TO:- Planning Committee Councillor Brian Cox , Councillor Matt Ewart , Councillor Jeff Ashley , Councillor Meg Barrow , Councillor Len Bates , Councillor Joyce Bolton , Councillor Barry Bond , Councillor Mary Bond , Councillor Anthony Bourke , Councillor Nigel Caine , Councillor Val Chapman , Councillor David Clifft J.P , Councillor Bob Cope , Councillor Brian Edwards MBE , Councillor Lisa Emery , Councillor Paul Fieldhouse , Councillor Isabel Ford , Councillor Rita Heseltine , Councillor Lin Hingley , Councillor Alan Hinton , Councillor Steve Hollis , Councillor Diane Holmes , Councillor Keith James , Councillor Janet Johnson , Councillor Michael Lawrence , Councillor Roger Lees J.P. , Councillor Peter Lever , Councillor Henryk Lobuczek , Councillor Dave Lockley , Councillor Robert Marshall , Councillor Terry Mason , Councillor Robert McCardle , Councillor John Michell , Councillor Roy Moreton , Councillor Kath Perry , Councillor Ray Perry , Councillor Christine Raven , Councillor John Raven , Councillor Robert Reade , Councillor Wendy Sutton , Councillor Ken Upton , Councillor Bernard Williams , Councillor David Williams , Councillor Henry Williams , Councillor Kath Williams , Councillor Reg Williams , Councillor Roy Wright
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held as detailed below for the purpose of transacting the business set out below.
Date: Tuesday, 18 April 2017 Time: 18:30 Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire, WV8 1PX
D. Heywood Chief Executive
A G E N D A
Part I – Public Session
1 Minutes 3 - 6 To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 21 March 2017
2 Apologies
To receive any apologies for non-attendance.
3 Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of interest.
4 Determination of Planning Applications - April 2017 7 - 108 Report of Director of Planning and Strategic Services
Page 1 of 108
RECORDING Please note that this meeting will be recorded.
PUBLIC SPEAKING Please note: Any members of the public wishing to speak must confirm their intention to speak in writing or e-mail to Development Management no later than 1 working day before the Committee i.e. before 12.00 p.m. on the preceding Monday.
E-mails to [email protected]
Please see Speaking at Planning Committee leaflet on the website for full details. Failure to notify the Council of your intention to speak may mean you will not be allowed to speak at Committee.
Page 2 of 108 24 March 2017
Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee South Staffordshire Council held in the Council Chamber Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire, WV8 1PX on Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 18:30
Present:- Councillor Jeff Ashley (Member), Councillor Meg Barrow (Member), Councillor Len Bates (Member), Councillor Joyce Bolton (Member), Councillor Barry Bond (Member), Councillor Mary Bond (Member), Councillor Anthony Bourke (Member), Councillor Nigel Caine (Member), Councillor Val Chapman (Member), Councillor David Clifft (Member), Councillor Bob Cope (Member), Councillor Brian Cox (Chairman), Councillor Brian Edwards (Member), Councillor Matt Ewart (Vice Chairman), Councillor Paul Fieldhouse (Member), Councillor Isabel Ford (Member), Councillor Rita Heseltine (Member), Councillor Lin Hingley (Member), Councillor Alan Hinton (Member), Councillor Steve Hollis (Member), Councillor Diane Holmes (Member), Councillor Keith James (Member), Councillor Janet Johnson (Member), Councillor Michael Lawrence (Member), Councillor Roger Lees (Member), Councillor Peter Lever (Member), Councillor Henryk Lobuczek (Member), Councillor Dave Lockley (Member), Councillor Robert Marshall (Member), Councillor Terry Mason (Member), Councillor Robert McCardle (Member), Councillor John Michell (Member), Councillor Roy Moreton (Member), Councillor Kath Perry (Member), Councillor Ray Perry (Member), Councillor Christine Raven (Member), Councillor John Raven (Member), Councillor Robert Reade (Member), Councillor Wendy Sutton (Member), Councillor Ken Upton (Member), Councillor Bernard Williams (Member), Councillor David Williams (Member), Councillor Henry Williams (Member), Councillor Kath Williams (Member), Councillor Reg Williams (Member), Councillor Roy Wright (Member)
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE David Pattison, Andeep Gill, Lucy Duffy, Andrew Johnson and Phil Spruce ( County Highways)
52 MINUTES RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 28 February 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman
53 APOLOGIES There no apologies for non attendance
54 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor D Clifft declared a non pecuniary interest in planning application 16/00487/OUT as his son worked for the applicant and left the room for consideration of this item
Councillors N Caine and V Chapman declared a non pecuniary interest in planning application 16/01069/COU as members of Codsall Parish Council and they left the room for consideration of this item
Councillors R Marshall and J Michell declared a non pecuniary interest in planning application 16/01069/COU as members of Codsall Parish Council
Page 3 of 108 24 March 2017
and they left the room for consideration of this item after they had spoken as ward members
Councillor M Ewart declared a non pecuniary interest in planning application 16/01069/COU as his wife was a member of Codsall Parish Council and he left the room for consideration of this item after he had spoken
55 DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Committee received and took into account the report of the Director of Planning and Strategic Services, together with the information and details received after the agenda was prepared (copy attached to the minutes) and took into account the representations of the speakers at Committee
16/00793/FUL – YEW TREE COMPANY, YEW TREE FARM, POTTAL POOL ROAD, PENKRIDGE, ST19 5RN – APPLICANT- MR ROGER TAYLOR – PARISH – ACTON TRUSSELL, BEDNALL AND TEDDESLEY HAY (DEFERRED)
RESOLVED: that the application be approved as recommended
16/01069/COU – LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF OAKEN LAKES, CODSALL – APPLICANT – MRS MAXINE BAKER – PARISH – CODSALL
Dr M Ewart spoke against the application.
Mr Brian Holland spoke on behalf of Codsall Parish Council, for the application.
Councillors R Marshall and J Michell spoke for the application.
Councillor Fieldhouse motioned for approval but with the removal of the condition 3. This motion was not carried.
Councillor B Edwards motioned that the application be considered in line with officers recommendations, this was seconded by Councillor R Wright.
