Test Valley Borough Council Southern Area Planning Committee 12 December 2017

Transcription

1 ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 17/02335/FULLS APPLICATION TYPE FULL APPLICATION - SOUTH REGISTERED APPLICANT Mr S Dugdale SITE Upper Eldon Farm, Eldon Road, Kings Somborne, SO20 6QN KINGS SOMBORNE PROPOSAL Conversion of barn (H2) to residential to include removal of end bay, use of remaining bay as an extension to the approved residential use, insertion of mezzanine floor and alteration to layout and external appearance (Revision of 15/02723/PDQS) AMENDMENTS CASE OFFICER Mrs Sarah Appleton Background paper (Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application is presented to Southern Area Planning Committee because it is contrary to the provisions of an approved Development Plan, adverse third party representations have been received and the recommendation is for permission. 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site comprises a group of older and more modern farm buildings and stables at a rural, isolated location in the open countryside to the east of Kings Somborne village. The site is accessed via Eldon Road and lies to the rear (east) of Eldon House and St John the Baptist Church, which are both listed buildings. A detached listed granary building also adjoins the site to the west. The buildings within the wider site comprise an older quad of farm and stable buildings arranged around a hard surfaced courtyard and a modern larger steel framed barn to the south east of the group. The buildings are served by a private access track and are surrounded by agricultural land and grazing to the north, east and south. 3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 An application was previously submitted for the change of use of three of the buildings within the group to form three dwellings with associated gardens and parking (15/02923/PDQS). The application was submitted as a prior notification under the provisions of Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (GPDO). In determining the application, the Local Planning Authority were of the view that prior approval was required and was granted and that the proposed change of use was permitted development under Class Q of the GPDO.

2 3.2 This current application has subsequently been submitted which proposes the change of use of other parts of the outbuilding known as H2 at the site to utilise the remainder of the building that cannot be converted under permitted development. Whilst the conversion of the building has commenced the dwelling is not yet occupied and thus a full planning application has been made for the conversion of the barn. 3.3 The proposals include the following additions/alterations to the dwellings previously considered permitted development: Inclusion of end bay as an extension to the conversion approved under 15/02723/PDQS Insertion of mezzanine floor Alterations to layout and external appearance of conversion permitted under 15/02723/PDQS 3.4 Access to the site would be via the existing access road. 4.0 HISTORY 4.1 The most recent applications at the site are as follows: /01301/FULLS Conversion and change of use of outbuildings to form ancillary residential accommodation and garages to serve the residential units approved under 15/02923/PDQS REFUSE 21/07/2016 for the following reasons: 1. The proposal represents unjustified development in the countryside for which there is no overriding need. The site is situated in an isolated location and in order to access the village, users of the proposed residential use would be required to access the site along a narrow, unlit and highly vegetative rural lane for some considerable distance. As a result, the site would not be accessible for modes of transport other than the private car. The proposals would thus result in the introduction of a residential use of the existing farm buildings that would have no connection whatsoever to any existing residential property on the site in an isolated location inappropriately related away from existing built up areas. Future users of the site would therefore be overly reliant on the private car to the detriment of the environment of the surrounding area. The proposals represent an unsustainable form of development contrary to policies LE16, COM11, COM2 and T1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016 and also contrary to the requirement of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposed development would introduce new residential uses to the existing farm yard that would have no connection whatsoever with any existing residential dwelling. The introduction of these elements would result in an incongruous addition to the farm which would have an adverse impact on the strong rural/agricultural character of the surrounding area contrary to policies E1 and E2 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016.

3 4.3 15/02923/PDQS Notification for Prior Approval under Class Q Change of use to 3 dwellings PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIRED AND THAT PRIOR APPROVAL IS GRANTED 25/01/ /01670/PDQS Notification for Prior Approval under Class Q Change of use of buildings to form 3 dwellings REFUSED 08/09/ TVS.03529/5 Conversion of outbuildings to lecture room and two units of holiday accommodation for use in connection with horse training establishment PERMISSION 12/03/ TVS.03529/4 Construction of all weather manege for the handling of horses PERMISSION 10/05/ CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Highways No objection. 5.2 Landscape No objection. 5.3 Ecology No objection subject to condition and notes. 5.4 Ramblers Comment : No comments on the buildings, would like to know what the site owner intends for the future use of the Right of Way. Whilst building is taking place and after, FP 4 MUST be kept clear and usable by walkers at all times 5.5 Rights of Way Officer Comment Applicant has applied to have the public rights of way diverted under the Highways Act. Application should be amended to show the public rights of way and should detail the intention to divert the paths. As suitable condition should be added to the grant of planning permission that no development shall take place until the public rights of way have been diverted as per the proposals. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired Kings Somborne Parish Council Comments: concern expressed at the impact on the public footpath and the need exists to restrict construction traffic approaching from King s Somborne to outside school travel times. One member voting against. 7.0 POLICY 7.1 Government Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 7.2 Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016)(RLP) COM2 Settlement hierarchy LE16 Re-use of buildings in the countryside

