Planning – Application Comments

The new "hides" development has enhanced the approach to the village of Titchwell as the developer has built the new homes in a very sympathetic way which is in line with traditional brick and flint houses.
In my opinion leaving a section of land undeveloped, bearing in mind it is only one dwelling from the original two dwellings would leave the area unfinished and loose the appeal of the approach to the village.
The proposed build is also in line with the previously approved "hides" developments therefore i see no reason to reject this application.
Approving this application will also enhance the area and the other dwellings adjacent to proposed site.

The design and access statement in this application for 'a single detached family dwelling' is almost identical to the design and access statement for the 2 semi detached properties that were recently refused planning permission. That document has been very slightly edited for this new application so makes very similar claims about the benefits of a single rather than two new 'cottages'. Therefore my comments will be very similar to my objection to the previous application.

This proposed property, in addition to the 4 semi-detached properties already permitted and almost completed, would result in five new properties where one bungalow stood previously. The developer is creating an estate at the very limits of the west end of the village adjacent to the start of the 60 mph speed limit.

Section 4.1 in the Design and Access statement still refers to 'proposed properties ... modest in size and in line with surrounding dwellings'. This proposed SINGLE four bedroomed property is not modest in size and is not in line with the 4 small cottages nearby. It extends even deeper back than the 4 semis.
Section 4.2 states '... generally the subservient nature of this development will ensure the existing terraced properties will dominate the road scene.' This proposed property and the new buildings in general overshadow the smaller older cottages. Now that the 4 semis are almost complete they clash hideously with Gorleston Cottages in their depth, height and design.
Section 4.4 claims 'the site is only visible from the very far distance'. This site is highly visible from a short distance along Choseley Road and from more inland along Chalk Pit Lane. I consider the proposal contributes to blighting the view of the village from an inland direction and is not the sensitive infilling claimed.

A dozen parking spaces are planned for the 4 houses currently under construction and this proposal. It would have been neighbourly to make provision for off-road parking spaces for occupants of 2-4 Gorleston End Cottages too. Nos 2 and 3 are holiday homes and the occupants park on the road and often obstruct the only pavement impeding visibility and forcing pedestrians out onto the A149. There have been 2 road traffic accidents in this vicinity in recent years. This proposal would result in even more cars entering and exiting at a vulnerable point where the speed limit reduces from 60 to 40 mph and cars may be parked along the road outside Nos 2 and 3.

The property proposed is claimed to be 'modest in scale' and not 'a large executive style house'. It is a 4 bedroomed, deep, detached property and will command a much higher price than the new semis which are being marketed for £645,000. Such prices are unaffordable to most local families earning low local wages. It is surely intended for the second and holiday home market. Titchwell does not need more second homes - instead the local area needs more affordable housing for local families. There are only around 35 permanent homes in Titchwell (about 50% of the total residential properties in the village) the other 50% comprising holiday and second homes. There are also 2 hotels.

The acclaimed open aspect of this village has already been partly eroded by the 4-house development and is further damaged by this proposal. A large detached property squeezed beside the 4 being built is not in my view an asset to the villagers and is not required. I am at a loss as to how, as the developers claim, this proposal for 'a single high quality dwelling ... will bring significant benefit to the local community through a small amount of additional housing and a more attractive street scene'. I can only think this is marketing speak to justify maximising profit.

We preferred the last scheme for two semi detached houses as this would have provided smaller more affordable homes to meet local need.

However we have no objection as such but would ask for conditions on landscaping and external lighting.

National Planning Policy Framework Clause 125 and Norfolk County Council's Environmental Lighting Zones Policy both recognise the importance of preserving dark landscapes and dark skies. In order to minimise light pollution, we recommend that any outdoor lights associated with this proposed development should be:
1) fully shielded (enclosed in full cut-off flat glass fitments)
2) directed downwards (mounted horizontally to the ground and not tilted upwards)
3) switched on only when needed (no dusk to dawn lamps)
4) white light low-energy lamps (LED, metal halide or fluorescent) and not orange or pink sodium sources

Please also refer to the Institute of Lighting Professionals, Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lights which gives guidance for lighting in an AONB.

The application is technically invalid because the red line shown on the Location Plan and Existing Site Plan is inconsistent with that shown on the Proposed Site Plan and Proposed Ground Floor Plan, thus fails to meet the requirements of Article 7(1)(c)(ii) of the DMPO.

It is particularly necessary to clarify this point for the purposes of this application, since if the proposal cannot deliver the access shown on the proposed ground floor and block plans, on-street parking on the A149 would become necessary, exacerbating existing problems in this regard with consequent increased obstruction to traffic flows.

It is requested that any approval should include a Condition stipulating that the parking and access arrangement shown on the proposed ground floor plan should be laid out and brought into use prior to first occupation of the dwelling, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter.

Given the restricted size of the private rear garden area, the property's relationship to neighbouring open countryside and its setting within the Norfolk Coastal AONB, it is suggested that Classes A and C through G domestic permitted development rights are withdrawn on any approval given.

The fenestration is not characteristic of the local vernacular, in that it is typical for the pattern of first floor windows to be equal in size or narrower than those at ground floor, rather than wider (twin) windows as shown on the application drawings. Neither are exposed rafter ends characteristic of the local vernacular, and the brickwork detailing around 1st floor windows should traditionally take the form of quoins rather than unbonded stacked headers. As such, the design as submitted is detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area.