Wiveton Parish Council.

Chairman’s Report. 2005.

The Parish Council has met on 10 occasions throughout the past year and a number of these have been held at my home due to the major refurbishment of the village hall.

Village Green

The erosion of the village green has continued, although the earlier work we did has made a difference. It is quite intensely used. A recent site inspection has taken place following concerns raised and steps are being considered to try and get the erosion under some sort of control. There was a strong feeling within the council that the pub should make a contribution these costs.

Wiveton Downs Management Group

One of the main reasons for getting the ownership of Wiveton’s Surveyor’s allotments returned to the Parish was to be able to influence what happens to the Downs, although at first it was not clear how this would be achieved. As it turned out NCC’s proposals for a temporary grazing regime for the Downs presented us with the perfect opportunity. There were two ways for them to do this, one was to enclose the entire site including the Surveyor’s Allotment or just fencing the area that they own, this would have resulted in a fence along the top of the Downs, something both NNDC and the NCP made clear they would object to because of its visibility in the landscape. This difficulty put us in a much stronger position and we informed NCC that our part of the Downs could only be included in the scheme if the Parish Council had a proper role in the management of the entire site. Initially NCC were not keen on this idea but eventually agreed, so from now on if you have concerns about the management of the Downs you can bring them to us with much greater confidence that something will be done.

The process was not without some minor difficulties, Mrs Brownlow successfully argued that there was an established right for horses to be ridden over the downs and to resolve this John Ramm also agreed to temporary access along the boundary of his property.

Speed Restrictions

The Chairman had been in contact with Paul Sellick who has responsibility for village signs to ask why the project was not progressing. Mr Sellick has indicated that the proposed sign and wording is acceptable but it would appear that the highways designers are having difficulty with the proposed design of the logo which it would appear is too complicated for the current equipment to re-produce. The Chairman has suggested that the Norfolk County Council Highways Department could produce the sign with the wording but to leave the logo blank, the Parish Council could then facilitate the logo through their own contact.

Mr Sellick has also suggested that the County Highways Department will contact the Leicestershire County Council who have produced some very attractive signs for their area and may be able to give some advice or contacts regarding the logo for Wiveton.

However Mr Sellick has agreed that the Council would be kept in the loop regarding the provision of the village signs and the Council would endeavour to ensure that this item did not slip off NCC’s agenda again. However I have to tell you that at the moment it has done just that.

Bridge Repairs - We are still waiting for the repairs to be carried out

Finance

A Public Works Loan

To enable the completion of the major refurbishment of the village hall the Councillors approved a Public Works Loan of £5,700 this was approved by the NCAP&TC and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster.

In order to meet the cost of the loan repayments the Parish Council agreed that the precept be increased by £500.  The Precept was £2,000 but as from April 2005 it was increased to £2,500, which covers the cost of the loan.

The Councillors agreed that the loan repayments for the first two years would be paid by the Parish Council which would enable the Village Hall Committee to build up a small reserve to pay the annual repayments for the remainder of the term of the loan.

The Councillors felt it would be appropriate that following the provision of a loan through the Parish Council a regular report should be provided to the Council by the Village Hall Committee. It was also felt that a reserve account should be opened which will help ensure the Parish Council is aware of any funding available through the Parish Room.

Cley Hill Footpath

As you will have noticed the final ‘County Council section of Cley Hill Path is now complete, subsequent to their successful negotiations with Desmond McCarthy for the land.

They also had to negotiate with us as to the final form this path would take. That achieved we were very anxious that the surface of our stretch of permissive path should match theirs. They were quite happy to undertake this work for us at a cost of around £600.00, an amount that would have seriously stretched our resources. However, after speaking with NNDC and the NCP we obtained two grants totalling £550. 00, £250.00 from NNDC and £300.00 from NCP. Further to that we have been invited by NNDC to submit the scheme for the 2005 Environmental Awards. This I have done.

