Total Pageviews

Thursday, 27 March 2014

   GLAVEN VALLEY PROTECTION GROUP

 

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


 art@godfreysayers.plus.com


or telephone 01263 740747 
          
         

Contributions can be made here

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

         Account Number 70459542
   
      Barclays 17 Market Place Fakenham              NR21 9BE




This is what such a group can achieve


Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 17 March 2015
Site visits made on 17 March and 11 April 2015
by Ron Boyd BSc (Hons) MICE
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 April 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878
Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road, Blakeney, Holt NR25 7PD
  •   The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
  •   The appeal is made by Mrs Kathy Cargill against the decision of North Norfolk District Council.
  •   The application Ref PF/14/0785, dated 20 June 2014, was refused by notice dated 4 September 2014.
  •   The development proposed is described as demolition of existing dwelling, farm buildings and barns to be replaced with a dwelling.
    Decision
1. I dismiss the appeal.
Main issue
2. I consider this to be the effect the proposed dwelling would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the Glaven Valley Conservation Area (the Conservation Area) and the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB).
Reasons
  1. The appeal site comprises an area of 0.912 ha in the north-west quadrant of the appellant’s 16 ha holding which is bounded by Saxlingham Road to the west, the Blakeney Esker at Wiveton Down to the south, and the Langham Road to the east. It lies within the Countryside for planning purposes and is within both the Conservation Area and the AONB.
  2. Adjacent to its northern boundary with adjacent farmland the site currently contains a single-storey storage barn, a three-unit holiday cottage, and a modern open-fronted barn. The remainder of the site is grassland. South of the above buildings, and encircled by the site, is the existing dwelling, a 1950’s bungalow set some 15m back from Saxlingham Road, with a summerhouse to the rear. The two accesses into the site from Saxlingham Road which at present serve the above buildings and the bungalow are located to the north and south of the bungalow. South of the southern access are a poly-tunnel and a greenhouse.
  3. The proposal is to demolish the bungalow, the two barns, the poly-tunnel, greenhouse and summerhouse and construct a replacement dwelling on the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878
grassland some 76m south-east of the existing bungalow. The holiday cottage would remain, served, as at present, by the more northerly of the accesses on to Saxlingham Road. A new driveway would be constructed from the existing southern access to provide vehicular access for the proposed replacement dwelling from Saxlingham Road.
  1. The proposed dwelling would comprise three elements. A main house of three storeys (lower and upper ground floors and first floor) would face south- westwards on to a paved terrace at upper ground floor level. The terrace would be bounded to the west and east by two two-storey wings extending from the south-western elevation of the main house. The more westerly of these wings, described as the outbuilding, would run at right angles to the main house in a south-westerly direction and would include a garage, library and study. The other wing, described as the extension, would be at an angle to the main house, running broadly south-east and would include bedrooms and a family room.
  2. Apart from the north-west-facing gable the first-floor elevations of the main house would slope back at 10 degrees to vertical. The flat roof above would be at 40.1m AOD, 8.9m above the proposed adjoining ground level of 31.2m AOD.
  3. The proposal would represent a significant shift of built form eastwards into the countryside between Saxlingham Road and Langham Road. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned treatment of the first-floor elevations and it being founded below existing ground level, the main house, viewed from the west, (bridleway west of Saxlingham Road) the north, (Saxlingham Road and Blakeney Road) and the east, (Langham Road and across the Glaven Valley from Bridgefoot Lane) would appear as a substantial three-storey flat-roofed building in an exposed position. The area bounded by the above highways together with a length of Bridgefoot Lane at the eastern edge of the Conservation Area broadly comprise the proposed building’s surrounding area of visual influence, identified as such in the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal. From points within this area the building would have a significant visual presence.
  4. This in itself would not necessarily be harmful. However, to my mind, the scale and mass of the building would not relate sympathetically to its surroundings. Its form, notwithstanding the proposed incorporation of familiar materials such as pantiles and Norfolk red brick, would fail to sufficiently reflect the identity of local surroundings or reinforce local distinctiveness. The flat roof above the three-storey element, particularly as seen from the east and north east in conjunction with the north-east elevation of the main house would emphasize the building’s bulk and its contrast with the indigenous built form of the area. Compared with the existing single-storey pitched-roof bungalow, with its roof ridge some 5.2m above adjoining ground level, I conclude that the proposed dwelling would have a materially greater impact on the appearance of the surrounding countryside and, in the light of the above, would be harmful to it.
  5. In the above respects the proposal would conflict with Polices HO 8, EN 2 and EN 4 of the Council’s Core Strategy Adopted September 2008 (the Core Strategy) and paragraphs 58 and 60 of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework.
  6. The harm would, though, be relatively local in extent, and not such as to materially detract from the overall special qualities of the AONB. However the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878
effect of the proposed development on views into and across the Conservation Area, from the bridleway west of Saxlingham Road and Bridgefoot Lane respectively, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the setting of the landscape of the Conservation Area as is required by Core Strategy Policy EN 8. Whilst the harm would be less than substantial it adds to that identified above and falls to be weighed against the material considerations of the public benefits of the proposal.
  1. These would include the removal of the low quality, (although low impact) bungalow and barns along with the poly-tunnel, green house, and summerhouse. There are also comprehensive landscaping proposals which would have the potential to enhance the land within the appellant’s holding and, in time, mitigate, to some extent, the impact of the proposed building. Whilst these are worthwhile measures, I conclude that they would not outweigh the harms I have identified above.
  2. I have taken into account all the matters raised in the evidence, including the comments received from those consulted on the application and those recent planning permissions drawn to my attention by the appellant. All planning applications and appeals must be determined on their individual merits and I have so determined this appeal. I have found nothing in the evidence to outweigh my conclusions in respect of the main issue which have led to my decision. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should fail.
    R.T.Boyd
    Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3

Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228878
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
John Litton QC
Tim Schofield BSc (Hons) Stephen Flynn BLArch (Hons) AAILA, ALI
Anthony Hudson MA Cantab, Dip Arch PCL, ARB, RSA, RIBA Keith Schilling
Barrister
Planning Consultant Landscape Architect
Architect - Visiting Professor of Architecture Norwich University of the Arts
Solicitor
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Roger Howe FCILEx
Helen Thompson BSc, MSc, MPhil, CMLI, MRTPI, AIEMA
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Richard Hewitt Chris Wheeler Ian Shepherd Rachel Pryor Tony Faulkner Martin Woodcock
DOCUMENTS
Planning Legal Manager NNDC Planning Consultant
Solicitor – Glaven Valley Protection Group Glaven Valley Protection Group
CPRE
Wiveton Parish Council
Blakeney Parish Council Local resident
  1. 1  Schedule of appearances - submitted by the appellant
  2. 2  Statement of Common Ground
  3. 3  Landscape principles plan - submitted by the appellant
  4. 4  Statement for Glaven Valley Protection Group – submitted by Mr Wheeler
  5. 5  Statement for CPRE – submitted by Mr Shepherd
  6. 6  Statement for Wiveton PC on behalf of Mr Sayers (Chairman) submitted by Ms Pryor
  7. 7  Statement for Blakeney Parish Council – submitted by Mr Faulkner
  8. 8  Enhanced photo-montages submitted by the appellant, as requested during
    the Hearing, and correspondence closing the Hearing. 




   Read on to see one of the current threats in open Countryside for Blakeney. In new plumage the Three Owls development has returned. The applicants have made an effort  to reflect traditional local land use, but sadly the same planning policies that informed NNDC's decision last time still apply. The new plans show a house as big as the first and not on the same foot print. 







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

Click    Search Planning Applications.
                                               

Then    Search Comment and type 
                                              
Policy No  PF/14/1566  into the box provided.

