Dear David TOWNLEY BROW FARM, DAM LANE, WARRINGTON I Am Pleased to Provide Our Transport Statement for the Above Site. Site Desc

Our Ref: jgv/13000/300513 Your Ref:

Northern Transport Planning Ltd Suite 7 Leith Planning Vincent House 136 Westgate 14 South Clifton Street WAKEFIELD Lytham WF2 9SR

Lancs. T 01924 367460 E [email protected] FY8 5HN W www.ntpconsultants.co.uk

For the attention of David Morse

Dear David

TOWNLEY BROW FARM, DAM LANE, WARRINGTON

I am pleased to provide our Transport Statement for the above site.

Site Description and Location

The development site is located north of Dam Lane in Rixton-with-Glazebrook, approximately 1.5km southwest of the centre of Glazebrook, approximately 1.5km northwest of the centre of Hollins Green, and approximately 11.0km east of the centre of Warrington.

The site is currently occupied by farm buildings, including a brick-built barn and various outbuildings, newer storage buildings and polytunnels. Vehicular access to the site is available direct from Dam Lane via a simple farm access junction.

Proposed Development

The development proposals comprise the following:  Conversion of the brick-built barn to a pair of semi-detached dwellings.  Construction of a detached garage.  Conversion of a storage building for use as a garage.  Demolition and removal of various outbuildings and polytunnels.

Access to one of the dwellings would be achieved via a private drive using the existing farm access. Access to the second dwelling would be achieved direct from Dam Lane via a new private drive.

Access on Foot

It is generally accepted that walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly under two kilometres.

Having regard to the alignment of the links for pedestrians and barriers to movement such as watercourses and motorways, the built-up areas of Glazebrook, Rixton, Hollins Green and parts of Cadishead are all within walking distance from the proposed development site. Within these areas are a range of shops, schools, post offices, employment opportunities, etc.

Access by Cycle

It is generally accepted that cycling has the potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under five kilometres, and to form part of a longer journey by public transport.

The site benefits from its location on part of Warrington’s designated Cycle Network, and the highway network in the vicinity of the site is attractive for cyclists. Having regard to the alignment of the links for cyclists and barriers to movement, the built-up areas of Glazebrook, Rixton, Hollins Green, Cadishead, Warburton, Heatley, Birchwood Park and parts of Irlam are all within cycling distance from the proposed development site. Within these areas are a significant number of shops, amenities, facilities and opportunities for employment.

Access by Public Transport

The bus stops nearest to the proposed development site are located around 1.2km away, on Manchester Road in Hollings Green. From here the No. 100 bus service is available. The No. 100 bus service serves a wide geographical area where there are a significant number of shops, supermarkets, amenities and facilities which would be of use to residents of the proposed development. The bus service also provides public transport links to Warrington, Irlam and Eccles railway stations and the bus stations at Warrington, Trafford Centre, Eccles, Salford and Manchester, where further excellent opportunities for public transport are available.

In addition to the bus service No. 100, school/college bus services are available from bus stops at Glazebrook Station, approximately 1.2km from the proposed development site.

Glazebrook Station is on the Manchester to Liverpool line. Monday to Saturday (daytime and evening) services are roughly two hourly calling at places such as Padgate, Birchwood, Irlam, Urmston, Trafford Park, Liverpool Lime Street, Halewood, Warrington and Widnes. There are additional peak services but no Sunday services (the nearest stations with Sunday services are Irlam or Birchwood).

Access by Vehicle

Access to one of the dwellings would be achieved direct from Dam Lane via a private drive using the existing farm access (Access Point A). Access to the second dwelling would be achieved direct from Dam Lane via a new private drive (Access Point B).

Dam Lane is generally aligned southeast-northwest, and provides a connection between Hollings Green/Glazebrook and the houses and farms located off Dam Lane, Moss Lane and School Lane. Dam Lane is an unclassified local distributor road having a single carriageway of around 4.5m in width – this width is satisfactory for the two-way movement of cars and Light Goods Vehicles. Very few Heavy Goods Vehicles use Dam Lane due to the nature and location of the road, but those that do, such as refuse vehicles, make use of areas of local road widening to pass oncoming traffic at slow speed – good forward visibility along Dam Lane and low traffic flows (the peak period two-way traffic flow on Dam Lane is around 30 vehicles per hour) assist with two-way traffic movement. Although the national speed limit applies, the speed of traffic using Dam Lane is low, at below 30mph.

The site is currently under-utilised, but it has in the recent past generated a higher level of traffic due to its use as a farm, and has the potential to generate a higher level of traffic due to re-use, for example as part of farm diversification.

The proposed development of two dwellings would generate a two-way traffic flow of around 12 vehicles per day, with peak period traffic flows of one or two vehicles per hour. This level of traffic would be considerably less than that generated by the site as a farm. There is no reason to consider that Access Point A would not provide satisfactory access to the single dwelling – existing traffic volumes and speeds on Dam Lane are low and the access has operated safely and within capacity for many years with a higher level of traffic than that which would be generated by a single dwelling. Similarly the proposed Access Point B would provide satisfactory access to the second dwelling.

There is no reason to consider that the traffic generated by the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the operation of the local highway network, either in terms of capacity or in terms of highway safety.

Servicing of the site, such as refuse collections or deliveries, would be achieved direct from Dam Lane – this is the same as existing.

Conclusion

When considering the siting of new development, the main aim of both national and local transport related policy is that the site should be conveniently accessible by a range of transport modes. The Townley Brow Farm site is well located for residential development, being:  Accessible on foot.  Accessible by cycle.  Accessible by public transport.  Accessible by private car and taxi.  Readily serviced by commercial vehicles.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development is satisfactory from a transport policy, traffic and highway viewpoint and there are no transport-related reasons for withholding planning consent.