RESOLVED: that the application be approved as recommended
16/01118/FUL – FORRESTERS LODGE STABLES, BRIDGENORTH ROAD, STOURTON, DY7 5BQ – APPLICANT- MISS ELIZABETH FORRESTER – PARISH – KINVER
Councillor Cox motioned for the deferral of the application
RESOLVED: that determination of the application be deferred pending the enforcement investigation
16/01130/FUL – PARK STABLES, MICKLEWOOD LANE, PENKRIDGE ST19 5SD – APPLICANT – MRS P PITT – PARISH – PENKRIDGE
RESOLVED: that the application be approved as recommended
17/00055/FUL – HELBSY HOUSE, IVESTSEY BANK ROAD, BISHOPS WOOD, ST19 9AE – APPLICANT MR M WRIGHT – PARISH – WHEATON
Page 4 of 108 24 March 2017
ASTON, BISHOPSWOOD AND LAPLEY
RESOLVED: that the application be refused as recommended
17/00092/FUL – HIGHDOWN NURSERY, SUGARLOAF LANE, IVERLEY, STOURBRIDGE, DY10 3AP – APPLICANT – AMP ENERGY SERVICES LTD - PARISH – KINVER
Mr J Burke spoke for the application
RESOLVED: that the application be approved as recommended
17/00112/VAR – ELECTRICITY SUB STATION, SWINDON ROAD, HINKSFORD – APPLICANT – PRIME ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD – PARISH –SWINDON
RESOLVED: that the application be approved as recommended
56 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT QUARTER 3 REPORT - PLANNING COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN 2016/2017 RESOLVED : that the Committee note the performance in Quarter 3 of the Action Plan 2016-17 (copy attached to the minutes)
57 REPORT FOR URGENT ACTION 16/00487/OUT - Hobnock Road, Essington This urgent action report is brought to the Committee of 21st March 2017 as important business with the approval of the Chairman of Planning Committee, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution Part 4 Section 1 Rule 24 (c), in order to avoid the application being refused automatically which without Committee approval would need to happen
RESOLVED: that
1.Proposed recommendation (extension of time): If the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 16/05/17, then refuse the application on grounds of affordable housing, open space and education contribution
2.Delegate APPROVAL to the Team Leader of Major Applications and Appeals to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement. Should this not be completed by 16th May 2017, the application will be refused
The Meeting ended at: 19:50
CHAIRMAN
Page 5 of 108
Page 6 of 108 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 APRIL 2017
DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND STRATEGIC SERVICES
PART A – SUMMARY REPORT
1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
To determine the planning applications as set out in the attached Appendix.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That the planning applications be determined.
3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives? The reasons for the recommendation for each application Yes POLICY/COMMUNITY addresses issued pertaining to the Council’s Plan. IMPACT Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed? Determination of individual planning applications so not No applicable. SCRUTINY POWERS No APPLICABLE KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ N/A DELIVERY DATE Unless otherwise stated in the Appendix, there are no direct financial implications arising from this report. FINANCIAL IMPACT No
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 LEGAL ISSUES Yes Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 Planning and Compensation Act 1991 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Summary of Details OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & Yes OPPORTUNITIES
IMPACT ON SPECIFIC As set out in Appendix Yes WARDS
Page 7 of 108 PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
4. INFORMATION
All relevant information is contained within the Appendix.
Advice to Applicants and the Public
The recommendations and reports of the Director of Planning and Strategic Services contained in this schedule may, on occasions, be changed or updated as a result of any additional information received by the Local Planning Authority between the time of its preparation and the appropriate meeting of the Authority.
Where updates have been received before the Planning Committee’s meeting, a written summary of these is published generally by 5pm on the day before the Committee Meeting. Please note that verbal updates may still be made at the meeting itself.
With regard to the individual application reports set out in the Appendix then unless otherwise specifically stated in the individual report the following general statements will apply.
Unless otherwise stated any dimensions quoted in the reports on applications are scaled from the submitted plans or Ordnance Survey maps.
Consultations Undertaken
The results of consultations with interested parties, organisations, neighbours and Councillors are reported in each report in the Appendix.
CONSULTEES
CH – County Highways CLBO – Conservation Officer CPO – County Planning Officer CPRE – Campaign to Protect Rural England CPSO – County Property Services Officer CA – County Archaeologist CS – Civic Society EA – Environment Agency EHGS – Environmental Health Officer ENGS – Engineer FC – The Forestry Commission HA – Highways Agency LPM – Landscape Planning Manager HENGS – Engineer NE – Natural England PC – Parish Council OSS – Open Space Society STW – Severn Trent Water SWT – Staffordshire Wildlife Trust
5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
N/A
6. PREVIOUS MINUTES
Details if issue has been previously considered
Page 8 of 108 7. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Background papers used in compiling the schedule of applications consist of:-
(i) The individual planning application (which may include supplementary information supplied by or on behalf of the applicant) and representations received from persons or bodies consulted upon the application by the Local Planning Authority, and from members of the public and interested bodies, by the time of preparation of the schedule.
(ii) The Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, as amended and related Acts, Orders and Regulations, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Practice Guidance Notes, any Circulars, Ministerial Statements and Policy Guidance published by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government.
(iii) The Core Strategy for South Staffordshire adopted in December 2012 and Supplementary Planning Documents
(iv) Relevant decisions of the Secretary of State in relation to planning appeals and relevant decisions of the courts.
These documents are available for inspection by Members or any member of the public and will remain available for a period of up to 4 years from the date of the meeting, during the normal office hours. Requests to see them should be made to our Customer Services Officers on 01902 696000 and arrangements will be made to comply with the request as soon as practicable. The Core Strategy and the individual planning applications can be viewed on our web site www.sstaffs.gov.uk
Report prepared by: Andrew Johnson, Director of Planning and Strategic Services
Page 9 of 108
Page 10 of 108
App no Applicant/Address Parish Recommendation Page
Deferred Items 16/00841/LBC Mr & Mrs Parrott ACTON Refuse 13-22 Brookhouse Farm TRUSSELL, Cottage BEDNALL & Acton Hill Road TEDDESLEY Acton Trussell HAY Stafford South Staffordshire ST17 0RY 16/00993/FUL Mr Marek PATTINGHAM Approve 23-40 Kwiatkowski & PATSHULL The Bothy Patshull Park Burnhill Green Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV6 7HY 16/00994/LBC Mr Marek PATTINGHAM Approve 41-52 Kwiatkowski & PATSHULL The Bothy Patshull Park Burnhill Green Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV6 7HY 16/01118/FUL Miss Elizabeth KINVER Approve 53-62 Forrester Forresters Lodge Stables Bridgnorth Road Stourton DY7 5BQ Applications 16/01061/FUL C Piper And Sons PENKRIDGE Approve 63-68 Limited The Nurseries Watling Street Gailey Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 5PR 17/00087/FUL Mrs Pamela Corbett HATHERTON Approve 69-80 Church Farm Church Lane Hatherton Cannock South Staffordshire WS11 1RR 17/00100/FUL Mr Neil Rimmer HATHERTON Approve 81-92 Hollies Truck Stop Watling Street Four Crosses Cannock South Staffordshire WS11 1SB 17/00138/FUL Mr Roderick BREWOOD & Approve 93-102 Stockton COVEN Horsebrook Manor
Page 11 of 108 Horsebrook Lane Brewood Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 9LP 17/00230/FUL Mr David Cartwright CODSALL Approve 103-108 And Miss Sherminder Dhillon 8 Blythe Gardens Codsall Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV8 1BH
Page 12 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
DEFERRED ITEM
16/00841/LBC Mr & Mrs Parrott Cllr Bates & Cllr Ford ACTON TRUSSELL, BEDNALL & TEDDESLEY HAY
Brookhouse Farm Cottage, Acton Hill Road, Acton Trussell ST17 0RY
Extension to form utility, toilet and shower
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
See Appendix A.
