located on the northern side of Broad End Road East, Walsoken, 

approximately 270 Metres east of the junction with the A47 Wisbech by-pass 

and 250 Metres west of Biggs Road. Broad End Road is an unclassified 

Road, providing a thoroughfare from the A47 to the northern fringes of 

Emneth village, Emneth Hungate and The Smeeth. 

2.2 The site is a rectangular area of land comprising approximately 0.8 hectares 

of Grade 2 agricultural land, located in open Countryside, beyond the 

settlement boundaries for both Walsoken (north-west) and Emneth (southeast), 

as defined on the proposals map in the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

Local Plan 1998. The previous use of this land was in connection with 

agriculture. 

2.3 The land (37m x 157m) currently contains a single story pre-fabricated ‘Park 

Home’ type unit of accommodation with conservatory and balcony, set on 

concrete hard standing, centrally positioned on the site approximately 60m 

north of the highway edge. This residential unit is occupied by Rodney Wilson 

and his partner Pamela Wenn. The western and eastern boundaries of the 

site are bordered by conifer trees, with mixed trees at the road edge (south). 

Gates hung to walls form the entrance to the site with a tar-mac drive leading 

to the residential unit. The northern area of the site is utilised as grazing 

paddock. 

3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 

3.1 NATIONAL GUIDANCE 

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development 

PPS3 - Housing 

PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 

PPG13 – Transport 

PPG18 – Enforcing planning control 

PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk 

Circular 01/2006 (ODPM) – Planning for Gypsy & Traveller Sites 

Consultation Paper – Planning for Traveller Sites 

3.2 EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN 

Policy H3: Provision for Gypsies and Travellers - Local authorities should 

make provision for sites/pitches to meet the identified needs of Gypsies and 

Travellers living within or resorting to their area. 

Policy WAT4: Flood Risk Management - States that the priorities are to 

defend existing properties from flooding and locate new development where 

there is little or no risk of flooding. 

3.3 LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES 

The King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (1998) contains the following 

policies that are relevant to the proposal: 

9/6 - states that applications for residential mobile homes will be determined 

as if they were for permanent housing. 

The LDF Core Strategy contains the following relevant policies: 

CS09 – Housing 

228

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 

10/00200/F – Siting of mobile home for persons of gypsy status with 

additional tree planting, landscaping, access and gateway. Conditional 

permission granted – 10.01.2011. 

09/00475/F – For a two year temporary permission the stationing of a mobile 

home for occupation by a person of gypsy status with additional tree planting 

and landscaping. Conditional permission granted on appeal – 16.08.2010. 

08/02002/F – Proposed transit gypsy site for 8 pitches with associated 

amenity blocks and ancillaries, existing park home to be retained as site 

managers residence. Application returned – 29.01.09. 

08/01116/F – Three year temporary permission for the siting of a park home 

with additional planting and landscaping – Declined to determine – 12.6.2008. 

07/02214/F – Construction of park home – Declined to determine – 

25.10.2007. 

06/00238/F – Stationing of a park home – Application Refused 24.03.06 

(Delegated decision) – Appeal dismissed – 09.03.2007. 

05/00677/F – Siting of a park home – Withdrawn – 24.05.2005. 

5.0 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY 

5.1 On 11 July 2006, the LPA issued an Enforcement Notice (EN). The breach 

description was that ‘without planning permission, the change of use of 

agricultural land to use for the stationing of a park home.’ The occupant has 

failed to comply with the requirements of the EN. 

5.2 Prosecution proceedings commenced and on 29 February 2008 a Mr Wilson 

attended the Court and having changed his plea from not guilty to guilty was 

fined. At the hearing the Court reminded Mr Wilson of the need to comply with 

the EN. 

5.3 On 28 July 2008 Members of the Board considered a report which detailed 

the contravention of planning control that had occurred. The report then 

detailed the options open to resolve the contravention and to note the action 

being taken to remedy the situation. 

5.4 Members may also recall that on 28 July 2009 they authorised direct action to 

be taken pursuant to section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 

in respect of the unauthorised stationing of the park home and all items and 

services brought onto the land in connection with its residential use. 

