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

SUPPORTING CASE
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.
PLANNING HISTORY
None
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
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.
11/00812/O Development Control Board
25 July 2011
153