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
See Appendix A.
2.3.3. On 21 March, the Conservation Officer, Claire Hines, and I conducted a site visit with the applicants, the site manager, Councillor Leonard Bates and Mr David Burton-Pye MBE, the applicants’ conservation consultant.
2.3.4. At the meeting, Mr Burton-Pye furnished us with a typed summary of his spoken comments to the Planning Committee on 28 February.
2.3.5. Following the meeting, Mr Burton-Pye added the following comments by email (received 27 and 28 March):
Thank you for the site meeting on Tuesday to further assess the revised proposals for the shower room. My clients are disappointed that no agreement could be reached and consider that your interpretation of “harm” is a harsh approach. However, we move on and my clients would appreciate your observations on the following suggestions.
Our understanding is that your principal objections to the extension are
i) To the principle of an extension since you feel the proposed shower room should be accommodated within the existing structure(s)
and
ii) That an extension at right angles to the 19th century wing alters the historic floor plan
We have therefore reconsidered the proposals and suggest that the following approach represents an acceptable compromise
Page 13 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
A) Carefully dismantle the existing gable end of the 19th century wing which houses the semi-circular openings and the rebuilt feed troughs, retaining all material for re-use B) Extend this wing by approximately 2.5 m with materials to match the existing as closely as possible and reconstruct the gable end to incorporate the existing openings and feed troughs re-using the existing materials. The bedroom to be housed within the enlarged area C) Create a shower room as an internal room between the sunroom and the proposed bedroom
This would retain the historic floor plan as an L-shaped extension (as recognised in the Staffordshire Farmsteads Assessment Framework) with a minor extension to accommodate the owners’ needs not only now but in future should they become less mobile. We would re-emphasise that one of the guiding principles behind the proposals is to retain the open nature of the barn between the former threshing door openings by keeping the full height of the void over the dining room. It is clearly undesirable for the desired facilities to “intrude” into the proposed living room – which would, indeed, compromise the historic floor plan. Provision of a shower room as you suggest as part of the utility room would be unworkable. Not only would the shower/wc be removed to the furthest possible point from the bedroom but the facilities housed within the utility area would have to be relocated elsewhere – with unwelcome and probably unacceptable implications for further subdivisions of the historic floor plan.
It is not unreasonable for the applicants to seek to “future- proof” the building to accommodate their needs as they age – indeed “seeking high quality of design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings” is one of the “Core Planning Principles” set out at NPPF 17” as is “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”
Could you please therefore consider these suggestions and indicate whether you are prepared to support the principle of the revised approach set out above […]
Further to my last email. By coincidence, last weekend the former resident of Brookhouse Farm and her daughter were visiting the area and spoke to Mr Parrott about “their” house and the current conversion work. As you know, Claire Henshaw’s Heritage Statement included historic OS maps (Figures 6-8) which clearly showed an additional bay adjoining the north-west elevation of the cottage (ie the timber framed wall). It seems that this was a kitchen with a separate area for curing bacon. I have not had opportunity yet to examine any post-war aerial photographs that may establish when this
Page 14 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
structure still stood but in terms of the historic floor plan this is something that we would explore as appropriate in pursuance of my recent suggestion for an extension of the existing wing.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
See Appendix A.
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
See Appendix A.
Final Conservation comments (received 4 April)— The proposals to extend the C19th wing would partly resolve the issues of altering the plan form as while the form would still change, it would not be in such a harmful way, but it would still result in harm to the listed building through loss of historic fabric. As we have previously approved the provision of a ground floor shower room within the existing footprint, I feel the key point is to demonstrate why this is no longer viable and this needs to be done in respect of the impact on the designated heritage asset in order to comply with the NPPF and not on the needs/desires of the current occupier.
5. APPRAISAL
See Appendix A.
6. CONCLUSION
See Appendix A.
6.1.2. Neither the site visit nor the subsequent correspondence has addressed the principle of the CO’s and my objection to this development. For the sake of clarity, our objection is that the application contains no clear and convincing justification for an extension. Such justification is necessary anyway, but is particularly necessary here because the extant planning permission and listed building consent would provide the proposed facilities within the existing footprint, with little or no harm to the fabric or setting of the listed building.
6.1.3. Since there has been no change to any material consideration, I reiterate my recommendation of refusal.
7. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE
See Appendix A.
Page 15 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
APPENDIX A
16/00841/LBC Mr & Mrs Parrott Cllr Bates & Cllr Ford ACTON TRUSSELL, BEDNALL & TEDDESLEY HAY
Brookhouse Farm Cottage, Acton Hill Road, Acton Trussell ST17 0RY
Extension to form utility, toilet and shower
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1. Site description
1.1.1 This application concerns a 17th-century farmhouse and an adjoining barn of the same age. Both are built from red brick in English- garden-wall bond with gabled, plain-tile roofs and integral brick end stacks. The ridge runs northeast-southwest, with the barn to southwest and house to northeast. Open fields surround the site in every direction.
1.1.2 The house is largely two-storey. Attached to the northeastern side elevation is a lower single-bay extension of one storey, with a gable-lit attic above. Timber framing and a decrepit timber lean-to are visible on the rear elevation.
1.1.3 The Council granted planning permission last year for the residential conversion of the three-bay barn. At the time of my site visits, the barn's interior was single-storey, although it is taller than the adjoining house and is to be converted to two storeys, according to the approved plans.
1.1.4 At the rear of the barn are two projecting elements, one at each end of the elevation. The easternmost is slightly larger in all its dimensions; on the approved plans for the conversion, it is to house a bedroom, shower and toilet.
1.1.5 Together, barn and house are a rare example of an early enclosure farmstead. As such, they are listed at Grade II.
1.2. Planning history
2015: Change of use of agricultural barn to form a dwelling including alterations to a listed building and provision of a detached, oak framed, brickwork and pitched tiled roof and new access from highway, approved (15/00603/FUL & 15/00604/LBC).
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
Page 16 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
2.1.1 The final plans show a small shower room attached at the centre of the northeastern side wall of the easternmost projecting gable at the rear. In contrast to those approved last year, the floor plans now show a bedroom and sun room within this projecting gable, as opposed to the bathroom and toilet.
2.1.2 The extension would be 3.1 metres wide and project 2.8 metres beyond the existing wall. It would stand around 3.3 metres tall to the ridge of its cross-gabled roof (just under a metre lower than the projecting gable), rising from eaves at 1.6 metres.
2.1.3 The extension would use reclaimed blue/black clay tiles, reclaimed bricks and lime-mortar pointing and cast iron rainwater goods, all intended to match the existing building, specifically the linking extension approved last year. It would be connected to the existing building by a system of metal ties. Two roof lights would face the rear elevation of the house.