Yours sincerely

John Vernon for Northern Transport Planning Ltd Email: [email protected]

PLANNING STATEMENT

CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO 2 SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS

TOWNLEY BROW FARM, DAM LANE, RIXTON, WARRINGTON

May 2013

Prepared by:

Leith Planning Ltd 14 South Clifton Street Lytham St Annes Lancashire FY8 5HN

Tel: 01253 795548 Fax: 01253 795587 Email: [email protected] CONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

SECTION 2 PLANNING HISTORY

SECTION 3 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

SECTION 5 EVOLVING DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

SECTION 6 OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS

SECTION 7 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT – DEVELOPMENT PLAN

SECTION 8 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

SECTION 9 CONCLUSIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRINT OUT

APPENDIX 2 PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE FROM JASON LEWIS DATED 16TH APRIL 2013.

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

Instructions: Leith Planning Ltd were instructed to prepare and submit a planning application for the conversion of an agricultural building at Townley Brow Farm, Dam Lane, Rixton, Warrington, Cheshire, WA3 6LE into two semi- detached dwellings.

Description of Development: The description of development for this application reads as follows:

“Conversion of agricultural building to residential use, comprising of two semi- detached dwellings, along with demolition of existing agricultural buildings and associated landscaping.’’

Notes:

1) The development includes the removal of existing unsightly agricultural buildings which will significantly reduce the extent of built development on site and enhance the visual amenity of the site and the openness of the Green Belt; 2) The application incorporates significant provision of additional landscaping which will further enhance the setting and character of the site;

Site Description: The application site is located on a rural highway within the designated Green Belt. The site is situated in the village of Rixton which is located to the east of Warrington.

The site is relatively flat in topography and includes a complex of agricultural buildings comprising of agricultural units, substantial brick buildings and is adjacent to a two storey farmhouse.

Planning Statement: This planning statement evaluates the development in the context of current Government, Regional and local policies, as well as paying due regard to any referable supplementary planning documents and the evolving policy framework. The statement will deal with the substantive planning issues associated with this proposal and outline the justification behind the submission.

Pre-Application Advice: Following the submission of a request for pre- application advice, an email was received from the Case Officer, Jason Lewis, dated 16th April 2013. According to the email, the principle of the conversion within the Green Belt is acceptable, subject to the building being of permanent and substantial construction. This has been substantiated through a structural survey which is submitted in support of this application. Furthermore, Mr Lewis detailed further requirements for a valid submission such as an Ecological survey, which has also been submitted in support of this application. The full version of the correspondence can be found at Appendix 2.

Parish Council Comment: Following the submission of the principle of development along with supporting drawings, the Parish Council raised the following issues:

 Development affects the Green Belt

Comment: As is demonstrated throughout this submission, the proposed development will have a positive impact on the Green Belt. Through the removal of unsightly, agricultural buildings, the built density of the site will be reduced and associated landscaping will add visual value to the site and contribute to the Green Belt in the locale. This view is shared by the provisions of the NPPF and the Case Officer, who states in his pre-application advice:

“Generally the principle of conversions is acceptable within the Green Belt subject to the building being of permanent and substantial construction.”

 Visually Dominant

Comment: It is considered that the conversion of the brick built barn will have no detrimental impact on the character of the site. Converting the barn into two semi-detached residential dwellings will consist of mainly internal works, with the character of the building being retained. Additionally, the removal of existing agricultural buildings will enhance the visual value of the site, through reducing the built density in a Green Belt location. Furthermore, matters of design are dealt with in further detail throughout this report and in the drawings and in the Design and Access Statement, submitted in support of this application.

 Loss of Agricultural Land

Comment: It is noted that the agricultural operations have not been undertaken from this site for 4 years. The land associated with Townley Brow Farm has been taken over by an adjacent farm and they are now responsible for the operation and maintenance of the surrounding land. In light of this, it is considered that agricultural operations are not lost and that they have been transferred to another operator.

SECTION 2 PLANNING HISTORY

The planning history of the property as detailed on the Council website is understood to be as follows:

Application Ref: 2009/15188 Description of Development: Proposed demolition of existing store and construction of store and stables. Decision: Approved Decision Date: 24th November 2009

Application Ref: 2010/16566 Description of Development: Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey detached dwelling with basement, first floor balcony to side and rear and associated landscaping. Decision: Approved Decision Date: 23rd August 2010

Main Merits of Scheme The following points have been taken from the Officer’s Report on the Approval of the above application:

- Proposal is for a replacement dwelling - Development within scale of original dwelling - Permitted Development rights were present on original dwelling - Alternative access has been demonstrated

Application Ref: 2012/20450 Description of Development: Application for variation of Condition 1 to expand the time limit for implementation of previously approved permission 2009/15188 (Demolition of existing store and construction of store and stables) Decision: Approved Decision Date: 28th September 2012

Comment: The above section details the recent planning history concerning the application site subject to this submission. It is noted that an application was approved for the demolition and rebuild of a residential dwelling on site (ref: 2010/16566). Due to the nature of this application, the main merits of the scheme have been drawn from the Officer’s Delegated Report and detailed above.

SECTION 3 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The National Planning Policy Framework was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2012. The key paragraphs of relevance to the determination of this application include:

Achieving Sustainable Development: Paragraph 6 states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. Paragraph 7 states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:  An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;  A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and  An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy. Paragraph 8 states that to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Paragraph 9 states that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):  making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;  moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;  replacing poor design with better design;  improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and  widening the choice of high quality homes.

Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development: Paragraph 14 states that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means:  approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and  where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: – any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or – specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes: Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Paragraph 51 states that local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory purchase powers. They should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

Paragraph 54 states that in rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs.

Paragraph 55 outlines that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as where the development would re-use

7 redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.

Requiring good design: Paragraph 56 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Paragraph 57 states that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

Paragraph 61 states that although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Paragraph 66 states that applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.