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

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

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


This note is written on behalf of CPRE Norfolk, but also reflects a widespread concern within the local campaign group, the Glaven Valley Protection Group (now re-named as Friends of North Norfolk). The concern centres on what is considered to be a re-interpretation of Policy HO 8, House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside. This was triggered by Three Owls application PF/14/0785 at Saxlingham Road,  Blakeney. In particular the officer response in a pre-application meeting with the applicant that a stated distance of 76m of the proposed new building from the footprint of the existing dwelling left them ‘content’ on this point. The applicant’s minute of a meeting on the 5th November 2012 made this point, and subsequent discussions dealt only with the bulk and scale of the proposed replacement, and setting in  the landscape.This caused great concern as it unfolded that HO 8 was now being interpreted in a way that the distance between the  existing and replacement dwelling was not a factor for consideration in respect to HO 8, and in principle  this is entirely open-ended. Objectors remain convinced that an approval of this application would not only be extremely harmful in its own right, but open the door to widespread use by developers as a precedent in the determination of other applications  hinged on HO 8, and in turn encourage more of the same.There is evidence on the ground already that we are seeing more applications of this type, with each having a precedent platform to move from by those that came before.  We  elaborate on this issue below, but add that the precedents are also being set on the bulk and scale of the replacement dwelling, and whether the increase is excessive or not.  Further that the scope for ‘policy drift’ is raised by the fact that replacement dwellings are generally set for determination by delegation to officers.Precedents were quoted for the Three Owls application, in for particular Bliss, Morston Road, Blakeney. Here the issue of concern was not so much a displacement from footprint but the scale and bulk of the replacement, which in our view is excessive, and in retrospect should  have gone to committee, albeit there was little objection at the time; partly because of the low profile of applications going to delegation, and perhaps a general perception that anything new will be better than what it replaces – albeit the latter  view is rapidly changing.The refusal of Three Owls by the Development Committee on the 4th September 2014 led to both an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal, and the submission of a second application (PF/14/1566) to the Council. The Hearing on the refusal, against officer recommendation, was held on the 17th March. While the Inspector handled the process well in our view, this further raised concerns regarding HO 8. The third party objectors argued that ‘replacement’ essentially means replacement, and as such that HO 8 should not be interpreted  as being  open-ended and indeterminate in distance of displacement; and in doing so it became a ‘new isolated home in the Countryside’, then it has to be considered under paragraph  55 of the NPP

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


Further the legal advisor to the objectors’ campaign group pointed out a legal decision that precedents do become a material planning consideration, to which the legal representative of the applicant played down the importance, it could be a factor of some weight, but essentially, to paraphrase, no big deal. However this was not entirely consistent with the site visit held in the afternoon. The itinerary and viewpoints covered a wide area, and was determined by the applicant and their selection of a number of viewpoints as set out in the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. However the applicant team of four included in the tour a stop at Bliss (PF/12/1162) and Longfield at Wiveton (PF/14/1016), both delegated approvals, so that the Inspector could see these. With Bliss it was clearly the bulk and scale of the building now being erected.At Longfield the replacement building sits  at a diagonal on the site, clear of the bungalow about to be demolished in the corner by the Sandy Lane  access. I asked the applicant legal person what was being demonstrated here, but he said he did not know. It might however have been to show that it would not impinge on the setting of Wiveton Church, the top half of the tower being visible from the site.  A subsequent look  at the application, both on the Council web site and the Officer working file, shows the house to have seven bedrooms, and while the application form on the web site states that the name on the agent is withheld, the working file showed it was the same (Tim Schofield) as for Three Owls and Bliss. Another example of a replacement application was picked up on the 22nd March. This is Larkfields (PF/15/1069), like Bliss on the Morston Road Blakeney.  This application has been made by a different agent.