Planning

The Council have considered the following planning applications:

The Old Cottage, Hall Lane – Retention of storage building The Council had no objection to this application.

Stud Farm Buildings and Managers House

The Parish Council had not been in support of this application, which was subsequently withdrawn. Erection of Stud Farm Buildings and Manager’s House

Because of their concern regarding to the above application Ref: 20041196 [Erection of Stud Farm Buildings and Manager’s House] and the realisation that the landscape impact is far greater from Wiveton than from Cley, Cley Parish Council forwarded the plans and the following response was approved by the Councillors:

Our Case for Refusal was as follows.

1. We are not convinced that a stud farm qualifies as agricultural use, should it be deemed to be so then Policy 66 should apply. However, this policy would seem to suggest that a dwelling has to be shown to be necessary in retrospect of a proven need. This clearly is not the case here. We would question the necessity for this stud farm, and ask whether sufficient need has been demonstrated, and if it has would further ask whether alternative buildings or land have been explored, as required by Policy 66.

2. The Farm manager’s House being essentially three stories would, on this westward facing slope be visible in the landscape for a great distance. At present the westward aspect is partly screened by a stand of poplars situated on the river flood plain. However, as part of a new vision for the Glaven Valley, see Para 6 these are to be removed. Its design and materials, brick with a slate roof is unlike any of the traditional rural buildings one sees in the countryside which are invariably flint and pantile.

3. This development lies within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and the inevitable changes to the surrounding landscape this development would bring about i.e. the change from mixed arable use to pasture and the likelihood of the usual formal railings and fences would significantly affect the natural landscape qualities that brought this designation into being.

4. The impact of so many buildings in open countryside on sloping ground means that the usual hedge screening will be ineffective.

5. We believe the Glaven Valley to be one of the more significant elements making up the north Norfolk Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty [Policy 20] and as such should be given the full protection this designation affords.

6. The access into Bridgefoot Lane is from certain local knowledge close to a very dangerous bend and we would request that NCC Highways dept be consulted with regard to this.

7. Finally Wiveton Parish Council has pioneered a new approach to the management of the upper Glaven Valley, driven by the need to replace habitat likely to be lost from Clay/Salthouse marshes. This has resulted in a ‘Vision’, produced by the Tyndall Center UEA] and backed by English Nature, it combines all the landowners in an holistic approach to the flood plain management. The two factors that make this an attractive and viable project are the opportunities that exist for landscape enhancement and the quiet undisturbed area’s potential for wildlife. This development would jeopardise both these objectives.

This application would look very attractive in a large park like landscape but would be totally wrong in this location, we therefore, object most strongly to this application.

The application was subsequently refused through delegated powers.

Erection of twenty-five metre telecommunications monopole with three antennae, one microwave dish and ten small equipment cabins – Wiveton Hall Spinney, Blakeney Road for Orange Pcs Limited

This has been quite adequately reported in the Glaven magazine so I do intend to wade through I all again tonight. Anyone wishing for a copy can get one from Trish.

Report following a site meeting

1. Vodaphone was represented, Orange not.

2. Wood height agreed at 20.2 metres. Therefore Vodaphone OK at 21 metres. Orange agreed to drop height to 22.8 metres by letter.

3. Vodaphone happy to put up monopole or lattice tower according to Council 's wish. Orange stance not known.

4. No explanation why Orange require 10 boxes whilst Vodaphone require on 2 for same job. (To avoid using church tower?)

5. Applications were refused on grounds of adverse impact on ANOB where support from ANOB Officer and Countryside Officer was key. Also on grounds of Community objections led by Chairman WPC. Finally on grounds of failure to pursue alternative sites and to offer a compromise on operators' requirement for 100% coverage .

6. Voting was tight. Vodaphone 4 against, 3 for, 3 abstentions. Orange 4 against, 2 for, 4 abstentions.

The Chairman was pleased to report that the above application had been refused by the Planning Committee.