Protecting Green Belt land: Paragraph 90 states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These include

- the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction.

Decision Taking: Paragraph 186 states that local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.

Paragraph 187 states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Determining Applications: Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan-led; planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This Framework is a material consideration in

8 planning decisions. In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Comment: The proposed development adheres to the principles contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly Paragraph 90. With regards to the form, design and impact of the development on the local area, the proposed conversion is respectful of the rural character of the application site and designed to reflect local characteristics.

The sympathetic conversion of the existing agricultural building will have a more beneficial impact on the character and visual appearance of the Green Belt than the existing uses, bearing in mind that the development will result in the removal of redundant outbuildings. This will not only improve the visual amenity of the site and local area but will also enhance the openness of the Green Belt. Overall, the proposed development will secure a significant reduction in the extent of built development on the site which is considered to be a significant material consideration.

SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires a local planning authority, in dealing with a planning application, to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, as far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 refers to determinations to be made under the Planning acts as follows:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Warrington Unitary Development Plan: The current Warrington Unitary Development Plan was adopted and became operative in June 2005. Within the current policy context the site subject of this application is designated as Green Belt, see plan extract included below:

The key referable saved policies of relevance to the development proposed are as follows:

Policy GRN1 – The Green Belt: States that the boundaries of the Green Belt in Warrington, which is contiguous with the Green Belt in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and North Cheshire, are shown on the Proposals Map, and will be protected for as far as can be seen ahead.

With the exception of the green boundaries defined in the:

1. Rixton Brickworks Local Plan 1980; 2. Walton Park Subject Plan 1982; 3. Stretton Airfield Local Plan 1982; and 4. Parts of the Greater Manchester and Merseyside green belts lying within areas of the borough ceded from neighbouring authorities since those green belts were formally adopted, the green belt boundary is being defined for the first time.

Changes to the approved Green Belt boundaries have been made in the following locations:

a. Land east of, and adjacent to the Barleycastle Trading Estate, Appleton (to exclude from the green belt an area already committed to development, not through the UDP process but through planning permission granted in June 2000 on the basis of special circumstances following a call-in inquiry. The effect of the deletion of the proposed further allocation of employment land to the east of the committed site prior to adoption of the plan is that no further change to the established green belt is proposed. b. The northern part of Glazebury village (for the reasons explained and justified in policy GRN4)

Within the Green Belt, planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development except in very special circumstances.

The erection of new buildings within the Green Belt will be inappropriate unless the building is for:

 agriculture and forestry; or  essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the green belt, and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; or  the limited extension or alteration of existing dwellings (subject to policy HOU8); or  limited infilling of an appropriate scale and character in green belt villages (subject to policy GRN5); or  limited infilling within or redevelopment of major developed sites identified in, and subject to, policy GRN8; or  the replacement of existing dwellings provided that the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces, and does not harm the visual amenities of the green belt or the character of the countryside; or  the re-use of existing buildings within the green belt (subject to the provisions of policy GRN6).

Proposals which involve a material change in the use of land or engineering or other operations (as set out in the statutory definition of development) will not be appropriate unless they maintain the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Comment: The development proposed at Townley Brow Farm is in compliance with Policy GRN1 given that the scheme comprises of the re-use of an existing building, therefore retaining current scale and character. In addition the overall amendments and improvements proposed on site will significantly enhance the character and visual appearance and reduce built development within the Green Belt through the removal of several existing unsightly outbuildings, along with landscaping of the site.

Policy HOU1 – Housing Land: Outlines that:

1. Sufficient land for housing, including conversions of existing buildings, will be provided to accommodate an annual average of 380 dwellings (net of clearance) between April 2002 and March 2016. 2. The proportion of new housing on previously developed land (including conversions of existing buildings) will at least meet the 80% sub regional target set by RPG13 (now RSS) Policy UR4. 3. Sufficient land to meet the 2002-2016 requirement has been identified from the following sources, and is detailed in Appendix 3:

3.1 sites with planning permission and those where the Council has resolved to grant permission subject to a planning obligation; 3.2 sites with approval under Section 7(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 and those on previously developed land with approval under Section 7(1) of the Act; 3.3 previously developed land within the urban areas of the Borough (as defined in Appendix 3), the development of which would contribute to urban regeneration and sustainability and would not conflict with other policies of the Plan. 3.4 Planning permission will not be granted for housing development on greenfield sites. 3.5 Planning applications for provision of housing on previously developed sites (including the re-use or conversion of existing buildings) and for the renewal of existing permissions will be assessed against the other policies of the Plan and in particular Policies HOU2A, EMP4 and EMP8. 3.6 Insofar as housing land supply can be regulated by refusal of permission and phasing mechanisms the Council will, in implementing this Policy, ensure that the rate of development does not substantially exceed the required annual average net increase in housing stock. 3.7 If at any time the rate does substantially exceed the requirement, applications for planning permission for residential development or mixed schemes that include housing:

 will only be approved where delay would seriously prejudice the successful regeneration of the site, in terms of its providing a solution to

environmental problems associated with the site, whilst at the same time contributing to the balanced, social, economic, and environmental well- being of the wider area in which it is located, including other parts of the North West Metropolitan Area.  will not be approved where an existing dwelling or building in social or other active use would be demolished, unless its demolition would materially improve the visual character of the area. Any net increase in the housing stock resulting from such a proposal will be accorded minimal weight.

NB: The “rate of development” will be regarded as substantially exceeding the required annual average when the forecast net increase in housing stock (including an allowance for windfalls and small sites) over the next 5 year period exceeds the requirement for that period. The “requirement for that period” means the net increase in stock required to ensure that 5,320 (ie 380 x 14 years) units can be achieved between 2002 and 2016.

Comment: The provision of additional housing through the conversion/re-use of existing buildings complies with HOU1 and GRN1. Additionally, the development includes the removal of existing structures on site and significant on and off site improvements with the provision of extensive landscaping.