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


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


Claims are made for an architectural influence which reflects something locally, but can be very diverse, both from the local vernacular and each other. Bliss has elevations which form three sides of a rectangle, the frontage looking over the coastal marshes and the sea.  The design is a Frank Lyod Wright inspiration, prefabricated units with eco claims (but PF/14/0783 meant that the condition that construction in accordance with Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes has been waived).Three Owls is likened to a Norfolk Farmhouse, with a central section, and two long wings set at a diagonal to this.  Longfield has two joined sections to make a ‘butterfly’ shape, and the Arts and Crafts design refers to Kelling Hall and Voeward in design terms (but not scale).  Larkfields has some similarity with Three Owls in that outbuildings will be demolished along with the residential building to be replaced (and also one other building to be retained, Larkfield Cottage;  compare the  Owls holiday cottage). The replacement dwelling is some distance to the west of that to be demolished, and the remaining Cottage.  The new house ‘is designed to be in a traditional seaside villa style, with a main corps de logis and a subservient service wing’ (the architect/agent is based in Burnham Market). The building is L-shaped. There appears to be no data on floorspace of   the dwelling (or outbuildings) to be demolished, or the prpoosed replacement.  However the north elevation plan drawing of a rectangular building, complete with loggia and balconies, gives an indication of the increase in size and scale, and impact from the A149 and coastal path.; it compares with Bliss in this respect. The only ‘numbers’ detail is that car parking will increase from 3 to 8 vehicles.


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

THE CASE FOR POLICY HO 8 REVIEWThe case for requiring a figure for the distance between an existing dwelling and its replacement is set out in the representations on behalf  the GVCG and CPRE Norfolk, along with other issues, at  the Three Owls Hearing held on the 17th March. These were accepted by the Inspector, also those made by Wiveton and Blakeney Parish Councils; evidence is also presented in the letters of objections sent to the Council on consultation on the planning application. We add  CPRE some  observations as follows;-        It is difficult in Policy  terms to be prescriptive that the replacement be precisely on the footprint of an existing dwelling, and it would not be reasonable to say that it should. In the past there have been deviations of 20-25m for some good reason; it could be combined with an change of access to improve highway safety; it can literally lift a property out of a flood risk zone; for a ‘wrap-around’ design it can allow for an existing bungalow to be retained for living space until such time the replacement building is finished, with a linked condition that the existing building will then be demolished.-        The issue is further complicated by the allowance for permitted development, and the increases in these in recent years. Further the scale of what might be considered as excessive increases, and complicated geometry of the building, makes it more difficult to be definitive in being quantitative in the degree of displacement from the existing footprint. For Bliss for example, the officer Planning Application Assessment states not unreasonably that the replacement building sits on the foot print  of the existing. While the front north frontage does, the east and west wings do not. With Three Owls, the stated distance accepted by the officer appears to be the shortest distance between the bungalow and the nearest part of the proposed replacement dwelling.


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


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


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


MONITORING OF THE OUTCOME OF DELEGATED PLANNING APPLICATIONSThere is a case for some monitoring of applications which have been delegated and approved at regular intervals.  Part of the problem is the much higher level of delegation to officers than in the recent past, moving from about 50% to 90% of all applications. While this has produced some benefits, it makes it more difficult to engage with the public before a decision has been made; much information gathered by officers goes under the radar but could be used to help monitoring to be carried out. This could be used to detect any ‘ policy drift’ in the determination of applications in any specific areas; and be more sensitive to areas in which developers look to extend policy limits or interpretation. There is also the opportunity to use existing information, and improve on it with little effort; and make this much more available. I am thinking in particular of the officers’ Planning Application Assessment (PAA) in particular. These can be viewed by looking at the officer working file,  but otherwise are not available.There are potential benefits to the Council as well as the general public, namely:1.     The delegation process would be welcomed as more transparent2.     It could make for better recording and easier monitoring3.     This would help to avoid any potential policy drift or re-interpretation4.     In turn this should curb the ‘precedent extension’ pressure coming from developers in some areas5.     A better and more defendable definition and adherence to policy would reduce the number of developer appeals against refusals; and a lessened potential for any legal challenge from residents.