6.0 CURRENT PLANNING STATUS 

229 

6.1 As stated earlier in this report (and following the earlier appeal decision), 

conditional planning permission was granted in January for the ‘siting of a

230 

mobile home for persons of gypsy status with additional tree planting, 

landscaping, access and gateway.’ Three conditions were appended to that 

appeal decision. These were: 

Condition 1 -The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the 

expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 

Condition 2 -The site shall not be occupied by any person other than gypsies 

and travellers as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006. 

Condition 3 - No more than two caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and 

Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (of which 

no more than 1 shall be a static caravan or mobile home) shall be stationed 

on the site at any time. 

7.0 THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL 

7.1 The breach of planning control is as set out in the Enforcement Notice issued 

on 11 July 2006, that is to say, ‘without planning permission, the change of 

use of agricultural land to use for the stationing of a park home.’ 

7.2 The occupiers of the site’s agent disputes the validity of the enforcement 

notice given the recent appeal decision. However, whilst planning permission 

has been granted for a mobile home through the appeal and approval in 

January, the crucial factor here is that the park home on site does not benefit 

from that permission. In the latest appeal decision, the Inspector deliberately 

excludes it from consideration, instead determining whether the use of the 

land as a site for occupation by a person of gypsy and traveller status was 

acceptable. In this regard she appended a condition which excluded the park 

home on site from being authorised, by allowing a caravan/mobile home only 

if it complied with the definition as set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of 

Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Paragraph 4 of the 

appeal decision makes it clear that the park home on site is not a caravan for 

the purposes of planning law, due to its width and the conservatory and utility 

area attached. Therefore the Local Planning Authority’s view is that the 

structure remains unauthorised as set out in the enforcement notice in 2006. 

7.3 Section 180 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which refers to an 

enforcement notice ceasing to have effect where there is a later grant of 

planning permission, only applies to an enforcement notice to the extent that it 

is inconsistent with a later grant of planning permission. In this case, the 

conditional planning permission obtained under planning reference 

10/00200/F for ‘siting of mobile home for persons of gypsy status with 

additional tree planting, landscaping, access and gateway’, is not inconsistent 

with the requirements of the notice to cease the use of the land for the 

stationing of a park home, because of the reasons explained above. 

8.0 THE PLANNING HARM PRESENTLY CAUSED 

8.1 Conditional planning permission has been granted in accordance with Circular 

01/2006, which provides special policy framework for assessing caravan sites

231 

for Gypsy & Travellers. The park home currently onsite does not fall within 

Circular 01/2006 or planning permission 10/00200/F, as both only permit for 

the purpose of planning permission, the use of land as a caravan site. For the 

purpose of planning law a caravan is as defined in the Caravan Sites and 

Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968. 

8.2 It is pertinent to note that the development the subject of this report was the 

same development subject to the first appeal, the decision letter of which is 

dated 09 March 2007. In that appeal the inspector found that the 

development on site was not compliant with the definition of a caravan in the 

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 both because of its 

dimensions and also the conservatory and utility area which prevented it 

being moved as a single unit. Therefore, the Inspector found that the 

structure on the appeal site was not a caravan for the purposes of planning 

law. 

8.3 During the more recent appeal the same arguments were rehearsed, and the 

Inspector also states in paragraph 4 that, 

“In line with the previous Inspector’s decision, without extensions, it was not 

disputed that the mobile home/structure/park home on the appeal site is not a 

caravan for purposes of planning law as it does not fall within the definition of 

a caravan in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (as amended) having a width of 

7.35m compared to the Act limit of 6.8m. When the conservatory and utility 

area are taken into account, the overall structure would not be capable of 

being moved as a unit” 

8.4 In terms of the park home the same planning harm remains. PPS1 and PPS7 

state that isolated dwellings in the countryside should be strictly controlled 

and only permitted where they are justified in connection with an agricultural, 

forestry or other rural enterprise where it could not be met within an existing 

settlement. Saved policy 9/6 of the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 

1998, states that applications for residential mobile homes (park homes) will 

be determined as if they were permanent housing and will therefore be 

subject to the same policies and criteria. No evidence has been submitted to 

demonstrate that the park home is required in connection with an agricultural, 

forestry of other rural enterprise. The Inspector in the recent appeal 

addressed this issue and could not see any justification for a park home in the 

countryside contrary to policy. 

8.5 The retention of the park home would result in an unacceptable consolidation 

of sporadic development which would be out of character with an otherwise 

rural landscape and as a result would be detrimental to the character and 

appearance of the countryside as a whole. 