Policy DCS1 – Development Control Strategy: Notes that; development proposals should be designed to a high standard and should:

1. preserve the amenities of near neighbours; The conversion proposed in this application will have no greater an impact upon neighbour amenities; rather it will reduce built development. 2. preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area; The conversion, alongside the removal of some existing unsightly structures will reduce the overall extent of built development on site which will both preserve and enhance the appearance of both the site and wider area. In addition the scale of the redevelopment will remain appropriate to its surroundings. 3. conserve the natural, and the historic built environments; The applicant is proposing to install landscaping which will significantly enhance and protect the natural environment 4. make efficient use of land and other natural resources; The development will ensure an efficient and effective use of land through a carefully considered landscape scheme and the removal of existing buildings. 5. integrate efficiently with existing public utilities and the highway network; Please see Design and Access Statement. 6. avoid undue reliance on the private car; Please see supporting Transport Statement regarding sustainable travel. 7. where appropriate incorporate attractive landscaping and spaces; As detailed throughout this report the application comprises significant provision of suitable and appropriate landscaping on site. 8. aim to deter crime; This principle has been considered throughout the development of this application. 9. be accessible. Please see Transport Statement

Comment: The development subject of this application complies with the tests laid out within policy DCS1 and as such is deemed to be acceptable.

Policy LUT15 – The Greenway Network: Advises that:

1. The Greenway Network, as identified on the Proposals Map, comprises a borough-wide system of existing and potential off-road routes for walking and cycling, and in parts for horse riding, connecting people to facilities, places of work and green spaces in and around the urban area, and to the countryside. 2. Development proposals on sites that adjoin a greenway will be expected to satisfy the following requirements: a. The enhancement of the condition and appearance of existing routes; b. The development of potential routes as part of the approved scheme; c. Provide appropriate segregation of the route for the various users; and d. Afford priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders at junctions. 3. Where a development proposal adjoins a greenway, improvements and extensions to the network, including the provision of local spurs off the network to connect the development, will be sought through negotiation. 4. Development will not be permitted if it would materially harm either of the following: a. Access onto or through the network, unless specific arrangements are made for suitable alternative linkages that are no less attractive, safe, or convenient; b. The reasonable enjoyment of the network by unacceptably affecting amenity for users by way of visual intrusion, noise, smells, or other forms of pollution.

Comment: The proposed development is considered to contribute to the Greenway Network, as the reduction in the built development of the site, alongside the intended landscaping add value to the site in these terms.

Policy LUT24 – Development affecting Airport Operational Safety: States that the Proposals Map shows the extent of the officially safeguarded areas for Liverpool John Lennon Airport and Manchester International Airport within the borough. Within these areas, the Council, in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, will not permit development which would have an adverse impact upon the safe and efficient operation of the Airports.

Comment: The application site is understood to be located within the airport safeguarding zone. However, given that the development does not result in a significant increase in the height of development on site and does in fact reduce the overall extent of built development on site, the scheme is not considered to result in any safeguarding affects which would justify refusal of the application.

Policy HOU3 – Housing Development – Development Control: States that:

1. All housing developments in the borough should be well designed and well planned so as to enhance the local community and the character and quality of the local environment. In considering development proposals, the Council will take into account:

 neighbouring buildings and the townscape and landscape of the wider locality;  the local pattern of streets and spaces, building traditions and materials, and the street scene;  the appropriateness of the density, size, type, affordability and mix of the housing development proposed in relation to local needs and circumstances;  the amount of space around buildings and the proportion of the site and plots within it occupied by buildings and hard surfacing;  the need to protect and enhance important landscape features and habitats and create greener residential areas;  the need to promote designs and layouts which are safe and take account of public health, crime prevention and community safety considerations, including road safety and safe play provision;  the quality of the environment created for occupiers of the proposed development and neighbouring properties, including daylight and sunlight requirements and privacy;  the effect on levels and quality of open space in the local area;  the need to improve poor quality environments and areas lacking local identity by imaginative designs and layouts;  impacts on access to jobs, shops and services and on the capacity of physical and social infrastructure, in terms of the need to introduce mixed use or make provision for improvements;

The extent to which the applicant has had regard to the above criteria should be expressed in a Design Statement (as required by UDP policy DCS6) to demonstrate how the need for good layout and design has been taken into account and how the proposals make efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment. Development proposals that fail to fully address these considerations will not be approved.

2. All applicants will be required to provide evidence that local consultation has taken place prior to the submission of their proposals, and to indicate in the Design Statement how the consultation has influenced the submitted proposals.

3. When considering development proposals that will result in the loss of a building that provides a use that is of significant social or community value, the Council will take into account the effect of such loss on community life and will require evidence that the market for continuation of the existing use has been adequately tested.

4. Housing layouts should:

 limit traffic speed;  meet the mobility needs of the disabled;

 provide for access and movement in accordance with the transport priorities set out in policies LUT1 and LUT2 to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport, and minimise trips by car;  make provision for car parking that does not exceed the Council’s maximum standards, and take into account the need for cycle storage space.

Layouts developed fully in accordance with the design principles of ‘home zones’ will be welcomed.

Comment: Criteria laid out in HOU3 have been carefully considered in this proposal and can be demonstrated in the drawings and the Design and Access Statement that accompanies this statement in support of the application.

Policy GRN6 – The Re-Use of Buildings in the Green Belt: Advises that the re-use of buildings in the green belt will be permitted provided that:

1. the proposed use does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the green belt, the character of the countryside, or visual amenity; 2. no detriment is caused to the openness of the green belt or the character of the countryside through any associated uses of land surrounding the building; 3. the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction; 4. the form, bulk, and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings and any associated extensions or alterations respect their character and style, or achieve an improvement to the external appearance of the buildings; 5. the proposed use does not cause detriment to the amenity of neighbours; 6. the development will not materially worsen traffic conditions or adversely affect road safety; 7. the proposal takes account of the interests of nature conservation, particularly where buildings may be used by bats, barn owls, nesting birds or other protected species; and 8. the proposal does not adversely affect the rural economy through the loss of viable premises suitable for local commerce or industry.