4 E1 High quality development in the Borough E2 Protect, conserve and enhance the Landscape Character of the Borough E5 Biodiversity E7 Water management LHW4 Amenity T1 Managing movement T2 Parking standards 8.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 The main planning considerations are: The principle of development Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area Amenity impact Highways Ecology Listed buildings The planning balance 8.2 The principle of development The site is situated in a countryside location as defined in the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016 (RLP). Policy COM2 of the RLP only allows development in such areas where there is an essential need for a countryside location or where such a location is considered appropriate in accordance with other policies contained within the RLP. In this instance there is no essential need for a countryside location. In addition, whilst policy LE16 of the RLP allows the conversion of existing buildings in the countryside, it is not considered that the proposals comply with the criteria set out within this policy. The proposals are not for the occupational accommodation for rural workers (point e) of LE16) and whilst the applicant has submitted information in relation to the commercial use of the buildings, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure commercial use (point f) of LE16). In addition, whilst the applicant states that the buildings are of historic interest, insufficient information has been submitted to enable the LPA to determine whether there other means to protect/retain the buildings (point g) of LE16). There are no other policies that would allow for the development in such a location. As a result, the proposal is considered contrary to policy COM2 of the RLP and is thus unacceptable in principle. 8.3 Other material considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless considerations indicate otherwise. This is echoed by paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition, the RLP is considered an up-to-date development plan which is not silent on development within the countryside and thus full weight must be given to it. However, it is considered that in this instance, there are other material considerations that must be taken into consideration in the determination of the application.

5 8.4 Fall back position Appeal Decision APP/C1760/W/16/ Barrow Hill Barns, Goodworth Clatford Consideration needs to be given to the above appeal decision relating to a proposal to develop the land with the erection of 5 dwellings which involved demolishing the existing offices on the site. This proposal was considered contrary to policy COM2 and was refused for the following reason: 1. The proposal represents unjustified development in the countryside for which no overriding need has been provided. In the absence of relevant supporting information, there is no presumption in favour of sustainable development. The proposal therefore represents an unsustainable form of development contrary to the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016) policy COM The application was taken to appeal on the basis that the appellant had a notification for prior approval under Class J (now Class O) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) for the conversion of the existing building into 5 residential units and that this fall back position should weigh significantly in favour of the proposed development. 8.6 The appellant stated that the proposed conversion under Class O of the GPDO was awkward and unattractive, however, it was asserted that the scheme would be feasible and would be implemented if the appeal scheme for the replacement of the building for 5 dwellings failed at appeal. The Inspector stated: I have no evidence before me to doubt the appellant in respect of these matters. I therefore find that the fall-back position to convert the building into 5 dwellings is therefore more than a theoretical prospect; there is likely to be a high probability that the scheme would be constructed if the appeal proposal is dismissed. 8.7 When considering the planning balance, the Inspector recognised that the proposal would conflict with policy COM2 of the RLP, but considered the likely residential use of the site a material consideration which would justify making a decision which is not in accordance with the development plan. However, the appellant s fall-back position to change the use of the existing buildings upon the site is a very real possibility. The effects of the appeal proposal would be unlikely to be discernible over and above the permitted development scheme for the reasons given. I regard the likely residential use of the site, a material consideration which would, in this case, justify making a decision which is not in accordance with the development plan. The appeal was allowed on this basis.