8.6 Whilst it is noteworthy that the park home currently onsite cannot become 

lawful for the purpose of Section 191 of the Act, the continued failure to 

remedy the breach of planning control may affect public perception and 

confidence in the planning system.

9.0 CASE PUT FORWARD BY THE OCCUPIER’S AGENT 

9.1 Mr Wilson’s agent has submitted to the planning department that the site can 

be sold to a person claiming to be a gypsy and a travelling showman. Mr 

Wilson’s agent asserts that this person’s occupation of the site will 

automatically comply with the terms of planning permission 10/00200/F, in 

particular condition 2 & 3, see above. 

9.2 In summary the Local Planning Authority disagrees with the submission that 

condition 3 would be complied with. The Agents argument that the condition 

was imposed purely for site licensing purposes is misconceived. Planning 

permission was granted taking into account Mr Wilson’s gypsy status and 

therefore special policies in Circular 01/2006 applied. 

9.3 In addition part 5 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 

which permits the use of land, other that a park home, as a caravan site, in 

circumstances set out in paragraphs 2 to 10 of Schedule 1 to the 1960 Act. 

Paragraph 10 refers to the use of land for a travelling showman…who is 

travelling for the purpose of his business. It is understood that the occupier 

intends to use the site as his permanent residence so cannot claim that 

planning permission is not required. 

9.4 It is therefore considered that a travelling showman is not exempt from the 

requirements of condition 3. 

9.5 It is also argued that a personal consent should be issued to Mr Wilson and 

his partner for the lifetime of the consent. However, this option was open to 

the Inspector at the recent appeal (and indeed the previous Inspector), and 

the Local Planning Authority feel that given the appeal decisions, this would 

be difficult to justify. Likewise the suggestion that an application for a variation 

of condition 3 seeking to allow the existing structure to remain could be 

submitted, is not considered sufficient reason to prevent taking action against 

the unauthorised structure. This is because it would very likely be refused 

given the appeal decisions and the harm described above. 

10.0 REMEDYING THE HARM 

10.1 There is a real need to uphold planning control and enforce material breaches 

in the public interest (which corresponds with the clear conflict between the 

development and the Development Plan and National Guidance). The options 

before the Council include prosecution, injunction or direct action to secure 

compliance with the enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised 

stationing of the park home and all items and services brought onto the land 

in connection with its residential use. The merits of each course of action are 

set out below: 

Prosecution 

232 

10.2 Section 179 provides that criminal offences are committed where the owner or 

other person having control of the land continues the prohibited activity or 

uses, or fails to take the steps required by the enforcement notice. The

maximum fine on summary conviction is £20,000. It is unlimited on conviction 

on indictment. The section makes the financial gain from the breach a 

relevant factor in the level of fine. There is no provision for imprisonment. 

10.3 The previous successful prosecution of the occupier has not thus far resulted 

in removal from the land of the park home, so further prosecution is unlikely to 

resolve the breach of planning control. 

Injunction 

10.4 Section 187B of the 1990 Act provides that where a local planning authority 

considers it necessary or expedient for any actual of apprehended breach of 

planning control to be restrained they may apply to the High Court or the 

County Court for an injunction. Such an application may be made to the court 

in respect of the breach of the enforcement notice relating to the park home. 

However, the court would have to be satisfied that the grant of an injunction to 

force compliance would achieve the required outcome and the land would be 

cleared. The size of the operation to clear the land, the costs involved and Mr 

Wilson’s need to find alternative accommodation, along with the delay arising 

from instituting proceedings in addition to the stated unlikelihood that the 

occupier will be able to comply with key injunctive requirements may 

persuade the courts that an injunction is not the most appropriate option. 

Direct Action 

233 

10.5 Section 178 provides for what has been called the "direct action route" for 

enforcement. 

"178(1) Where any steps required by an enforcement notice to be taken are 

not taken within the period for compliance with the notice, the local planning 

authority may (a) enter the land and take the steps; and (b) recover from the 

person who is then the owner of the land any expenses reasonably incurred 

by them in doing so." 