Comment: The proposed conversion of the existing building complies with the above policy, with retention of the existing form, bulk and design. The removal of existing agricultural buildings reduces the built development density of the site, enhancing the openness of the Greenbelt. Furthermore, the conversion will have no detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbours.

The proposals are not considered to have any greater impact upon traffic conditions than the existing position, however, consideration has been made of the access, as highlighted in previously approved application 2010/16566. Details of these considerations can be found in the transport statement that has been submitted in support of this application.

The development is respectful of nature conservation and will result in significant visual enhancement of the site and setting through the provision of significant landscaping and the removal of several existing unsightly existing agricultural buildings. The re-use of the building for residential use is deemed to be compliant with policy GRN6.

Policy DCS7 – Provision and Enhancement of Landscaping in New Development: States that in approving proposals for new development, the Council will, where appropriate, require the submission of a scheme of landscaping and/or tree planting which should:

1. enhance the quality of the layout, setting and design of the development; 2. achieve an appropriate balance between the open space and built form of development in relation to the character of the surrounding area; 3. provide effective screening to sensitive boundaries where appropriate; 4. utilise plant species which are in sympathy with the character of existing vegetation in the general area and at the specific site, including locally native species where appropriate; and 5. make satisfactory provision for aftercare and maintenance.

Comment: The development incorporates significant tracts of landscaping and as such is deemed to comply with the requirements of this policy. Please also see supporting site plan which details the landscaping scheme.

Development Plan Comment: For the reasons outlined above, the development proposed at Townley Brow Farm, Dam Lane, Rixton is considered to adhere in full to the policies, principles and requirements of the adopted development plan and is therefore deemed to be acceptable.

As is demonstrated throughout this application, the proposal accords with the provisions of the development plan, a view which is also taken by the Case Officer in the pre application advice, which can be found at Appendix 2. An extract of which reads:

“Generally the principle of conversions is acceptable within the Green Belt subject to the building being of permanent and substantial construction.”

Given that this application is submitted with a structural survey as requested, it is considered that the development is deemed as acceptable by the Case Officer, and as such should be granted permission.

SECTION 5 EVOLVING DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Regard has been had to the position of the evolving local development framework and included at Appendix 1 is a development plan schedule for Warrington Borough Council detailing the evolving policy framework within the Local Development Framework, namely:

 Land Allocations DPD: Issues and Options expected October-November 2013.

 Core Strategy DPD: The Core Strategy has already been through several phases of public consultation. Proposed Modifications Consultation 7 January -5pm 18 February 2013. Pre-examination 19 February 2013. Examination Hearings 4, 10 and 11 June 2013.

 Community Infrastructure Levy: No timetable is currently available but work is not expected to begin on this document until 2013.

Comment: The evolving policy framework, detailed above, is in the early stages of production and as such is of limited weight to the determination of this application. A full account of the policy framework has been included in this report for completeness and can be found at Appendix 1.

SECTION 6 OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS

In the preparation of this application due regard has been paid to the content of the following Supplementary Planning Guidance Documents:

 Design and Construction (adopted October 2010);  Landscape Design (adopted September 2007);  Affordable Housing (adopted September 2007); and  Managing the Housing Supply (adopted 16th July 2007)

Particular regard will now be paid to the two key supplementary planning documents as follows:

Managing the Housing Supply SPD

Paragraph 3.4 notes that other than in exceptional circumstances, planning applications for residential development for the following proposals, sites and / or locations will be refused as inconsistent with the priority afforded to regeneration in managing housing supply. This includes:

 Greenfield sites  Backland and infill development, including the development of private gardens  Conversion of agricultural buildings and barn conversions  Conversion of existing dwellings which would result in a net increase of residential units.  The redevelopment for housing of existing employment sites in active use (unless special circumstances apply - see page 6).  Loss of viable Town Centre uses in favour of residential development will not be supported.  Redevelopment of existing housing sites at a higher density.

In all other cases the applicant will need to consider the following:

• Are there serious environmental problems associated with the site that require attention? • Would a delay in developing the site seriously prejudice the successful regeneration of the site?

If both of the above apply, would the proposal contribute to the balanced, social, economic and environmental well-being of the wider area in which the site is located? This may be interpreted as borough-wide and can also include reference to other parts of the North West Metropolitan Area.

Paragraph 3.5 outlines that the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate why the site requires residential development, highlighting what the negative impacts are of leaving the site in its current condition. Furthermore, the applicant will need to clearly set out the social, economic and environmental benefits supported by a

19 full range of planning obligations in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD and therefore, how such benefits outweigh the concerns of oversupply.

Paragraph 3.6 states that applicants will be expected to fully demonstrate the benefits of the proposal alongside the criteria listed in policy HOU2, clearly identifying the wider regeneration opportunities. Within the Inner Areas of Warrington that consists of those wards suffering from multiple deprivation and where the need for investment and improvement is greatest, applicants should clearly identify the particular environmental problems being addressed and why delay would prejudice the achievement of significant wider regeneration. Regeneration benefits should be addressed in social, economic and environmental terms with clear linkages between these benefits and the wellbeing of the area. Examples include:

Social Regeneration Affordable Housing: The Council will support proposals, which deliver a minimum of 50% affordable housing that reflects local housing need. (Applicants should consider the PPS3 definitions of what constitutes affordable housing). Early discussions with the Council are strongly encouraged and applicants are advised to consider their proposals alongside the potential assistance that can be provided by initiatives operated by English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation. Specific reference should be given to policy HOU15 and the Affordable Housing SPD.

