BUMBLE BEE BARN, WOODEND LANE, BEAUCHAMP RODING, ONGAR, CM5 0NU DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BARN AND OUTBUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF A SINGLE DWELLING HOUSE.

INTRODUCTION

This Supporting Statement is submitted by Charisma Spatial Planning on behalf of the owner of Bumble Bee Barn, Mr Andrew Norris.

PROPOSAL

This planning application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of an existing barn and outbuildings and the erection of a two storey single dwelling house.

PLANNING APPLICATION

The application comprises the following documents and plans:-

 Application form  Certificate  Cheque for the statutory application fee  Supporting Statement  Environmental and Ecological Assessment  Plan No. 1441 14 01 Existing Site Plan and Location Plan  Plan No. 1441 14 02 Proposed Site Plan  Plan No. 1441 14 03 Proposed Ground Floor Plan  Plan No. 1441 14 04 Proposed Floor Plans [first floor and roof plan]  Plan No. 1441 14 05 Proposed Elevations [front and side]  Plan No. 1441 14 06 Proposed Elevations [rear and side]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The site comprises 0.8 hectares of agricultural land located on the northern side of Woodend Abbess Roding. The site is bounded to the east by a post and rail fence and to the north and south by hedgerows. There is an existing 254m2 storage barn located towards the western side of the site with three connected portable buildings and a hard surfaced yard area to the rear of the building. The barn, which is an agricultural style building of permanent construction, is the first building on Woodend when approaching from the junction with Fyfield Road some 500m to the east. Woodend is a single track road which serves only a few properties. The nearest residential property is the applicant’s home which lies approximately 45m from the site’s western boundary which is formed by a storm damaged wood panel fence.

The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

RELEVANT HISTORY

The barn and yard have no planning permission for any use other than agriculture and appears to have been used for many years for storage and repair of agricultural machinery in connection with Scales Farm. There are existing enforcement notices dating from 1976 which required the cessation of use of the buildings and land for the purposes of storing builder’s materials or demolition materials or timber.

In 2012 an enforcement investigation and proceeding were started into the alleged use of the agricultural yard for commercial purposes with the apparent intention of seeking the cessation of the use and the removal of Lorries and HGVs from the site. The site was purchased at this time by the applicant in order to terminate this unauthorised use of the barn and site. As a consequence this enforcement investigation was concluded in May 2013 as Council Officers were satisfied that the use had ceased.

An application for use of the land and buildings for construction and agricultural vehicle driving training [EPF/1880/12] was refused planning permission on 20 February 2013. This decision was taken by Members against the advice of their planning officers.

On 26 September 2013 an application was made [EPF/2407/12] seeking a Certificate of Lawful Development for an Existing Use [CLUED] for the lawful use of the prefabricated cabins as an office and the larger detached building/area of hardstanding and access road for vehicles and contractor’s plant storage. The application indicated that this was a Class B1(c) use. The use was found to be unlawful. The Decision Notice dated 8 November 2013 records that the applicant had failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probability, that that the use of this site for vehicles and contractor’s plant storage and the use of the cabins as ancillary office space, has continued uninterrupted from the date of the application for a period in excess of ten years.

PLANNING POLICY

The National Planning Policy Framework [Framework] sets out government planning policy for the development of land in the Green Belt and rural areas. Local planning policy is to be found in the adopted development plan.

The Framework states that planning policies at the local level should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable development. To promote a strong rural economy, local development plans should (inter alia):

 Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.

 Promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

This policy direction is tempered by the fact that the site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt, which introduces some restrictions.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

The Framework rigidly states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. This means that when considering any planning applications, the Council should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Councils should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. The exceptions to this in national policy include (inter alia):-

 The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces

 Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development

Further guidance is to be found in policy GB2A of the Local Plan Alterations adopted in July 2006. This policy states:-

“POLICY GB2A – DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT Planning permission will not be granted ...... for the construction of new buildings...... or the change of use ...... in the Green Belt unless it is appropriate in that it is:-

(iv) For other uses which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

ASSESSMENT

Whilst strictly speaking the proposal is ‘inappropriate development’, it needs to be viewed in the context of changes to the spirit and direction of government planning policy.

Throughout 2014 the IMF and the Governor of the Bank of have forcefully urged the government to relax planning policy in order to increase housing supply and the rate of house building. This rallying cry has been taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime minister and we are beginning to see government pressure applied to Council’s such as Epping Forest to properly address questions of housing supply in their areas and to bring forward up to date Local Plans to boost significantly the supply of housing [NPPF paragraph 47].

The proposal is to replace an existing barn which has footprint of 186m2 and a volume of 1778m3 with a dwelling that would have a footprint of 186m2 (house 120m2 and garage 44m2) the first floor would have a floor area of 126m2. This is illustrated on the submitted elevation plans which show the outline of the existing barn. From this it can be seen that the proposed new house would be of a lesser scale, massing and volume than the existing barn.

It follows that the impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be reduced bringing about a material improvement in line with the requirements of Local Plan policy GB2A. In other words the proposal would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

This leads on to the question of ‘use’. For the reasons stated above the proposal meets the requirements of policy GB2A (iv) because the proposed use would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

In April 2014 the Government introduced changes to the General Permitted Development Order that allowed for the change of use of agricultural buildings to residential. The intention of this policy initiative was to allow for the country’s stock of disused agricultural building to be brought into residential use as part of the wider objective of increasing the supply of housing. Whilst the lawful use of the barn is ‘agricultural’, the fact that because it was not in use on the operative date due to an accident of history should not be used as a reason by the local planning authority to not use their discretion and judgement to agree that a residential use would be acceptable. In addition the changes to the GPDO show that any sustainability considerations concerning the impact of residential use of former agricultural buildings is set aside by the government

For these reasons it is a moot point as to whether or not the proposal would be ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt. Nevertheless it is necessary to look at the other considerations that would amount to the ‘very special circumstances’ which would outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm.

The NPPF states,

“47. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:

- use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;

- identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements …”

Notwithstanding the requirement of the NPPF that local planning authorities (LPAs) develop a Local Plan for the purpose of giving effect to the policies set out within the NPPF, Epping Forest Council has not done so. The effect of this is that very special circumstances do exist. These are:

(1) a policy vacuum so far as housing requirements are concerned following the revocation of the Plan[EEP]; and

(2) the Council’s failure to identify a 5 year supply of deliverable housing in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

See (Hunston Properties Limited v. (1) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and (2) St Albans City and District Council) [2013] EWHC 2678 (Admin)) concerning the assessment of housing needs under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) following the Secretary of State’s revocation of Regional Strategies, including the East of England Plan (EEP), and in circumstances where the Development Plan is out-of-date.

In relation to design the proposal is of traditional design using a palette of materials appropriate for this rural area. The proposed new house exhibits the quality of design required by local plan policy H3A.

In summary there are very special circumstances that outweigh any harm by way of inappropriateness and any other harm.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

The assessment that accompanies this application shows that there would be no adverse impacts arising from the proposed demolition of the existing barn and the erection of a single dwelling house.

CONCLUSION The siting, form, scale and design of the proposed new house would comply with development plan policy. In addition very special circumstances exist to allow the Council to approve this proposal for development within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The local planning authority is asked to grant full planning permission subject to the standard time limit and appropriate conditions.

Clive Hollyman BA (Hons) MRTPI Chartered Town Planner

14 July 2014