2.2 Earlier plans
2.2.1 As submitted, the plans showed a replacement lean-to extension attached to the rear elevation of the house.
2.3. Supporting documents
2.3.1. Heritage statement A consultant engaged by the applicant has submitted a heritage statement in support of the application. It suggests that:
- the house and barn form a 'long-house', which is a plan form common in some areas, but rare in South Staffordshire. - the cottage's plan form has changed over time. - the wing being extended is itself a later addition, deriving historical interest from its use as a cart-shed and pigsty and architectural interest from various features.
By way of justifying the proposed works, it argues that:
- they will not obscure the 'long-house' plan form. - they will not harm the architectural features identified as being of specific interest. - the extension will be visually and functionally distinct from the historic building.
2.3.2. Additional statement During the application process, the applicants submitted an additional statement discussing their motivations and the history of the barn.
2.3.3. Design and access statement The agent has submitted a design and access statement describing the spatial and policy contexts and the existing development on site.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
Page 17 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
3.1. Adopted Core Strategy Within the Open Countryside beyond the West Midlands Green Belt.
Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Policy EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations
3.2. National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] 7. Requiring good design 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Councillor Leonard Bates requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee (received 12 January 2017)
Acton Trussell, Bednall & Teddesley Hay Parish Council (expired 14/10/2016)
Conservation Officer (received 12/10/2016) Works to a designated heritage asset should be informed but a sound understanding of the buildings significance. A heritage statement should have been submitted with sufficient details to allow the significance of the heritage asset to be assessed and the impact of the proposed works on that significance to be addressed. This is in order to comply with paragraph 128 of the NPPF. In terms of policy context the agent should add CP2 and EQ3 to the list. As well as the mono-pitched extension there are other proposed works, all of which require LBC and which will cause harm to the significance of the listed building and for which no clear and convincing justification is provided as required by paragraph 132 of the NPPF. These works include the installation of roof lights, the creation of new openings, infilling of existing openings, demolition of internal walls and erection of new internal walls. The proposed extension would obscure almost the whole of the north-west elevation of the two storey part of the farmhouse. This elevation contains exposed timber-framing and while no details are provided of how this will be attached to the listed building it is inevitable that a solid brick and tile structure will need to be tied to the existing structure. The alteration of the existing ground floor with the creation of new openings will result in loss of historic fabric and from the information provided it would also appear to result in the loss of part of the timber-framing which as well as being of great significance historically also forms an important part of the structure of the building. The pitched roof will block two existing first floor windows which necessitates the use of rooflights which further harms the significance of the listed building. Where extensions are proposed to listed buildings they should be light- weight with a minimal physical impact on the fabric of the building, they should also be designed to visually be distinguishable from the historic building and as such be a high quality modern addition to the building which causes no harm to its significance.
Page 18 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
The plan form of this site forms part of its significance. The filling in of this corner of the L-shaped building is also not desirable, particularly in such a heavy form. The erosion of the plan form would harm the significance of the site which is derived from its form as an early enclosed farmstead.
Further comments (received 06/12/2016) This is a better location but the design is not ideal and nor is the addition out of the side which changes the plan form of the building. Also we only recently approved the conversion of the other part of the building at which point the need for this room should have been considered. More specifically the eaves of the new build need to sit lower than the eaves of the existing building, a mono pitched roof may be acceptable but a flat roof in this context would not. A lead or lead effect roof could be considered but a felt roof as shown in the pictures would not. We need an updated and robust heritage statement for this one which provides the clear and convincing justification required by the NPPF. I would consider that an extension in this location would still cause harm and so the applicant needs to demonstrate public benefit to outweigh this harm. This could be in the form of a schedule of repairs which would include the removal of the dilapidated lean to - I can't think of any other heritage related public benefits that could be derived from this scheme. The heritage statement should follow the guidance in the Historic England GPA note 2 and should be written using relevant expertise, as part of this it also needs to demonstrate that the harm has been minimised and this would include showing that the facilities cannot be incorporated within the existing building or by extending to the end of the range which would both minimise the harm caused.
Final Comments (received 02/02/2017) I would agree that this should still be refused. The extension would still change the plan form and would sit in front of the timber framed wall obscuring views of it. There is still no clear and convincing justification as to why the facilities cannot be accommodated within the existing rooms.
No neighbours consulted.
Advertisement published in the Express & Star (expired 18 October 2016).
Site notice posted (expired 1 November 2016).
5. APPRAISAL
5.1.This application is being determined by Committee at Councillor Bates's request.
5.2. Key issues
- Impact on Heritage Asset
5.3 Impact on Heritage Asset
5.3.1. The NPPF and the adopted Core Strategy state that local planning authorities (LPAs) must exercise special care and consideration to ensure
Page 19 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017 that no harm comes to the setting or significance of a heritage asset. Heritage assets are buildings, sites, monuments, places, areas or landscapes identified as significant features in the historic environment.
5.3.2. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of the heritage asset. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 134 goes on to say that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals, including securing its optimum viable use.
5.3.3. Brook Farm Cottage dates from the 17th century, with later additions and alterations. The barn incorporates timber framing dating from the 17th Century with alterations and extensions from the 18th and 19th centuries. The listed buildings therefore have significant historic as well as architectural interest. Both the CO's detailed response and the heritage statement cover that interest in some depth.
5.3.4 The shower and toilet proposed here are located within the projecting gable in the previously approved scheme. An extension to provide these facilities (or any other living accommodation, for that matter) will cause harm to the listed building.
5.3.5. Any such extension—and most importantly, that which is proposed here—will change the barn’s plan form and would sit in front of the timber-framed wall, obscuring views of it and harming the designated heritage asset. The applicants must therefore provide a clear and convincing justification for that harm, including ways in which the proposal would benefit the public.
5.3.5 The heritage consultant and the CO have both advanced the removal of the dilapidated lean-to as a public benefit that might justify the proposal. However, given its advanced decrepitude, its removal (or collapse) during the conversion works is to be expected whether these facilities are provided internally or externally.
5.3.6. Consequently, the CO and I afford this matter no weight in the planning balance, and consider that listed building consent should therefore be refused. The application documents contain no further attempts to justify the harm caused by this proposal.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1.1. This extension would harm the significance of this heritage asset. The previously approved plans provide the same facilities internally, which would cause no harm and already have approval. Nothing in the application justifies the harm. Unjustified harm to a heritage asset is contrary to Policy EQ3 and the principles enshrined in the NPPF, so I recommend that Members refuse this application. 7. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE
Page 20 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
Reasons
1. The extension would change the listed building’s plan form and sit in front of the timber-framed wall, obscuring views of it and harming this designated heritage asset. The Council has considered the reasons advanced but does not consider that these reasons justify the harm. Unjustified harm to a heritage asset is contrary to Policy EQ3 and the principles enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2. Proactive statement
The local planning authority (LPA) has found that this proposal complies with neither the LPA's policies nor the NPPF. Negotiations to find a mutually acceptable and compliant proposal were unsuccessful. Prior to determining the application, the LPA informed the applicant of its deliberations. The LPA has therefore complied with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF in reaching this decision.