It is also understood that the majority of proposals that emerge are likely to fall short of the 50% level: in those circumstances, the Council will have regard to the overall package of social, environmental and economic regeneration benefits to determine whether they are of sufficient weight to justify approval without delay.2007

Comment: In relation to the development subject of this application there are significant benefits which are to be achieved through the grant of consent which are material to the assessment of the scheme, namely:

 The loss of existing agricultural buildings, reducing the built environment of the site, in turn enhancing the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt;  Subject to the Structural Survey, the agricultural building is deemed acceptable for conversion and  The provision of extensive tracts of landscaping on site to improve the visual amenity and biodiversity of the local area and Green Network.

These environmental and social regeneration benefits should be given significant weight in the assessment of this development. In addition, consideration should be had to the previously approved scheme to site a two storey dwelling on the site (2010/16566), and the approval of neighbouring works following similar principles.

It is considered that these material considerations are of sufficient weight to justify approving the development, in circumstances where the proposal already accords with the development plan. It should also be borne in mind that the site is currently vacant and without securing a viable development for re-use of the site, it will further degrade and have detrimental future impacts upon the visual amenity and quality and character of the Green Belt.

SECTION 7 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT– DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Development Plan - Section 70(2): of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires a local planning authority, in dealing with a planning application, to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, as far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

Section 38(6): of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 refers to determinations to be made under the Planning Acts as follows:

Statutory Development Plan: The statutory Development Plan is the National Planning Policy Framework and the Warrington Unitary Development Plan adopted June 2005 and the principle of development falls to be considered against these provisions, particularly Policy GRN6.

Comment: Given that the criterion set out in Policy GRN6 are met there is a legitimate expectation, based on Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the proposed development will be permitted. The matter of other material considerations are dealt with in Section 11.

Location: There is an elementary and fundamental problem which needs to be resolved at the outset in the making of decisions under s.38 (6). There are all manner of policies in the development; which one comes first or has priority? The first point is often determinative – Location comes first followed by project. Why? Because an examination of for example; the National Planning Policy Framework demonstrates that location governs what might or might not be granted permission in the area concerned.

Prematurity: One extremely thorny problem is the position where a development plan is in the course of preparation. In practical terms there are two related questions: first, the status of the emerging policies; and, secondly, whether a planning application made prior to approval or adoption of the plan should be refused as premature.

On the first question, it is clear that a policy is not to be deprived of effect simply because the plan in which it is contained has not completed all the stages of preparation. On the other hand such policies will not be given the same weight as those which have completed the normal process leading to approval or adoption. The Government view is that the weight to be accorded to such plans or proposal

22 will increase as successive stages on the statutory procedures are reached. The earlier the stage, the less opportunity there will have been for public scrutiny and objection, and the more likely will be modifications – consequently, less weight, will be given. Also relevant, will be the degree of any conflict with existing plans, and whether any objections have been lodged to a deposited plan: these go to the issue of whether the plan is likely to be modified to a deposited plan is likely to be modified before being adopted. Here much will depend on the nature of the objections and whether there is also countervailing support for the policy.

SECTION 8 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Other Material Considerations – Generally: Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act deals with determination of applications: general considerations requires that the authority in dealing with the application shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. Whether a consideration is material is a matter for the courts; the weight to be accorded to a material consideration is a matter for the decision- maker. There are a number of ‘other material considerations’ outlined below which would support the grant of consent.

Material Considerations – Sustainability: Sustainable development is a cornerstone of Government policy and is always a material consideration.

Material Considerations – Planning gain offers by developers: Chapter 2 of Circular 05/05 refers to planning gain and advantages. The development proposed is submitted with the benefit of significant planning gain for the local community including:

 Reduction in built development on site, through removal of agricultural buildings, which is harming the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt;  The provision of significant areas of landscaping which will make a significant contribution to the greenway whilst maintaining the essential openness of the Green Belt.  The enhancement of biodiversity through site improvements to attract wildlife;  The re-use of currently redundant buildings in the Green Belt; and

Material Consideration – Effect on Neighbouring Properties: It is commonplace for the local planning authority to take into account the amenity interests of those who live adjacent to the site in question. The proposed development will not, on balance, harm the amenity of neighbouring properties or the local environment. In fact, when landscaping/mitigation measures are taken into account alongside the reduction in development density, the overall impact on the local environment will be beneficial.

Material Consideration – Visual Amenity: Damage to the visual amenity of a locality as a whole is a material consideration, such as a building not in keeping with the surrounding area.

The development proposed incorporates the removal of unsightly, former agricultural buildings, which are felt to harm the aesthetics of the area. The loss of these structures will be a significant enhancement to the visual amenity of the site and wider area and will further improve the openness of the Green Belt.

Material Consideration: Design: In determining whether or not to grant planning permission the local planning authority has the discretional judgment as to whether the development is appropriate and visually in keeping with the area. However, Government policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration. The matter of design is dealt with in the Design and Access Statement.

Material Consideration: Government (Non-Planning Policy): Government policy, other than planning policy is always a material consideration, the question of weight is a matter for the decision maker. See Kent CC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1976] P & C.R. 70.

Decision Making: Overall Advantage: In addition to those matters relating to decision making, such as the development plan and sustainable development, there is inevitably a balancing exercise to be carried out; few decisions are free of such an approach. The phrase “overall-advantage” reflects this balance; at the end of the day the decision-maker must attach what weight he considers appropriate to the material consideration in question. The so-called “overall- advantage” is nothing more than the weighing of often disparate planning considerations so that it can be said that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or the reverse.

Comment: Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act deals with determination of applications: general consideration requires that the authority, in dealing with the application, shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. We have evaluated the following material considerations, namely:

 Effect on neighbouring properties  Visual amenity  Design  Government (non-planning policy)  Planning Gain.