6 8.8 In relation to this application at Upper Eldon Farm, it is important to note that the Inspector who dealt with the Barrow Hill Barns decision considered that the Part O scheme was more than a theoretical prospect and that this weighed significantly in favour of the scheme (para 23). This test should also be applied in this instance. 8.9 The applicant has confirmed that the conversion under application 15/02923/PDQS has commenced and that completion is expected in April Photographs of the conversion have been submitted as part of the application. As the conversion of the barn has commenced under the PDQS application, it is more than a theoretical prospect that the site would have a residential use. The applicant has demonstrated their fall back position and this weighs significantly in favour of permitting the proposals under this application contrary to the provisions of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan Along with considering the likelihood of the Part O scheme being implemented, the Inspector of the Barrow Hill Barns appeal also considered it necessary to assess the impact of the proposed scheme against the permitted scheme, to determine whether or not there would be any significant impacts over and above the permitted scheme. In relation to this proposal, this is discussed further below Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area The site is in a rural, isolated location and includes a group of traditionally built brick and slate single storey buildings. The buildings are set around a central yard. The building the subject of this application is more modern and is construction from block work with corrugated metal above. The site has a strong rural/agricultural character, being surrounded by open countryside and mature vegetation The proposals relate to the conversion of the existing building on the site and does not involve the construction of any new buildings. The proposed conversion is considered to be sensitive to the rural location of the site using vernacular materials. It is considered that the proposals would not have any adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This weighs in favour of the proposals Amenity impact The buildings to be converted are located a sufficient distance from surrounding residential dwellings. As a result, it is not considered that the proposals would have any adverse impacts on surrounding residential amenities. This weighs in favour of the proposals Highways The existing access to the farm buildings is to be utilised. It is considered that this access would accommodate the proposed development without resulting in an adverse impact on highway safety. There is also sufficient space within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear and to provide sufficient parking. As a result, it is not considered that the proposals would have any adverse impacts on surrounding highway safety.

7 The Highways Officer has confirmed no objections to the proposals. This weighs in favour of the proposed development With regards to the Parish Council comments in relation to restricting construction traffic to outside school travel times. Considering that the conversion works are already underway (in accordance with the PDQS application), and considering that construction traffic related to the conversion of the 3 buildings (see application 17/02336/FULLS) is likely to be limited, it is not considered that the proposals would result in an adverse impact on highway safety around school travel times. Such a condition is therefore not considered appropriate in this instance Rights of Way Policy T1 of the RLP only allows development where measures are in place to minimise its impact on the highway and rights of way network(b) and where it does not have an adverse impact on the function, safety and character of an accessibility to the local or strategic highway network or rights of way network (d) Parts of Kings Somborne Footpaths 3 and 4 run through the site, between the existing agricultural buildings. The countryside access support officer at Hampshire County Council (HCC) initially objected to the proposals on the site on the basis that the development would adversely affect the public rights of way. However, the officer at HCC did not clarify how the proposed development would impact on the footpaths The proposed development involves the conversion of the existing buildings on site only, no additional buildings would be erected. The proposed development would not result in the severance/blocking off of the right of way and space around the right of way would be retained. Whilst there may be some inconvenience to the users of the footpath during construction, it is difficult to understand what adverse impact the proposed development would have on the footpath in the long term. It is not considered that the proposed development would conflict with criteria (b) and (d) of policy T1 of the RLP Notwithstanding the above, HCC have received an application to divert the footpath under section 119 of the Highways Act It is understood that the proposed new routes of the affected footpath are currently used on a permissive basis and the application seeks to formalise the use of the alternative routes on a permanent basis At the time of writing this report, no decision had been made by HCC on the proposed footpath diversion. The rights of way officer has requested that a condition be added to any permission preventing the commencement of the development until the rights of way have been diverted. Considering the fallback position of the applicant and as it has not been demonstrated that the proposals would result in an adverse impact on the footpath, it is not considered that such a condition is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The imposition of such a condition would therefore not meet the tests as set out at paragraph 204 of the NPPF.