Page 21 of 108 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
16/00841/LBC - Brookhouse Farm Cottage Acton Hill Road Acton Trussell Stafford South Staffordshire ST17 0RY
Page 22 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
DEFERRED ITEM
16/00993/FUL Mr Marek Kwiatkowski Cllr Mason PATTINGHAM
The Bothy, Patshull Park, Burnhill Green, Wolverhampton South Staffordshire, WV6 7HY
Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings and Sub division of existing garage into three.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
See Appendix A
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1.3 An amended plan has been submitted which shows an overspill parking area for approximately 8 vehicles as well as an improvements to the existing lane (widening, new surfacing and a fall to help accommodate surface water runoff).
3. POLICY CONTEXT
See Appendix A.
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Conservation Officer - additional comments (received 04/04/2017) I have looked at the amended plan (960/A/005 Revision F) showing the parking relocated to the edge of the road which is now acceptable as it will have a negligible impact on the setting of the listed buildings, the conservation area and the registered park and garden and will not cause any harm to the significance of any of these designated heritage assets. I would still request a condition covering the materials to be used in the creation of the parking area and also and full details of any new boundary treatments or alterations to existing boundary treatments.
5. APPRAISAL
The application was deferred as it was considered that this application and a proposal at an adjoining property ‘The Gymnasium’ should be considered together.
5.1 Key Issues
- See Appendix A
5.9 Highways and Parking
5.9.1 Concerns have been raised by local residents that the development is not providing sufficient parking and that the parking that is proposed
Page 23 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 may prevent access to their properties. The applicants have offered a compromise by proposing to widen the lane and provide the overspill car park area which will be suitable surfaced to accommodate all vehicles. Having visited the site and parked on the area proposed myself twice I do not consider that their remaining concerns in relation to users blocking their access are justified. These residents have resided in the complex for a long time and are likely to have concerns in relation to potential disturbance and issues that could arise from it. The applicants however have provided two parking spaces for each dwelling and as well as four for the existing dwelling, The Bothy. Even with the existing situation, there is sufficient room to reverse a car onto the driveway to the front of the garage with cars still able to pass by on the lane to The Stables; this will only be improved with the widening of the lane and the overspill parking area. The Conservation Officer has no objections subject to materials and landscaping conditions.
5.9.2 The parking arrangements for The Gymnasium can be found in the relevant section of that report.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The conversion of the existing brick buildings to alternative uses represents an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt as the resultant use does not involve significant alternations/extensions/rebuilding works which affect the character of the buildings and surrounding area. Their proposed conversion has been sensitively designed and does not involve significant alterations or extensions to the existing range of traditional barns.
6.2 The listed agricultural complex is a significant heritage asset. The scheme would help preserve the significance of the heritage asset as only limited alterations are needed for the residential conversion. Whilst the proposed overspill parking is inappropriate development there are considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. I am therefore recommending Members approve the proposal.
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
Conditions and reasons:
See Appendix 1
2. (Amended)
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 960/A/005 Rev F received 28/03/2017 960/A/065 Rev A 960/A/070 960/A/060 received 09/02/2017 Bat survey dated August 2015.
Reason: In order to define the permission and avoid doubt.
3. (Amended)
Page 24 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 No works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. o a full repairs schedule o full details of the retention and re-use of historic features o full details including a sample panel of the mortar mix, colour, gauge of jointing and pointing o full details of the internal doors o full details of the staircase o details of any alterations or additions to the exterior of the building including those for ventilation, extraction, security and lighting o full details of the existing timber work and the extent of its repair o a detailed landscaping scheme o details of the proposed bat loft.
Reason: To safeguard and retain the essential features of this Listed Building in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. (Amended)
Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plan 960/A/005 Rev F, this permission does grant or imply consent for the new driveway and parking for The Gymnasium.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
6. (Amended)
The handkerchief tree shown on approved plan 960/A/005 Rev F shall be retained. No development shall commence until details of the protection during construction of the aforementioned tree has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
7. (Amended)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Construction management scheme comprising of:
- The routeing of construction vehicles to and from the site; - Parking facilities for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors; - Arrangements for the loading and unloading of plant and materials; - Areas of storage for plant and materials used during the construction of the proposed development; and - The hours of construction - The size of the construction and delivery vehicles
Page 25 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan
Reason: To ensure the construction phase of the development does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy.
12. Notwithstanding what is shown on approved plan 960/A/005 Rev F, there shall be no division of the courtyard.
Reason: To ensure that the development harmonises with the character of this listed building in accordance with Policy EQ3.
13. Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.
Appendix 1
16/00993/FUL Mr Marek Kwiatkowski Cllr Mason PATTINGHAM & PATSHULL
The Bothy, Patshull Park, Burnhill Green, WV6 7HY
Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings and sub division of existing garage into three.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Location
1.1.1 The site is located within the Parish of Pattingham and is part of the once great and extensive Patshull Hall. The proposal forms part of the old agricultural buildings that can be found some 120m south west of the main house. Unusually four sections of the complex have already been converted sometime in the early 2000's with a large section being left out. The shape of the building is an inverted square 'U' with a garage block infilling the gap at the bottom. The original courtyard has long since become overgrown and is now grass.
1.2 Planning History
Patshull Hall has an extensive and complicated planning history the most relevant of which are:
Page 26 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 2001 Conversion of the stables, coach house, triumphal arch and old laundry unit into residential accommodation of nine units, approved (01/01059/LBC) 2001 Conversion of the stables, coach house, triumphal arch and old laundry unit into residential accommodation consisting of nine dwellings, approved (01/01060/COU) 2016 Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings. Conversion of coach house to provide 1 single dwelling. Retention of existing Bothy and adjoining residential property with minor internal alterations, withdrawn (16/00057/FUL) 2016 Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings. Conversion of coach house to provide 1 single dwelling. Retention of existing Bothy and adjoining residential property with minor internal alterations, withdrawn (16/00058/LBC) 2016 Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings and sub division of existing garage into three, ongoing (16/00993/FUL)
1.3 Pre-Application Discussions
1.3.1 Discussions have taken place with Council Officers prior to submission where the merits of this revised scheme were discussed.
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 The application consists of the conversion of the two vacant buildings within the existing barn complex along with the redevelopment of the existing garage block. The application also proposes to reinstate the traditional farmyard cobbles (some of which can be seen under the grass) in addition to some works to the lane which runs to the west of the complex adding a parking area in the paddock beyond which will service the complex as a whole.
2.1.2 The conversion will consist of two semi-detached residential dwellings and a detached garage block. The dwellings will be 4 and 3 bed respectively and will have open plan kitchen diners, living area and entrance halls at ground floor.