Appeal by: orange PCS Ltd against the decision of North Norfolk District Council to refuse planning permission for the erection of twenty five metre lattice telecommunications mast with three antennae, one dish and ten small equipment cabins at Wiveton Hall Spinney, Blakeney Road Wiveton. Norfolk

The following letter was sent on the 11^th August 2004 on behalf of Wiveton, Blakeney, Cley and Morston Parish Councils:

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Parish Councils of Blakeney, Morston, Cley and Wiveton collectively petitioned NNDC to refuse planning permission for a 25.5 metre, now apparently a 21 metre, telecommunications mast for Orange at The Spinney, Blakeney Road, Wiveton.

Consequently we feel it is our duty to support NNDC in this appeal.

Our concerns fall into four parts.

1. The impact these masts would have in the landscape and the erosive effect on the local economy.

2. Orange’s Grounds for Appeal.

3. The height of the trees.

4. Orange’s presentation of their application and this appeal.

1. The Landscape impact.

Our principal objection to this application is the major landscape impact that a telecommunications mast would have in this particular location. A prominent headland that constitutes a significant element in the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and overlooking two Conservation Areas. It would be hard to understate the importance of this particular landscape feature in the north Norfolk coastal scene, visible in both directions east and west this wooded headland with Blakeney Church at its crest it is as familiar and important a landscape feature in this part of Norfolk as Glastonbury Tor is to its part of Somerset.

A recent study showed that tourism is by quite a large margin the largest underwriter of Norfolk’s economy, of that income a significant amount is generated here in North Norfolk, the reason for this is that the people who visit the area do so because of its unspoilt beauty. Again and again surveys show this to be true.

Visible from the Norfolk Coast Path from as far off as Wells in the west and for a similar distance to the east as far as Sheringham it is also very prominent from a number of important visitor centers. The National Nature reserve of Blakeney Point, the Harbour and departure point at Morston [See picture 1] where every day during the summer hundreds of tourists stand looking at this view as they wait to embark on excursions to see the seals and bird sanctuary. Cley Nature Reserve to the east also has this belt of trees as its western horizon. [See picture 2] So significant is this site that it is the opinion of all three Parish Councils that this mast represents a defining test of the strength of the AONB designation. If this mast were to go up then the AONB designation comes down, probably to a point where it will not be worth all the mountains policy paper it is written on.

A particular concern we have with regard to this specific aspect of our objection is how clearly the importance of this site can be appreciated from as far off as Bristol. We will do our best in this representation to convey its significance with words and pictures however; we feel that it really has to be seen. Would it be too presumptuous therefore?

[It is quite a distance] for us to request that the inspector come to this area and visit the quite important places from which these masts would be visible in the landscape.

1. Orange’s Grounds for this Appeal.

The principal grounds for this appeal would appear to be Orange’s claim that there is no other suitable site. This we hope to show is quite untrue.

Site {a} St Nicholas Church Tower, Blakeney.

Orange claim that the space needed for six cabinets and their combined weight makes this option untenable. Blakeney Church Tower is one of the largest Parish Church towers in the country and has within it not one [The Belfry] but two [The Clock Room] spaces wherein equipment could be accommodated, even if it were to be the six cabinets Orange claim they need. Vodafone and O2 are also seeking to erect the same type of equipment nearby [O2 in Blakeney Church tower] they each have two equipment cabins, we are therefore very suspicious [the reasons for this suspicion will hopefully become clear] why Orange [who knew in advance that they would be invited to use Blakeney Church Tower] require six [originally ten] very heavy cabinets.

There is also a claim that Orange’s surveyor was advised by the dioceses that a telecommunications installation in Blakeney Church was unlikely to be acceptable. On behalf of the three parishes concerned I have been directly involved with the installation of O2’s equipment in Blakeney Church Tower and have been informed by Blakeney PCC, and the Vicar [see letter included] in charge that providing they are not depriving a more deserving cause of revenue they would be very keen to have all three operators use the tower. Quintel the company that facilitates these installations for the C of E seems fairly certain that this could be achieved and add that a new antennae being tested at the moment could accommodate several operators. We feel it would be a great shame to have this view destroyed when equipment that will make Blakeney Church tower an even better option is just around the corner.