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


The decision notice for delegated applications does of course appear on the web site. It should be checked for consistency against a PAA which should include  a list of CS  policy numbers which have been considered in determining the application, with the significant ones underlined, eg EN 1. I mention this because the decision notice for Longfield Wiveton shows signs of imbalance.  It does not mention HO 8 at all, nor EN 1 or EN 2. However it does mention EN 4 on nine counts. SS 2 receives a mention in the context that it is not normal practice to build a dwelling in the countryside, and to satisfy this policy the bungalow, etc should be cleared within three months after building the replacement. CT 6 is also quoted, although no prior mention anywhere else it would appear. CT 6 is related to parking, and requires a levelled and drained area for the parking of three family vehicles; and allow sufficient space so they are all in the forward position for departing from site to public highway.Ian Shepherd, on behalf of CPRE Norfolk, Cardinal House, 86 St Benedict’s Street, Norwich  NR2 4AB. 24th July 2015.To North Norfolk District Council:Nicola Baker, Head of PlanningCc Cllr Sue Arnold, Chairman Development Committee; Roger Howe, Legal Officer.





With heartfelt thanks to you all, we've done it, the Spirit of north Norfolk has won. On the 4th September the members of NNDC’s Development Committee rejected the officer's recommendation for approval and voted 11 to 2 against this application. We thank them for standing up for the people of north Norfolk.





This application was typical of a number that have been given permission in north Norfolk recently.  'Bliss House'

( here ) 

  (And here)  in Blakeney and 'Marshlands' in Cley are just two examples, and like 'Three Owls' are large modern houses of unsympathetic design that fail to acknowledge the setting into which they have been dumped.  This lack of respect for the charm of north Norfolk's landscape, and villages may be forgivable in people who have not had the time to absorb and appreciate how special it is. It is not forgivable for planning officers who have spent large amounts of our money to produce the planning policies that protect it to do the same.

These permissions mark a clear change in direction within NNDC's Planning Department, which gave 'Three Owls full support and recommended it for approval; it was only the courage and good sense of the elected members who rejected it.  This marks a clear change of direction within NNDC’s planning department.  

The 170 letters of objection NNDC received against 'Three Owls' are an indication of how the people who live here feel about this; but will that alter how the planners act?  No of course it won’t, because they do not see themselves as answerable to us, they are the professionals and it is we who should accept their advice not the other way round.  Several years ago Wiveton spent a good deal of time and money preparing a Village Design Statement which, after a fight was reluctantly accepted by NNDC as supplementary planning guidance. It has sat at the back of the shelf - if not in the waste bin- ever since.


This culture has to change; those who live in a place should have a role in the shaping of it.  Until recent times they were entirely responsible for its shape and that is how we came to have the distinctive and much loved architecture of north Norfolk.

To this end the Glaven Valley Protection Group is seeking to expand its sphere of operation to embrace the wider area of the AONB.  
                 So watch this space. 

 http://friendsofnorthnorfolk.blogspot.co.uk



1.1 Designation and management

How the area was designated
 
Those involved
 
Facts and figures
 
Reedbed at Cley - Maree Limpus/NCP
Reedbed - Maree Limpus/NCP
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), along with National Parks, make up our finest landscapes. Together they are a family of designated areas in England and Wales, which came into existence through the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. AONBs are recognised as being equal to National Parks in landscape quality, although arrangements for their management and provision for outdoor recreation are different. There are currently 41 AONBs in England and Wales.
In 2000, the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act reaffirmed the objectives of designation of AONBs and gave a 'duty of regard' towards these objectives to all public bodies ('relevant authorities').