8 8.21 Ecology On-site ecology The application is supported by an Ecological Assessment (4Woods Ecology, November 2015) which confirms that the building which is affected by the proposed works has negligible potential for roosting bats with no evidence of bats recorded during the external and internal inspection of the structure. As a result, the Council s ecologist has no concerns that the proposed development would adversely affect bats The 2015 Ecological Assessment highlighted the presence of nesting swallows in places in the buildings. In light of this, the applicant has submitted a Swallow Mitigation Strategy (4Woods Ecology Ltd, August 2017). The Council s ecologist considers that this document makes sensible recommendations in relation to timing of the works, inspection of the buildings and provision of replacement nesting features. Provided that these recommendations are secured by an appropriate condition, it is not considered that the proposals would have an adverse impact on nesting swallows Off-site ecology The proposed development would result in a net increase in residential dwellings within 13.6km of the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA). This distance defines the zone where new residents would be considered likely to visit the New Forest. The New Forest SPA supports a range of bird species that are vulnerable to impacts arising from increases in recreational use of the Forest that result from new housing development. It has been demonstrated through research, and agreed by Natural England that any net increase in dwellings would have a likely significant effect on the SPA when considered in combination with other plans and projects To address this, the Council has adopted an interim mitigation strategy whereby a scale of developer contributions of 1300 per new dwelling has been agreed that would fund the delivery of a new strategic area of alternative recreational open space that would offer the same sort of recreational opportunities as those offered by the New Forest. In this instance, the required contribution has been secured through the completion of an appropriate legal agreement As a result of the above, it is considered that the proposals comply with policy E5 of the RLP. This weighs in favour of the proposed development Listed Buildings The building proposed for conversion is adjacent to Eldon House and St John the Baptist Church, both of which are listed buildings. However, considering the distance between the site and the building and as a result of intervening vegetation and the fact that the proposed development involves the conversion of an existing building only, it is not considered that the proposals would affect these heritage assets.

9 8.27 The Planning Balance The proposals would be contrary to the development plan in that the conversion of the building would result in a new residential dwelling on a site designated as countryside in the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016 (RLP). The proposed development does not comply with either policy LE16 or COM2 of the RLP Notwithstanding the above, there are other material planning considerations that must be taken into account when determining this application and these must be weighed against the conflict with the development plan Paragraphs above detail the fall-back position of the applicant who has demonstrated that the residential conversion of the building under the PDQS application is more than a theoretical prospect. Conversion of the building is currently under way. The fall back position that the building can and are being converted to a residential use under permitted development is a consideration that weighs significantly in favour of the proposals now submitted In addition to the above, subject to conditions, it is not considered that the proposals would result in any adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, amenity, highways, ecology or heritage. This also weighs in favour of the scheme The residential conversion of some of the existing buildings on the site has been commenced under permitted development rights. Whilst the proposed development is contrary to the development plan, the fall-back position in that the buildings are to have a residential use, weighs significantly in favour of the scheme such that it justifies making a recommendation that is not in accordance with the development plan. As a result of this and as it is not considered that the proposed conversions would result in any harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, amenity, highways, ecology or heritage, the proposals should be permitted as per the recommendation below. 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposed development is a departure from the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016 in that it is contrary to policies LE16 and COM2. However, the conversion of the buildings on the site has commenced under permitted development (15/02923/PDQS). The conversion of the buildings to residential use us considered to be more than a theoretical prospect. The likely residential use of the site is a significant factor in determining this application and weighs significantly in favour of granting permission. Considering this, coupled with the proposals not resulting in any adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, amenity, highways, ecology or heritage, permission is recommended subject to conditions, contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.

10 10.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act The external materials to be used in the conversion shall include natural slate roof tiles (re-used where possible) and where new brickwork is required, bricks shall match in colour and type the brick used in the existing buildings. The timber cladding to be used for the external surfaces shall have a natural finish and/or a black and/or muted/natural stained finish. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development with the existing and to preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings in accordance with Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016) Policies E1 and E9. 3. Development shall proceed in accordance with the measures set out in the Swallow Mitigation Strategy by 4Woods Ecology Ltd (August 2017). Thereafter, the replacement nesting features in the garage and car ports shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To conserve and enhance biodiversity in accordance with Policy E5 of the Test Valley Revised Local Plan Notes to applicant: 1. In reaching this decision Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) has had regard to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. TVBC work with applicants and their agents in a positive and proactive manner offering a pre-application advice service and updating applicants/agents of issues that may arise in dealing with the application and where possible suggesting solutions. 2. Bats and their roosts receive strict legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). All work must stop immediately if bats, or evidence of bat presence (e.g. droppings, bat carcasses or insect remains), are encountered at any point during this development. Should this occur, further advice should be sought from Natural England and/or a professional ecologist.