Whether a consideration is material is a matter for the courts; the weight accorded to a material consideration is a matter for the decision-maker. None of the material considerations, taken individually, have dis-benefits which cannot be addressed or mitigated. However, collectively the other material considerations are over-whelming in favour of the development. The so-called “overall- advantage” involves the weighing of often disparate planning considerations; in this instance the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages.

SECTION 9 CONCLUSIONS

Description of Development: The description of development reads as follows:

“Conversion of agricultural building to residential use, comprising of two semi- detached dwellings, along with demolition of existing agricultural buildings and associated landscaping.’’

Notes:

National Planning Policy Framework: The development is consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to the form, design and impact of the development on the local area. The converted dwelling houses are respectful of the rural character of the application site and designed to reflect local characteristics.

The residential dwellings are not materially larger than the existing building and will have no greater impact on the character and visual appearance of the Green Belt than the existing use. It should also be borne in mind that the development will result in the removal of redundant outbuildings which will not only improve the visual amenity of the site and local area but will also enhance the openness of the Green Belt. Overall, the proposed development will secure a significant reduction in the extent of built development on the site which is considered to be a significant material consideration.

Development Plan: The statutory Development Plan is the National Planning Policy Framework and the Warrington Unitary Development Plan adopted June 2005 and the principle of development falls to be considered against these provisions, particularly Policy GRN6.

Other Policy Documents: In evaluating this development we have had regard to the following documents, namely:

 Design And Construction SPD;  Landscape Design SPD; and  Managing the Housing Supply SPD

Principle of Development – Development Plan: Given that the criterion set out in Policy GRN6 are met there is a legitimate expectation, based on Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the proposed development will be permitted. The matters of other material considerations are dealt with in Section 11.

Material Considerations: Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act deals with determination of applications: general considerations require that the authority in dealing with the application shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. We have evaluated the following material considerations, namely:

 Effect on neighbouring properties  Visual amenity  Design  Government (non-planning policy)  Planning Gain

Whether a consideration is material is a matter for the courts; the weight to be accorded to a material consideration is a matter for the decision-maker. None of the material considerations, taken individually, have dis-benefits which cannot be addressed or mitigated. However, collectively the other material considerations are over-whelming in favour of the development. The so-called “overall- advantage” involves the weighing of often disparate planning considerations; in this instance the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Comment: In summary, we have submitted a well-conceived planning application, which pays due regard to its setting and the character of the local area. Given that the criterions set out in determinative Policy GRN6 are met there is a legitimate expectation, based on Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Furthermore, the so-called “overall-advantage” involves the weighing of often disparate planning considerations; in this instance the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages.

STRUCTURAL INSPECTION REPORT

ADDRESS

TOWNLEY BROW FARM DAM LANE RIXTON WARRINGTON WA3 6LE

Date: MARCH 2013

Prepared By:

J R Cooper Bsc Hons IEng AMIStructE

NORTH CHESHIRE DEVELOPMENTS LTD 91 Liverpool Rd Cadishead Manchester M44 5BG

CONTENTS

SECTION

Circulation / Issue History 1.0 Introduction 2.0 References 3.0 Survey and Observations 4.0 Conclusions Appendix A Photographs Appendix B – Existing layouts and Elevation Drawings

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

CIRCULATION / ISSUE HISTORY

Version Ref Status Issued To Date A 038SIR001 I C Chisnall 15042013

ISSUE STATUS CODES:

Preliminary Information Approval Billing Tender Construction Requested

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

1.0 Introduction

This report relates to the structural inspection of an existing agricultural building at Townley Brow Farm, Rixton. North Cheshire Developments Ltd were instructed by Mr C Chisnall to provide a structural report on the agricultural building for the purpose of potential redevelopment.

The weather at the time of inspection was warm and dry.

The terms of this report are limited to matters of a structural nature. Whilst non structural building defects and hazardous materials may be noted and commented upon, these are not within the remit of the services provided. The survey has been limited to accessible areas and is generally non‐ intrusive. Below ground investigations have not been undertaken.

2.0 References

The following have been referred to in compiling this report:

Architectural Ref:

1304‐01 DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT

1304‐02 LOCATION PLAN

1304‐03 SITE SURVEY

1304‐04 SITE PLAN

1304‐05 BARN AS EXISTING

1304‐06 BARN AS PROPOSED

For ease of orientation, the descriptions are based on viewing the building from the roadside entrance i.e. front, rear, left and right side. Descriptions of particular elevations are as stood directly facing them and referenced to Drg 1304‐05 in Appendix B.

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

3.0 Survey & Observations Agricultural Barn Units 1&2

Overview

This agricultural building comprises two storeys containing 8 rooms at ground level and 3 rooms at 1st floor level. This traditional brick built barn with slate roof coverings has been subject to a number of extensions and alterations throughout its life.

Running the full width of the rear is a single storey extension with a mono pitch roof. The left side has been extended perpendicular to the original barn. The 2 storey duo pitched extension gives an L shape to the overall building on plan. The original duo pitched barn forms the centre and right side area. The traditional construction techniques used are vernacular to the date and location of the building and its alterations.

Roof Structure

The original barn area roof area is a slate covered, duo pitched roof consisting of 3”x2” softwood rafters and 9”x5” oak purlins which span onto load bearing masonry walls and oak trusses. The soft wood rafters and ridge member are of later construction to what would have been originally in place. Moderate undulation of the ridgeline can be seen to the centre and right side between supporting trusses and cross walls. The oak purlins are hand carved beams with natural twists and longitudinal star shakes, formed during natural seasoning of the non kiln dried timbers. There is evidence throughout of infestation by wood boring weevil but is not known at this stage whether the outbreaks are active or historic and should be investigated by a specialist surveyor. No significant failure points were identified in the purlins, but should be assessed for structural adequacy for future use.