2.1.2 An application for Listed Building Consent has also been submitted for the above works.
2.2 Agents Submissions
Tree survey Heritage Statement Historic Building Recording Structural Report Ecological Assessment
3. POLICY CONTEXT
Page 27 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 3.1 The stable buildings are Grade II listed, they are also associated with the Grade I listed Patshull Hall and in the Green Belt.
3.2 Core Strategy
Strategic Objective 5: To protect and enhance the historic environment and to ensure that the character and appearance of the Districts Conservation Areas is improved through management plans and better designed development. Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment GB1: Protecting the Green Belt EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design EQ11: Wider Design Considerations EQ12: Landscaping
3.3 National Policy Framework
1. Building a strong, competitive economy 3. Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy 7. Requiring Good Design 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Cllr Mason called the application to committee (received 07/12/2016)
Parish Council (expired 07/12/2016)
Conservation Officer (received 13/12/2016) Summary: The stable buildings are Grade II listed, they are also associated with the Grade I listed Patshull Hall. The early C20th garage is considered to be curtilage listed in association with Patshull Hall. The vaulted stores are also curtilage listed in association with Patshull Hall. All these buildings are sited within the Grade II Registered Park and Garden of Patshull Park. The buildings are currently used for limited storage and are in need of a long term sustainable use. The stables are in a reasonable condition but they are clearly vulnerable and the Coach House, in particular it's roof, is in very poor condition. The principle of conversion to residential use is acceptable from a conservation perspective. The current application fails to demonstrate that the proposals will not harm the significance of the designated heritage assets. I am concerned about the level of alterations proposed and also at the lack of information to allow an informed decision to be made on the current proposals.
Further comments received (31/01/2017) These comments should be read in associated with my previous comments. The principle of conversion to residential use is acceptable from a conservation perspective. The current application still fails to demonstrate
Page 28 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 that the proposals will not harm the significance of the designated heritage assets. I am still concerned about the level of alterations proposed and also at the lack of information to allow an informed decision to be made on the current proposals. It is still unclear if the submitted plans include all the works detailed in the structural engineers report. Extensive works are proposed within the structural engineers report and it needs to be clearly stated whether or not these are proposed to be implemented. Some of the proposed works are not appropriate for use in a listed building. The number of new openings has been reduced, there are 3 totally new openings proposed. It is also proposed to enlarge another 3 openings. It has not been demonstrated that these are necessary and that an alternative internal layout could preclude the need for these new openings. Also, if a new opening is shown to be necessary then a rooflight would be preferable to a new window as the visual impact and loss of historic fabric would be lessened. The level of internal alterations is still very significant. An entire brick internal wall is proposed to be removed and no justification is provided. The existing elevations do not accurately show the surviving windows and doors, in particular those at the far south-east end. The doorway has an arched opening and the window contains the remains of a venetian style window which should be replicated. Older photos should show if more openings originally had windows like this. Internally where insulated floor slabs are shown these will need to be full breathable and details can be required by condition. While the application includes a historic building record (HBR) which is very useful and informative and also a D&AS it still does not have a heritage statement assessing the impact of the proposed works on the significance of the assets. Paragraph 11.10 of the HBR assesses the buildings significance as medium but as, in the case of the barns, a Grade II listed building of national importance and in the case of the Garage a curtilage listed building, any harm to them requires clear and convincing justification. The HBR shows that while the barns date from c1750 they also include elements from a much earlier building. These elements are of great significance as they demonstrate the evolution of the site and contribute evidential and historical value. Any works that would affect these elements need careful consideration. There is reference to a bat loft but no details as to what this involves and any impact on the significance of the buildings. There is no reference to internal works including the retention of historic features including doors, windows, floors and machinery. Details of methods of insulation, ventilation and extraction should also be included. The location of all new vents, flues, SVP's and other external works should be marked on the elevation drawings. The application now includes only the stables and not the old gymnasium, its associated ice houses or the bothy. Therefore the supporting documents should be amended to reflect this. In terms of the landscaping the reinstatement of the cobbled surfacing is welcomed but there should be no formal sub-division of the land within the courtyard. Different ownerships can be shown through the use of alternative hard landscaping such as a row of different coloured cobbles.
Page 29 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 Further comments (received 14/02/2017) The structural engineers report is to be amended to reflect a lesser level of intervention and will be submitted in due course. The proposals have been amended so that there are no new openings and no openings will be increased in size. The level of internal alterations has been reduced, in particular the internal wall that was proposed to be removed in its entirety is being retained with a new opening. In terms of structural internal alterations these are not acceptable. Details of fenestration can be required by condition but it should be noted by the applicant that as evidence of the design of the original windows is still in situ these should be replicated. Historic photos may shed light on how many of the openings had such windows in.
Also where insulated floor slabs are noted these will need to be fully breathable, details will be required by condition, and if possible, original historic floor surfaces should be re-used over the top of the insulated floor slab. There are still references to injected dpc and celotex insulation which are not appropriate for use in a historic building. Details of the proposed methods of insulation will be required by condition but it should be noted that the building will need to remain fully breathable. While the application includes a historic building record (HBR) which is very useful and informative and also a D&AS it still does not have a heritage statement assessing the impact of the proposed works on the significance of the assets. Paragraph 11.10 of the HBR assesses the buildings significance as medium but as, in the case of the barns, a Grade II listed building of national importance and in the case of the Garage a curtilage listed building, any harm to them requires clear and convincing justification. Having now looked at the separate application for the Gymnasium it is clear that the older parts of the building are in this area and not in the Bothy. In terms of the landscaping the reinstatement of the cobbled surfacing is welcomed but there should be no formal sub-division of the land within the courtyard. Different ownerships can be shown through the use of alternative hard landscaping such as a row of different coloured cobbles.
Draft conditions:
No works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. o a full repairs schedule o full details of the retention and re-use of historic features o full details including a sample panel of the mortar mix, colour, gauge of jointing and pointing o full details of the internal doors o full details of the staircase
Page 30 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 o details of any alterations or additions to the exterior of the building including those for ventilation, extraction, security and lighting o full details of the existing timber work and the extent of its repair o a detailed landscaping scheme
Notwithstanding the details shown in the approved plans, no works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. - Full details of all works to existing floors - Full details of methods of insulation of floors, walls and roof - full details consisting of sections at a minimum scale of 1:5 and elevations at 1:20, of all external joinery including fenestration and doors and proposed exterior finish
County Highways (received 02/12/2016) There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal.
Arboricultural Officer (expired 07/12/2016)
Regeneration Officer (received 21/11/2016) The proposed development is located in an area outside of the settlement hierarchy. In accordance with the Affordable Housing and Housing Mix SPD, affordable housing requirement in these locations will be considered on the same basis as small service villages as a starting point. In line with Policy H2, we would therefore expect an offsite contribution equating to 20% of the development. However this requirement must be weighed against the Planning Practice Guidance which now states that developments of 10 units or less should not be required to make affordable housing contributions. This proposal falls below this threshold. Housing mix: Policy H1 encourages the provision of more 2 and 3 bedroom homes across all market areas of the district in order to produce a better balanced housing market. Mix should also be informed by local need as identified in the Housing Market Assessment. In relation to market housing, the HMA identifies an oversupply of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes in areas outside the main settlements in this sub-area. There is a shortfall of 2 bedroom properties in nearby Pattingham, therefore the provision of this size property in this development would be preferred. However, it is acknowledged that conversion of existing buildings will somewhat restrict the mix of properties that can be provided.
