Restaurant and farm shop at Salmonds Lane Thorpland, Fakenham

What was proposed

Two buildings would provide a restaurant, café, bar, ice cream parlour and farm shop, with toilets, polytunnels, parking, paths and access.

“FAKENHAM – PF/24/2184 - Erection of two buildings for use as a restaurant and farm shop, and associated development including a separate wc and bar, two polytunnels, car-parking, paths and access at Salmonds Lane, Thorpland, Fakenham, Norfolk, NR21 0HB”

“Proposal The application proposes the erection of two buildings for use as a restaurant/café, bar, ice cream parlour and a farm shop. Associated development includes a separate WC, two polytunnels, car-parking, paths and access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.8-hectare agricultural site lies in countryside and rolling open farmland, north of Fakenham and about 1.2 kilometres from its town centre.

“The site lies within an area of countryside for the purposes of the Core Strategy’s spatial strategy The site lies within the Rolling Open Farmland landscape type as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment…”

“Site Description The site is a parcel of agricultural land with an area of approximately 0.8 hectares. It is within the area defined as Countryside by Policy SS 1 of the Core Strategy and Rolling Open Farmland within the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment) (LCA). The site is adjoined by agricultural fields and there are a cluster of dwellings situated to the north.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the scheme exceeded the scale of farm diversification, lacked sufficient supporting evidence and conflicted with countryside, retail and transport policies.

“In this case however, it is considered that the proposed development would clearly go beyond the scale of development envisaged by Policy EC 1 as the supporting text at paragraph 3.4.4 states “where new building on undeveloped sites is necessary, the intention is to ensure that the size of any such development is limited”.”

“In particular, it has not been demonstrated that the overall scale of the proposed farm shop and café as part of the diversification scheme is based on the existing farm operations already in place, as opposed to the creation of a new unrestricted retail development within an area designated as Countryside under Policy SS 1 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.”

Officer report

Access and landscape concerns

The site lacked safe pedestrian and cycle access, relied heavily on cars and would add significant built form in an open rural landscape.

“The site lies within Rolling Open Farmland (ROF) landscape type as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment. This is predominantly an expansive open arable landscape with a rural character and a sense of remoteness and tranquillity with dark night skies being a defining feature. The settlement pattern is sparse and strongly nucleated as a result of historical land ownership.”

“Considering the undeveloped and rural nature of the site, the large scale buildings will result in significant built form additions to landscape resulting in some adverse visual impacts within the local and wider area. There will also be harm from the intensification of a currently undeveloped site.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

The town council and economic development service supported the scheme, while landscape and highways officers objected and environmental health had no objection subject to conditions.

“North Norfolk District Council Landscape: Object Proposed development will not protect, conserve or enhance the local area as set out in the Landscape Guidelines within the LCA and there is conflict with Core Strategy Policy EN 2: (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character).”

“North Norfolk District Council Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions relating to the details of the kitchen extraction prior to the commencement of the use of the site and the hours of deliveries (including waste collections).”

Officer report

Who spoke

The mayor of Fakenham and the applicant were listed as public speakers, while the local member spoke in support.

The committee vote

Members rejected the refusal recommendation by 12 votes to 1, then voted 12 in favour with 1 abstention to authorise approval.

“That the recommendation for refusal be rejected.”

“IT WAS RESOLVED by 12 votes in favour and 1 abstention…”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee authorised approval, subject to appropriate conditions and any necessary legal agreement linking the farm ownership with the development business.

“Cllr Paterson proposed, and Cllr Adams seconded that the ADP be given authority to approve the application, subject to agreement of appropriate conditions and if necessary, a S.106 agreement, such conditions to include an ongoing link between the ownership of the farm and the business on the development site…”

Minutes