The 2 oak trusses comprise of principal rafters, a bottom tie beam and raise collar tie, all jointed using oak pegged mortice and tenon connections. One of the principal rafters on the far right truss has been cut between the raised collar and the ridge (see Fig 1). This has caused the collar tie to be put in compression and altered the load paths within the truss. This needs to be reinstated prior to commencement of any major refurbishment works. The next truss along has had its bottom tie beam cut away for an access point into the 1st floor level in the barn (see Fig 2). The result of this has been lateral spread of the roof structure and cracking of masonry cross walls. This again should be carefully reinstated prior to any refurbishment works if being retained.

The left hand 2 storey extension is of similar construction but uses rough sawn softwood for the purlins and trusses indicating a much later construction. The roof structure in this area shows minor signs of movement. The main reason for this appears to be the purlins that have undergone minor long term lateral deflection as they are canted to the rafter line and caused bowing of the roof and walls at eaves level.

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

The rear single storey extension is slate covered with rafters and purlins, supported by softwood mono trusses and load bearing masonry. The rear left roof area undulates between the left hand external masonry wall and far left mono truss. The purlins show signs of long term deflection and are undersized for the additional span they go compared to the rest across the rear extension. A timber eaves beam approx 9”x9” has been cut away in parts and replaced with brickwork, possibly due to localised decay from leaking gutters (see Fig 3).

Floor Structure

The first floor areas have been fitted to the original building within the last 150 years. They consist of softwood joists decked out with tongue and groove planks. It is noted that the floors do not have any provision for lateral restraint to the external masonry walls. There are no signs of failure of the floor structure. However, they should be assessed prior to redevelopment works to ascertain structural adequacy for future use.

The ground floor level has a unreinforced concrete ground bearing slab. Sporadic cracks within the floor can be seen possibly due to localised concentrated loading by plant machinery and a lack of movement joints.

Wall Structure

The external walls are load bearing solid masonry, laterally restrained by internal cross walls. They consist of a mix of handmade and wire cut clay bricks bonded together with a lime based mortar using English garden wall bond. Exposure of the foundations has not been carried out but the age of the building would suggest that a shallow stepped brick foundation would have been used. Brickwork is in reasonable condition but mortar is deteriorating in places. Some re pointing work has been undertaken, but this is cement mortar and should be replaced to be more consistent with original mortar for uniform distribution of load on the bed joints.

The bed joints should be raked out and re pointed where necessary using lime putty and NOT cement based mortar.

Front Elevation C

The timber beam above the centre door has deflected approx 10mm due to long term deflection (see Fig 4).

The masonry above the centre door and above the two windows to the far right is bowing outwards. There is no provision for lateral restraint in place within the floor structure and at eaves level. This corresponds with the lateral roof spread noticeable at ridge and eaves level which is the probable cause.

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

The original centre and right side of the elevation is leaning outwardly approx 20mm. Severe cracks in the internal cross walls either side of the right hand door has occurred as a result of the roof truss tie beam being cut through (see Fig 5). Movement should be assumed to be active not historic and will need to be repaired after the roof truss.

Slight stepped diagonal cracking along mortar joints can be seen at eaves level of the left hand 2 storey gable, on both the left and right side, due to minor spread of the roof structure.

Left Elevation D

The top 1.5m of the wall is leaning outwardly approx 10mm towards eaves level. A likely cause for this is minor lateral roof spread combined with insufficient masonry acting as a buttress (see Fig 6). Slight cracking either side of the internal cross walls at first floor level indicates de bonding of the external wall which would need to be repaired prior to the commencement of any refurbishment works and the external wall be adequately braced to resist lateral loads using either masonry cross walls or wind posts.

Rear Elevation A

There are visible signs of differential settlement to the single storey rear extension to the left and right corner with slight stepped cracking to the left corner (see Fig 7). Vertical break lines in the wall suggest different eras of construction (see Fig 8). Investigation of the foundations and crack monitoring should be carried out to rule out risk of subsidence.

The 2 storey part of the building is leaning outwardly 20mm from top to bottom. Lateral roof spread and de bonded cross walls will need to be repaired. 1m vertically of top left corner of the 2 storey section has de bonded from the right elevation gable wall. The gable wall has been rebuilt but not tied sufficiently to the adjoining rear wall and minor differential settlement appears to be the cause.

Right Elevation B

Spalled brick work can be seen on the face of the gable wall around a blocked cast iron gutter which is causing rainwater to run down the face.

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

4.0 Conclusions

Renovation of the existing barns is considered feasible without significant alteration of the structural fabric.

One area of concern noted in the survey is in respect of weathering and spalling of brickwork and over pointing of lime mortar with cement mortar. This should be removed and re pointing is recommended to all brickwork with a lime based mortar.

During renovation structural stability aspects will need to be addressed but subject to retention of cross walls and sufficient areas of solid masonry, this is not considered a significant issue. Roof structure to the barn can be retained so long as necessary repairs as mentioned in the report are carried out. Effective tying of roof and floors into the walls in accordance with Part A of the Building Regulations is also necessary. Weathering of some roof slated areas has occurred and replacement is likely to be required.

Ground floors in the barns require breaking out and new insulated concrete floors will be required. As the masonry is generally solid brickwork at least 9” thick walls will require spacers between internal linings and the masonry to provide a gap and a drainage path for water penetration will need to be developed.

There is evidence of settlement at various locations throughout the property, particularly in the rear section. A ground investigation should be carried out to log the conditions and foundations exposed, especially where signs of movement have taken place or where increased loading is likely for use at design stage.

I recommend that cracks associated with movement of the roof structure and ground be monitored for a period of up to 6 months using tell tales to ascertain whether movement is active or historic.

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

Fig 1

Fig 2

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

Fig 3

Fig 4

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

Fig 5

Fig 6

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

Fig 7

Fig 8

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm

APPENDIX B – EXISTING LAYOUT AND ELEVATION DRAWINGS

Job No: 038 – Townley Brow Farm