Four holiday treehouses at Fulmodeston Road, Swanton Novers Wood

The site and surroundings

The site is in woodland at the western edge of Little Wood and Brown’s Covert, within countryside and beside a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

“The site lies within a Countryside location in policy terms The site lies within the Tributary Farmland landscape type in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment The site is within a Mineral Safeguarding Area The site contains an area at risk of surface water flooding The site contains an area at risk of ground water flooding The site is detailed as River Network SFRA The site lies within the Zone of Influence of a number of habitats sites The site lies adjacent to…”

“The site is located at the western edge of Little Wood and Brown’s Covert approximately 0.6km east of Fulmodeston and 0.9km southwest of Swanton Novers along the Hindolveston Road.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Two treehouses and related infrastructure had previously been approved, while the current proposal would increase the total to six treehouses.

“PF/24/1746 - Supporting infrastructure related to the two treehouses approved under planning permission PF/21/3458 comprising guest arrival area with parking, open canopy and timber boardwalk, fire water ponds and a single array of solar PV panels to serve both units – Approved.”

“PF/21/3458 - Erection of two one-bed tree houses with external works and servicing (to include biorock drainage system and solar panels) – Approved.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the remote, unserviced accommodation unsustainable, car-dependent and in conflict with countryside, tourism and transport policies, despite acknowledged benefits.

“As presented, the proposed development is considered to conflict with CS Policy EC 7. This policy seeks to ensure that tourism related development in rural areas is sustainable and appropriately located. The proposal involves the creation of new build, un-serviced holiday accommodation in the open countryside. In accordance with CS Policy EC7, such developments are to be treated as if they were permanent residential dwellings.”

“It is considered that the proposal is remote from local service centre provision conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to encourage walking, cycling, use of public transport and reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposals fail to comply with Policy CT 5 of the adopted Core Strategy and Policy EC7. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy, EC 7 and paragraphs 110 and 117 of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Parish councils supported or did not object, while highways and environmental health raised no objections subject to conditions; landscape and Natural England requested further information or mitigation.

“North Norfolk District Council Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions.”

“Natural England: Further information required, subject to ensuring measures are in place to manage impact of new overnight tourist accommodation on the qualifying features of the European Site(s) (habitats site(s), i.e. GI RAMS payment and completion of an appropriate assessment.”

Officer report

Comments and objections

One comment and one objection raised concerns about biodiversity, lighting, traffic, drainage, fire safety, cumulative development, the nature reserve and the River Stiffkey Chalk Stream.

“Comment • Request more detail on the effect of Swanton Novers National Nature Reserve. • Vehicle movement assessment from Hindolveston Road. • Impact of the internal and external lighting. • Detailed site and access photos required. • Site 1, 2 and 3 will be visible from the PROW and from Fulmodeston footpath 3.”

“Objection • Concern regarding the presumption of the previous approval. • Extent of the estate recreational diversification scheme and how large will it be? • Cumulative impact of piecemeal planning on NNR biodiversity, access and local amenity and lack of sustainability. • Lack of action or other planning approvals in the Estate for housing. • Expanded forest track in respect to materiality and requirement for fire engines and tankers etc, on land which was wetland.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke, and the local member supported the proposal as innovative diversification that would help maintain the woodland and promote tourism.

The committee’s decision

The application was approved subject to conditions and a legal agreement, with final wording delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning.

“The SPO and DM provided the Committee with details of the previous conditions and contents of S.106 and suggested that they form the basis of conditions and S.106 legal agreement, together with provisions conditioning a site investigation relating to the water level to assess the viability of the cesspit proposed and a lighting strategy.”

“Cllr Adams proposed, and Cllr Varley seconded that the application be approved subject to conditions and a S.106 agreement, the final wording of which be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning.”

Minutes

Conditions and legal agreement

The legal agreement was to address holiday use, ownership, letting records, fire restrictions, monitoring, the GIRAMS contribution and removal of wastewater outside the catchment.

“The LA outlined that a s106 would need to cover a) restrictions at the site being no barbeques, chimaeras or external heaters within the curtilage of the dwellings, b) that the dwellings and woodland need to stay in the same freehold/leasehold ownership c) that the dwellings are only to be used for holiday accommodation d) that the owner needs to keep a register setting out the dates and duration of the lets in relation to each dwelling e) a GIRAMS Contribution for each…”

Minutes