Live/work unit and cart shed at Old Scarfe Brothers Workshop Church Road, Lower Bodham, Holt

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing workshop and storage buildings, constructing a live/work unit and cart shed, recladding a retained store, and adding parking and landscaping.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing workshop and a storage building and the erection of a new two storey building as a live/work unit, and a cart shed. A retained storage building would be reclad.”

“In terms of the dimensions of the proposal: • The live work building would measure approximately 28.8 metres in length x 11 metres in width x 9.9 metres in height. • The cart shed would measure approximately 14 metres in length x 4 metres in width x 6 metres in height. • The existing store measures approximately 6.4 metres in length x 7.2 metres in width 5.6 in height.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier proposals for residential conversion, a detached dwelling and a change of use from storage to a dwelling were refused or raised policy concerns.

“PF/22/1077: Demolition of existing structures; Conversion of existing building to dwelling - refused due to failure to comply with CS Policy HO 9 (Conversions and re-use of building in the countryside), CS Policy SS 2 (Development in the Countryside), CS Policies EN 2 and EN 4 (Design and Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape Character), Policy EC9 (Ecology)”

“IS2/20/0130: Proposed erection of two-storey detached dwelling (C3) using highly innovative construction system, following demolition of existing unsafe buildings (B8) - advice given raising concerns regarding compliance with CS Policy SS 2 (Development in the Countryside) for a residential dwelling and Paragraph 79 of the NPPF (now Paragraph 84).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the residential element was unsustainable and the building’s scale, height, massing and appearance would harm the landscape.

“The Committee are being asked to weigh up many competing planning issues. On the one hand, the use of previously developed land for appropriate economic uses would likely be supported in principle enabling an existing business to relocate, expand and improve its offer to its customers.”

“The proposed development by reason of design, scale, height and massing would result in a visually discordant and overly dominant element of built form which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of North Norfolk Core Strategy Policies EN 2 and EN 4.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council supported the application, the landscape officer objected, and environmental health, highways, and minerals officers raised no objection subject to matters including conditions.

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

“Norfolk County Council Highways: No objection, subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Support for the proposal

Two representations supported developing the disused site, reducing its carbon footprint, supporting carbon neutrality and bringing the site back into use.

“Two supporting for the following reasons:”

“Development of a disused site. • Sustainable work/live unit which will lower the carbon footprint of the site. • Supports North Norfolk’s aspiration for carbon neutrality. • Will bring new life into the derelict site. • Plans appear well considered from a community and environmental perspective.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke, while the ward member and parish council were noted as having previously expressed support but were not present.

The votes

Members rejected the refusal recommendation by eight votes to two, then approved the application by eight votes to two subject to conditions.

“Cllr Hankins proposed and Cllr Paterson seconded that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions including those detailed by the DM.”

“It WAS RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour and 2 votes against that the application be approved subject to conditions including those identified to the Committee plus any amendments to these or other conditions considered to be necessary by the Assistant Director of Planning…”

Minutes