How the area was designated
The Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was designated in 1968.  The final area confirmed (174 square miles, but re-measured in the 1990s as 451 square kilometres) includes the greater part of the remaining unspoiled coastal areas between the Wash and Great Yarmouth. The western outlier, coming within two miles of King's Lynn, takes in part of Sandringham Estate including Sandringham House, and also about six miles of the south-eastern corner of the Wash. The holiday resort of Hunstanton, and the coast immediately to the south of it, is not included, but from nearby Old Hunstanton a continuous coastal strip, varying in depth between three to five miles, extends eastwards to a point near Bacton, excluding the built-up areas of the resorts of Sheringham, Cromer and Mundesley. The eastern outlier stretches from Sea Palling to Winterton, including the magnificent dune system of Winterton Dunes.
Though there are minor instances where boundary features have changed or disappeared, the statutory boundary remains as originally designated. Review of AONB boundaries is under control of Natural England and is a complex, time-consuming and expensive administrative process requiring approval by the Secretary of State. Natural England has no plans for a boundary review at present.
The designation helps to protect not just the natural features - the trees, fields and open spaces - but also settlements and working environments that are distinctive characteristics of the countryside. The designation allows for the sustainable† development of the communities and economic activity, including rural businesses, in ways that further enhance the character of the area.
The statutory purpose of designating an area of land as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area, comprising the area’s distinctive landscape character, biodiversity and geodiversity, historic and cultural environment. For the Norfolk Coast AONB, this includes the wider non-statutory objectives for the North Norfolk Heritage Coast*.
Two secondary non-statutory purposes of AONBs are also recognised
  • To take account of the needs of agriculture, forestry, fishing and other local rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities, paying particular regard to promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development that in themselves conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty; and
  • To seek to meet the demand for recreation so far as this is consistent with the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the area’s natural beauty - and which preferably supports this purpose by increasing understanding, valuation and care for the area - and is also consistent with the needs of rural industries.

Those involved

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

The term, 'public bodies' includes all arms of both central and local government:
  • Environment Agency (EA);
  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);
  • English Heritage (EH);
  • Regional Development Agencies (locally the East of England Development Agency - EEDA);
  • Forestry Commission (FC);
  • Natural England (NE);
  • Parish councils and joint committees of local authorities; and
  • Regulatory bodies of statutory undertakers such as Oftel (Office of Telecommunications), Ofwat (Office of Water Services), Ofgem (Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets), etc.
There are also other organisations and interests who do not have a formal statutory duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act but who have been part of the partnership for management of AONBs prior to the Act and have long had a significant and valuable role in conserving and enhancing the area's natural beauty.
People who live and work in an AONB or who visit it and other organisations can also play an important part in conserving and enhancing the character of the area.
Facts and figures
Item
Statistics
Date of designation
confirmation
8th April 1968
Area
453 square kilometres
Local Authorities
Norfolk County Council (AONB is entirely within Norfolk)
North Norfolk District Council (245.5 sq. kms)
Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk (203.6 sq. kms)
Great Yarmouth Borough Council (6.9 sq. kms)
Broads Authority (7.2 sq. kms)
Length of coastline
Total length for AONB – 90.8 kms
44.8 kms in NNDC
42.8 kms in BCKLWN
3.2 kms in GYBC
Length of Public Rights of Way 
287 kms
Highest point
Roman Camp 102 metres above sea level
No of parishes partly or wholly in the area 
69
* Objectives for Heritage Coasts
a) to conserve protect and enhance the natural beauty of the coasts, including their terrestrial, littoral and marine flora and fauna, and their heritage features of architectural, historical and archaeological interest;
b) to facilitate and enhance their enjoyment, understanding and appreciation by the public by improving and extending opportunities for recreational, educational, sporting and tourist activities that draw on, and are consistent with the conservation of their natural beauty and the protection of their heritage features;
c) to maintain, and improve where necessary, the environmental health of inshore waters affecting Heritage Coasts and their beaches through appropriate works and management measures; and
d) to take account of the needs of agriculture, forestry and fishing, and of the economic and social needs of the small communities on these coasts, through promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development, which in themselves conserve and enhance natural beauty and heritage features.

