Replacement dwelling at Thornhill Farm, Cley next the Sea, Holt
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by North Norfolk Development Committee on 19 Feb 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed demolishing the existing single-storey dwelling and building a contemporary two-storey replacement with landscaping and a widened access.
“CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/25/1571 – Demolition of existing non-traditional construction dwelling and construction of replacement dwelling with associated landscaping and widening of access (self-build) at Thornhill Farm, Bridgefoot Lane, Cley-next-the-sea, Holt, Norfolk NR25 7BB.”
“THE APPLICATION Seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and construction of replacement contemporary two storey dwelling.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site is a relatively isolated countryside dwelling within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and Norfolk Coast National Landscape, surrounded by mature hedgerows and trees.
“Located within the countryside Located within Glaven Valley Conservation Area Landscape Character Assessment – Rolling Heath and Arable / river valleys Norfolk Coast National Landscape (formerly AONB) Tourism Asset Zone GIRAMS Zones of Influence (various)”
“The proposal is located in the countryside on the north side of Bridgefoot Lane in a relatively isolated position, with mature and hedgerows around the borders of the site with the adjacent land comprising an arable field. There is a detached curtilage outbuilding proposed to be retained as part of the proposals. The dwelling is relatively well screened from Bridgefoot Lane, a narrow countryside lane by the mature hedgerows.”
Officer report
Earlier site history
Earlier applications for extensions, a replacement double garage and removal of an agricultural occupancy condition were approved between 1988 and 2007.
“Reference PF/03/0522 Description Erection of replacement double garage Outcome Approved 09.05.2003”
“Reference PF/88/1060 Description Lifting of agricultural occupancy condition Outcome Approved 09.06.1988”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval because the revised design, landscaping, ecological measures and site topography would prevent a material increase in the dwelling’s wider impact.
“The proposal seeks permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the construction of a larger replacement dwelling. The revised scheme has been designed to respond successfully to the site’s context, and landscape. The proposals now ensure an appropriate high-quality design and scale is delivered. The site is well screened, with filtered planting both existing and proposed.”
“Officers find that there that the negative weight associated with those considerations above is addressed by carefully amended plans, mitigation or is otherwise balanced out by the fallback position. As such reasonable positive weight can be applied to this high-quality contemporary design for a replacement dwelling.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Conservation, landscape and highways officers raised no objections subject to conditions, while the parish council and ward councillor objected to the scale, glazing, light spill and screening.
“County Council Highways (Cromer) – No objections (subject to conditions)”
Officer report
Public views
One representation supported the proposal because the site was well screened, while another objected over highways, scale, glazing, planting, landscape, ecology, design and views.
“Objections Highway safety concerns Size and scale of replacement dwelling Increase in glazing Concerns over loss of planting, detriment to landscape, ecology and biodiversity Detrimental design Impact on views…”
“Support Site is well screened New dwelling would sit comfortably in its surroundings…”
Officer report
Who spoke
A parish council representative and a supporter addressed the committee, followed by the local member who objected to the proposal.
Conditions attached
Approval included conditions on plans, materials, ecology, landscaping, trees, lighting, glazing, access, visibility, water efficiency, electric vehicle parking and permitted development rights.
“Time limit • Development in accordance with approved plans • Materials (inc flint sample panel) • Accordance with ecological mitigation and enhancement measures • Hard and soft Landscaping details • Implementation of landscape proposals • Accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement • Replacement of tree failures (10 years) • External Lighting • Specification for glass of a VLT value less than .65 • Removal of Permitted Development rights…”
“Access in accordance with NCC specifications • Visibility splays • Levels • Water efficiency • EV parking…”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“The Local Member disagreed with the officer’s assessment of policy HOU 6 and argued that the proposal would have a significant material impact on the appearance of the surrounding area with the proposed dwelling being twice as large as the existing dwelling and nought 0.8 metres higher.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- North Norfolk Development Committee minutes, 19 February 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of North Norfolk's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- North Norfolk Development Committee
- Council
- North Norfolk
- Date
- Thursday 19 February 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- North Norfolk committee decisions →
This committee's year
30 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 7 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.