{b} The Acreage, Cley Road Blakeney:

This site while somewhat visually intrusive from the east is not visible at all from the west, it is therefore much less visually intrusive than the appeal site.

{c} Blakeney Engineering. Langham Road Blakeney.

Orange claims here that English Nature has informed them of ‘A Presumption against further development on this site'. This line of text taken out of context misrepresents English Nature’s position. They did not object [See letter included.]

{d} The Grass verge opposite St Nicholas Church:

This application we would assume was of different a kind as it only requiring a single cabinet. It was not progressed because it was considered too unsightly in a conservation area and in the AONB. Presumably the concerns regarding health and the school would still apply to the new location, which is only a few dozens of meters further away from the school, and being much higher would presumably be even more of a hazard.

The conclusion to Oranges case for this being the only suitable/available site, was and I quote ‘owing primarily to the excellent tree screening available, the appeal site was by far the best option ’notwithstanding its location in an AONB. We would respectfully suggest that this is simply not true.

In their summation Orange claim that the requirements of Local Plan Policies. 42 & 100 i.e. ‘ that there are no alternative sites available, that it is not possible to share an existing facility or erect a mast on an existing building or structure’ have been met. Based on the information given above we would most vigorously contest this and would go so far as to say that if these are the grounds for Orange’s appeal then they have no grounds and are wasting your time and our money.

3. The height of the trees:

The four councils represented here all dispute Orange’s estimate of the height of the trees. At NNDC’s Planning Site meeting Orange staged a dramatic measuring exercise involving a huge ‘Cherry Picker’ type vehicle and a tape measure. However, they did not measure the trees under the cherry picker, instead they measured what they claimed were taller trees much further back in the wood which nobody could see or were convinced were there. This displeased many who attended the meeting and in the end could not have been more than an estimation of the cherry picker’s position in relation to trees that was some distance off.

Orange claimed the trees to be 20 metres in height; we had carefully measured the trees in advance of this meeting and arrived at a value of 16.5 metres. NNDC seem to have accepted this estimate as accurate, we do not. The difference means that the mast would extend above the trees by 3 metres by Oranges estimate and 7 metres by ours. The danger here is that by focusing attention on the relationship between the trees and the mast tends to suggest that providing that relationship is improved the mast becomes acceptable and this of course is not true. In this place any structure of any kind that extends above the tree line will be very visible in the landscape for a great distance. Perhaps the actual height of the trees can be established by this enquiry.

2. Oranges Presentation of their Application and this Appeal:

While this aspect of the process is not strictly a planning matter it could nevertheless affect the outcome of this appeal if not examined. Orange’s very selective and confusing use of the facts in both this appeal submission and the previous planning application has given us cause for concern, a concern regarding the way in which they have misrepresented other organisations and agencies and importantly for us, the statements they have made that we do not have the technical expertise to challenge. For example the requirement they claim for six [originally ten] equipment cabinets weighing many tonnes.

O2 and Vodafone are both trying to fill the same gap in coverage and only need two cabinets. In the light of the examples above we feel some justification in wanting these statements to be tested and by requesting that the technical expertise we lack be provided by this enquiry?

We have compiled this submission as accurately and carefully as possible putting great emphasis on the landscape beauty that is at risk and trust that you will do likewise and dismiss this appeal.

Retrospective planning permission for the erection of storage building at The Anchorage, Blakeney Road, Wiveton - Despite the fact that the Council objected in principle to this application NNDC gave permission subject to conditions regarding screening [already quite adequate and the construction of an industrial style entrance, hardly a victory for the environment there then.

Well Cottage, The Street, Wiveton - Erection of rear dormer window - The Parish Council had no objection to this application but requested that any alterations should be in keeping with the original brick/flint work.