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

Policy HO 8

House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside

Proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the area designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal:
·       would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling, and
·       would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
In determining what constitutes a ‘disproportionately large increase’ account will be taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been extended or could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of the area.
For the purposes of this policy ‘original dwelling’ means the house as it was built, or as existed on the 1st July 1948, whichever is the later.


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



Policy EN 1
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted where it;
·       is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
·       does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads; and
·       seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise. 
Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted.

Policy EN 2

Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character

Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
·       the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
·       gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
·       distinctive settlement character
·       the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of wildlife
·       visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological features
·       nocturnal character

·       the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens.
  The main questions which need to be answered in the            affirmative for this application to succeed are:

 Presumption.

The developer claims that there is a presumption within the NPPF in favour of sustainable development, which he advances in support of the application.

There are 2 flaws with this approach.

·      Any claim that a presumption in favour of sustainable development is of any assistance to the developer is conceptually incorrect, as the application, being an isolated dwelling in the countryside, is by its very nature unsustainable.  In particular, the proposal is disconnected in physical terms from Blakeney, and will have a permanent adverse impact on the area for generations to come – 2 classic tests of sustainability.

·      Critically however, where proposed development lies within an AONB, that presumption does not apply.(see footnote 9 to policy 14 of the NPPF).

The application must therefore be determined on a simple balance as to whether or not it meets the policy requirements of the Core Strategy and the NPPF and is not otherwise unacceptable in terms of all other material considerations.

That this property is a replacement dwelling for the 1950s/1960s bungalow at 3 Owls Farm. 

This is the only realistic chance the developer has of building in the countryside - by firstly showing it is a replacement, and then meeting certain additional criteria

In the event that this property is not a "replacement" in planning terms, it would then need to be judged as an  “isolated dwelling in the countryside” within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the national designation of landscape and character protection. The proposal would then fail on all Spatial Strategy policies of the NNDC Core Strategy – SS1 and SS2, as-well as several development control policies e.g EN1 and EN3

The factors on which this "replacement" test hinge are:
·      Proximity to the existing bungalow.
o   Proximity - The proposed site is on farmland beyond the obvious curtilage of the 3 Owls Farm buildings.  The proposed dwelling is 100 metres away from the bungalow, on an elevated grassland site.
o   The emphasis in planning policy is that development should wherever possible take place on ‘brownfield land’ - land that has previously been built on.  In the current situation, that analysis underpins the requirement that the replacement. As the existing property is empty, a replacement dwelling on the same site, with a modest increase on the current floorspace would be the only acceptable form of the residential development at this location.

·      Comparable in size to the existing bungalow
o   Size. The proposed dwelling is over 5 times the size of the bungalow it is "replacing".  A typical accepted tolerance for replacing dwellings is a 50% increase on existing. Other non residential buildings being removed do not count as space being ‘replaced’

·      The ‘fit’ of the new dwelling with the character of the existing buildings at the farm.
o   The proposal has no physical relationship in location or design terms with the existing pattern of buildings or character.

The easy conclusion on this issue is that the proposed dwelling cannot be sensibly seen as a replacement.

Even if the property is accepted by the planning officers as a "replacement" the property must then pass further local and national policy tests before it can properly be approved. 

See firstly the national perspective, paragraph 55 of the NPPF extract.

The only possible "special circumstance" is the design of the building is truly outstanding, of the highest architectural standards, a significant enhancement to its immediate setting and sensitive to the characteristics of the local area. 

Whatever the merits/demerits of the design, it is difficult to see how such a development could be seen as either enhancing or being sensitive to the open grassland characteristic of the local area set within the AONB and the Undeveloped Coast.

The parallel local planning policy adopted by NNDC  states that the replacement dwelling must meet both the following tests:

not be a "disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling" and
not "materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside". 

The new proposal is on elevated ground, remote from the dwelling it is apparently replacing, and 5.5 times the size, and on three levels. 