10.6 The expediency of urgent direct action being taken, by reference to the 

overarching considerations of PPG18 and Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning 

Control, which states it was seen as a swifter and more cost effective means 

of remedying planning control" than prosecutions, which could prove time 

consuming. In all the circumstances direct action is highly likely to be the only 

practical option that will achieve the required outcome, which is to secure 

compliance with the enforcement notice expediently. 

10.7 There is a real possibility that without direct action being authorised and 

implemented, it is unlikely that the occupier will remove the unauthorised 

development, with or without further prompt. The prolonged negotiations on 

the occupier voluntarily remedying the breach have highlighted that this is 

likely to be the case. 

10.8 In taking direct action the Council would be seen to be taking the appropriate 

action and ensuring the unauthorised structure is removed from the land. In

conclusion direct action is considered to be the most expedient form of 

enforcement action open to the Council. 

11.0 COST IMPLICATIONS 

11.1 An assessment has been made of the costs of removing the mobile home 

from the land. It is estimated a sum of £38,200 plus VAT will be required. 

11.2 It is noteworthy that the value of the Land has increased since the last report 

to Members regarding this site. The site will have more of a value as a gypsy 

site, and therefore whilst the value of the Land is unknown at present the risk 

in terms of recovery of costs should be less. 

11.3 Given the nature of the work, a specialist contractor would be needed to carry 

out the work. However, Members should also note the risk involved with 

instructing the contractor and then cancelling within 7 days, which is quoted 

as 25% of the estimated costs, and within 24 hours, which is quoted as 50% 

of the estimated costs. The potential costs of any abortive costs are therefore 

£9,550 plus VAT and £19,100 plus VAT. 

12.0 HUMAN RIGHTS 

234 

12.1 Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights 

(ECHR) gives protection of Property in that every person has the right to 

peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions (including land). No person 

should be deprived of his/her possessions except in the public interest. 

12.2 Members must be satisfied that there is a statutory provision which allows the 

Council to take direct action, that the direct action is necessary to achieve a 

legitimate aim, and that the proposed action and its terms are proportionate to 

the detrimental consequences of failing to take no action. 

12.3 Members must then consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to 

require the use of the direct action powers is a legitimate aim. Protection of 

the environment and amenity are permitted by the ECHR as a lawful 

interference with a person’s right to do as they wish with their own land, and is 

a legitimate aim for a Local Planning Authority to pursue. 

12.4 Article 8 of the Human Rights Act provides for everyone to have the right to 

respect their family life, home and correspondence. This is subject to the 

proviso that there shall be no interference by the public authority with the 

exercise of this right except when pursuing a legitimate aim in law as is 

necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public 

safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder 

or crime, for the protection of health and moral reasons, or the protection of 

the rights and freedom of others. Article 8 applies even though the 

enforcement notice has not been complied with. The right to a home is not 

absolute, but is subject to interference, which is in accordance with the law, 

and is necessary for one of the stated purposes. The Inspector dealt with the 

issue of Article 8 rights in paragraph 10 of her report, which is attached to this 

report for Members information.

12.5 It is also of note that direct action will not extinguish Mr Wilson and Miss 

Wenn’s right to implement planning permission 10/00200/F. 

12.6 Overall, it is considered that the human rights of occupiers (under Article 1 

Protocol 1 and Article 8) have been weighed cumulatively (as well as 

severally) and that in this context, interference would be justified and 

proportionate in all the circumstances as set out in this report. 

13.0 CONCLUSIONS 

13.1 This report is brought to the Board because of the need to update Members 

about the change in circumstances since direct action was last authorised, so 

that the implications of that can be fully and properly considered. 

13.2 It is the view of officers that despite the appeal decision and subsequent 

approval earlier this year, the structure on site remains unauthorised, and is 

still covered by the enforcement notice issued in July 2006. Prolonged 

negotiations with the applicants and their agent have failed to secure the 

removal of the unauthorised structure, and it is therefore unlikely that the 

breach will be voluntarily rectified. Therefore, for the reasons given above it is 

considered expedient to take formal enforcement action in the form of direct 

action under S.178 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, to remedy the 

ongoing breach of planning control. 

14.0 RECOMMENDATION 

235 

14.1 That authority is granted to the Executive Director of Development 

Services, to implement and execute direct action to comply with part of 

the enforcement notice, the removal of the unauthorised park home, 

thus remedying the breach of planning control.

236

237

238

239

240

11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?