Historic England (received 29/11/2016) As you will be aware, your conservation adviser, Claire Hines, and I visited the application site last year to discuss the conversion of the Grade II stables and garage. Historic England has no objection in principle to the proposed residential use and is happy to defer to your conservation specialist adviser regarding the details of the proposals.
Page 31 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 Recommendation We recommend that this application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again. If you feel you need further advice, please let us know why. Please re-consult us if there are material changes to the proposals. We will then consider whether such changes might lead us to object.
Natural England (received 24/11/2016) Natural England has no comments to make on this application.
Shropshire County Council (expired 07/12/2016)
Severn Trent Water (expired 07/12/2016)
Ramblers Association (received 05/12/2016) I now write to inform you that Public Right of Way No. 26 of Patshull Parish passes close by the proposed development site. This public footpath is the only public path to St. Mary's Church from the village of Burnhill Green. The applicant must not obstruct the footpath if the development receives planning permission. It must remain open for public use at all times. As long as this is adhered to The Ramblers' Association has no objections to the development.
4.2 Publicity Advertisement (expires 13/12/2016) and Site notice (expires 15/12/2016)
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application is to be heard by Planning Committee as Cllr Mason had concerns over parking and drainage.
5.2 Key Issues
- Principle of Development Conversion of existing buildings Alterations to rear lane and ancillary parking area - Case for very special circumstances - Impact on Green Belt - Impact on the Heritage Asset - Amenity/SAD standards - Impact on character of area - Highways and Parking - Impact on neighbouring properties - Landscaping and trees - Ecology - Other matters
5.3 Principle of Development
5.3.1 Conversion of existing buildings
Page 32 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 The site is within the Green Belt where local and national policy states that the re-use of an existing building will be acceptable where the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction and provided the proposed use of the building (taking into account the size of any extensions, rebuilding or required alterations), would not harm the openness of the Green Belt or the fulfilment of its purposes. The applicant has submitted a comprehensive structural report detailing the condition of the range of buildings to be converted to residential use. This report identifies that certain areas of the barns would need to be repaired but the buildings are structurally sound. As the estate had various uses over the years, the buildings have not been treated in a sensitive or appropriate manner and as a result the roof of the element proposed for residential conversion needs replacing. The roof will not be any higher than that of the existing and as such will have no greater impact on openness. There are no other major extensions or renovations needed and as such I consider the proposal in accordance with the aims of GB1 and paragraph 90 of the NPPF.
The building is also a designated heritage asset and an assessment should be undertaken into the like hood of any harm caused to the building or its setting. This will be discussed later in the next section of the report.
5.3.2 Alterations to rear lane and ancillary parking area
Section C of GB1 considers changes of use of Green Belt and states that such development in the Green Belt will be permitted provided that the carrying out of engineering or other operations, or the making of a material change of sue of the land have no material impact on openness. The proposed alterations to the lane involve widening as well as the laying of a permeable bound material. I consider that these works will have no material impact on the openness of the Green Belt and as such are in accordance with the aims of GB1. The works also propose a car park area for use by the entire complex (including the existing dwellings) and has the potential to cause a degree of harm to openness by the permanent use by vehicles and therefore would be considered as inappropriate development. Any such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
5.4 Case for very special circumstances
5.4.1 After consultation with the neighbours residing in the existing complex it is clear that there are ongoing problems and issues with parking as well as vehicles delivering goods and providing services to the dwellings. It is anticipated that such problems could continue or become further exacerbated with vehicles visiting the additional dwellings. Parking would not be suitable in the internal courtyard due to the impact on the historic character and as such this is not an option. In light of this the applicants have offered the new parking area. It is proposed that the area will be suitably landscaped and bod paved to lessen any impact on the Green Belt and the rural landscape, all of which can be secured by a suitably worded condition if Members are minded to approve the application. On balance I consider the potential harm to the listed building (Heritage asset) from cars parking in the courtyard as well as the
Page 33 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 alleviation of nuisance to the existing residents overcomes any limited harm caused to openness by the use of the area by vehicles.
5.5 Impact on the Green Belt
5.5.1 As established in section 5.3 of this report, it is not considered the conversion will have a material impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is also considered that there will be no conflict with the 5 purposes of the Green Belt, these being; to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns margining into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
5.5.2 Whilst it is inevitable that some domestication takes place from residential conversions in the countryside, there are four dwellings in existence at the site, and a further two will have no additional impact. In addition a condition can be placed on the approval, removing PD rights for detached structures such as sheds. The parking area will be suitably screened with a native/natural hedgerow which when established will lessen any visual harm caused by the parking pf vehicles.
5.6 Impact on Heritage Asset
5.6.1 Policy EQ3 of the Core Strategy recommends that for proposals which involve the alteration or repair of heritage assets should be considered by an assessment of the following: o Minimising the loss and disturbance of historic materials o Using appropriate materials o Ensuring alterations are reversible
5.6.2 Part 12 of the NPPF and English Heritage offer guidance in relation to development to ensure that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations.
5.6.3 The estate as whole has suffered detrimental conversions, subdivisions, ownership and use disputes in the past and these buildings are some of the last at the site to be converted. This complex also has a dilapidated dwelling that was used for the Gymnasium for the war veterans when the hall was used as hospital after WWII. Alterations to improve this part of the complex are part of a separate ongoing application. The other wings of the complex were converted some time ago and are currently occupied (The Bothy, The Coach House and The Stables).
5.6.4 Discussions have taken place with the Conservation Officer to ensure that any disturbance of historic fabric is kept to a minimum and proposed new openings have been removed as well internal walls remaining as is. The CO also considered it important that there is to be no
Page 34 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 division of the reinstated courtyard to demark ownership which can be secured by condition.
5.6.5 To summarise; the heritage assets on the site are significant. The development would safeguard the long term future of these heritage assets with only minor external alterations. The proposed barn conversion scheme has been sensitively designed to limit the impact on the rural character of the barns. The proposal is therefore in accordance with advice contained in Part 12 of the NPPF and adopted local policy.
5.7 Amenity/SAD Standards
5.7.1 The site provides some amenity area to the rear and the front and satisfies the standards given in the Space about Dwellings guidance. The areas are not the traditional garden areas found on more modern housing developments however such situations are not uncommon in barn conversion schemes and buyers are aware of such when considering any future purchases. Any division of the plots will be agreed by solicitors and is a civil matter. No boundary treatments will be erected at the site without the express permission of the LPA. Any views into existing dwelling windows are at acute angles and again are common in barn conversions.