Assessment

The developer sought to claim “replacement” status as there is no policy support at all for an isolated large dwelling in the middle of the countryside AONB!

On every logical basis it is not a replacement; and even if it were it is not a compliant replacement failing the additional tests that must be met.


One of the arguments advanced is that the application site magically falls within the established curtilage of the property.  This is plainly nonsense as on the applicant's own analysis, the application site is on improved grassland, remote from the bungalow and its garden curtilage. 




This how the building will appear from Blakeney Road






The significance of this development cannot be overstated; the applicants have used precedent ( that is other large developments that have slipped through the LDF net ) ) as one of the main planks of their argument for this proposal to be accepted. 

But it is precedent that makes this application so significant for the south of Blakeney. At present on Saxlingham Road there is only minor development outside the village development boundary.  There are however, two more large plots that have existing buildings on them and more or less fit the Three Owls pattern.  Should Three Owls be given permission a precedent would be set not just for these two areas but for other land that has been already been purchased for future development.

      THE LANDSCAPE AROUND THREE OWLS FARM

      From a historical perspective

                                                                                             JW   30.03.14     3 Owls 

                                          

        John Wright    



1     Settlement pattern

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





2     Village form

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

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

3     Landscape features 

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

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

4     Archaeology

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

5     Agricultural landscape

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

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





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





 6     Recent development

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

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

7     The built landscape

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


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






8     Conservation                 

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

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


Summary

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

T Ashwin & A Davison,  Eds,  An Historical Atlas of Norfolk,  3rd edition,  Phillimore  2005.
            The atlas contains text and maps covering 93 topics, including:
              2        Geological Background
              4        Soil Landscapes
            56         Norfolk Agriculture 1500 - 1750
            62         Great Estates in the 19th century
            92         Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings

J C Barringer,  An Introduction to Faden’s Map of Norfolk,  Norfolk Record Society 
                        Vol XLII  1975.
This volume contains Faden’s map of 1797 in 6 sheets at a scale of 1 inch to 1 mile with an introduction by J C Barringer. It was republished in 30 (A4) sheets by Larks Press as ‘Faden’s Map of Norfolk’ in 1989. The county was surveyed by Donald & Milne 1790 - 1794; William Faden was the publisher.

A McNair & T Williamson,  William Faden and Norfolk’s 18th Century Landscape,                                   Windgather Press  2010.
            A detailed study of Faden’s map with a digitised version on DVD (Windows 97 or later).

J Hooton,  The Glaven Ports,  Blakeney History Group  1996.
            Covers the maritime history of Blakeney, Cley and Wiveton, with some comment on the physical            development of these villages.

P Carnell,  Trade Tokens recovered in Wiveton,  The Glaven Historian  Issue No. 4,  Blakeney                 Area Historical Society  2001.
P Carnell,  Medieval Jettons discovered in Wiveton,  The Glaven Historian  Issue No. 5,                           Blakeney Area Historical Society  2002.
            The Glaven Historian is the Journal of the Blakeney Area Historical Society. All articles in the first 6        issues can be read on line at www.history-blakeney-area-org.uk.


Other Sources

1769 Map of Blakeney
            William & Corba Cranefield produced a plan of Blakeney parish at a scale of 20 inches to the mile. For      many years a tracing (not entirely complete) was held in the Norfolk Record Office but recently the         original coloured map has been deposited there. Website www.archives.norfolk.gov.uk.

1824 Inclosure Map of Blakeney and Wiveton
            Copies can be seen at the Norfolk Record Office. There is also a tithe map for Wiveton (1842) but no         tithe map was prepared for Blakeney.

J S Cotman,  ‘Blakeney Church and Wiveton Hall’,  An engraving included in Kitson and             Cromwell’s Excursions in the County of Norfolk Vol I,  1819.
            This sketch, with Eson’s Bridge in the foreground, is reproduced in Hooton’s The Glaven Ports.

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

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


JW   30.03.14   Owls 2

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)