5.8 Impact on the character of the area
5.8.1 Policy EQ11 requires that new development "respect local character and distinctiveness, including that of the surrounding development and landscape […] by enhancing the positive attributes whilst mitigating the negative aspects", and that "[i]n terms of scale, volume […] and materials, development should contribute positively to the street scene and surrounding buildings, whilst respecting the scale of spaces and buildings in the local area."
5.8.2 Whilst the element of this application is currently vacant, as discussed in other sections of this report, the remaining wings have been converted into residential for some time. The conversion does not introduce any alien features and will restore the historic cobbles in the courtyard. The materials chosen for the operational improvement of the lane, and the parking area are to be secured by condition to ensure that the development will have a limited impact on the character of the existing rural landscape; consequently there can be no Policy EQ11 issues.
5.9 Highways and Parking
5.9.1 Concerns have been raised by local residents that the development is not providing sufficient parking and that the parking that is proposed may prevent access to their properties. The applicants have offered a compromise by proposing to widen the lane and provide the overspill car park area which will be suitably surfaced to accommodate all vehicles. Having visited the site and parked on the area proposed myself twice I do not consider that their remaining concerns in relation to users blocking their access are justified. These residents have resided in the complex for a long time and are likely to be suspicious of any new development
Page 35 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 proposed however the applicants have provided two parking spaces for each dwelling and as well as four for the existing dwelling, The Bothy. Even with the existing situation, there is sufficient room to reverse a car onto the driveway to the front of the garage with cars still able to pass by on the lane to The Stables; this will only be improved with the widening of the lane.
5.9.2 Any parking shown in relation to The Gymnasium does not form part of this application. Notwithstanding this however, the proposed access shown is unacceptable and it is anticipated that parking for this dwelling will be in the new communal parking area. The most ideal resolution to all parking and highway issues is for the access to be from the main drive to the hall however there are ongoing ownership disputes that have blighted the site as a whole in the past which only look set to continue into the future.
5.10 Impact on neighbouring properties
5.10.1 Policy EQ9 states that new development "should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents, particularly with regard to privacy […] and daylight." A number of objections were received to the proposal and negotiations have taken place throughout the process which have alleviated the majority of these concerns. Any remaining issues (such as disturbance during construction (that is on a temporary basis)) can be secured by condition. All other matters have been addressed throughout this report.
5.11 Landscaping and Trees
5.11.1 The proposal is acceptable in landscaping terms subject to conditions regarding the retention and protection of the existing handkerchief tree in the courtyard. A suitable landscape scheme to be submitted and approved at a later date is to be secured by condition.
5.12 Ecology
5.12.1 A Protected Species report has been received in support to the application. This report recommends that a dedicated bat loft is provided. The CO requires further details of where this to be sited which can be secured by condition if Councillors are mined to approve the application.
6. Conclusions
6.1 The conversion of the existing brick buildings to alternative uses represents an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt as the resultant use does not involve significant alternations/extensions/rebuilding works which affect the character of the buildings and surrounding area. Their proposed conversion has been sensitively designed and does not involve significant alterations or extensions to the existing range of traditional barns.
Page 36 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 6.2 The listed agricultural complex is a significant heritage asset. The scheme would help preserve the significance of the heritage asset as only limited alterations are needed for the residential conversion.
6.3 In view of the above considerations, approval is recommended subject to conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 960/A/005 Rev D received 02/02/2017 960/A/065 Rev A 960/A/070 960/A/060 received 09/02/2017 Bat survey dated August 2015.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. No works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. o a full repairs schedule o full details of the retention and re-use of historic features o full details including a sample panel of the mortar mix, colour, gauge of jointing and pointing o full details of the internal doors o full details of the staircase o details of any alterations or additions to the exterior of the building including those for ventilation, extraction, security and lighting o full details of the existing timber work and the extent of its repair o a detailed landscaping scheme
Reason: To safeguard and retain the essential features of this Listed Building in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. Notwithstanding the details shown in the approved plans, no works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained
Page 37 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. - Full details of all works to existing floors - Full details of methods of insulation of floors, walls and roof - full details consisting of sections at a minimum scale of 1:5 and elevations at 1:20, of all external joinery including fenestration and doors and proposed exterior finish
Reason: To safeguard and retain the essential features of this Listed Building in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plan 960/A/005 Rev D, this permission does grant or imply consent for the new driveway and parking for The Gymnasium nor the boundary treatment shown in the cobbled courtyard.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
6. The handkerchief tree shown on approved plan 960/A/005 Rev D shall be retained. No development shall commence until details of the protection during construction of the aforementioned tree has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
7. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Construction management scheme comprising of:
- The routeing of construction vehicles to and from the site; - Parking facilities for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors; - Arrangements for the loading and unloading of plant and materials; - Areas of storage for plant and materials used during the construction of the proposed development; and - The hours of construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
8. No development shall commence until the materials used in the rear access lane as shown as the hatched area on approved plan 960/A/005 Rev D and the area denoted 'Area for parking allow for permeable bodpave system' shown on the aforementioned plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.
Page 38 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 Reason: The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development
9. The garage shall be used only for purposes incidental to, and in connection with, the use of the site as a dwelling.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any other subsequent equivalent order, no development within the following classes of development shall be carried out to the dwelling, the subject of this approval, without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority:
a. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A - enlargement, improvement or other alteration b. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B - addition or alteration to the roof c. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class C - any other alteration to the roof d. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class D - porches e. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E - garden buildings, enclosures, pool, oil or gas storage container f. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class F - hardsurfacing g. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class G - chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe h. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class H - microwave antenna i. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A - gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure j. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B - means of access k. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class C - painting of exterior
Reason: The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development
11. Before any development takes place a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage and surface water drainage works shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied/brought into use until the approved scheme has been completed.
Reason: To prevent danger or damage from flooding by the adjacent watercourse in accordance with policy EQ7 of the adopted Core Strategy.
12. Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.
Page 39 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
16/00993/FUL - The Bothy Patshull Park Burnhill Green Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV6 7HY
Page 40 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
DEFERRED ITEM
16/00994/LBC Mr Marek Kwiatkowski Cllr Mason PATTINGHAM
The Bothy, Patshull Park, Burnhill Green, Wolverhampton South Staffordshire, WV6 7HY
Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings and Sub division of existing garage into three.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
See Appendix A
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1.3 An amended plan has been submitted which shows an overspill parking area for approximately 8 vehicles as well as an improvements to the existing lane (widening, new surfacing and a fall to help accommodate surface water runoff).
3. POLICY CONTEXT
See Appendix A.
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Conservation Officer - additional comments (received 04/04/2017) I have looked at the amended plan (960/A/005 Revision F) showing the parking relocated to the edge of the road which is now acceptable as it will have a negligible impact on the setting of the listed buildings, the conservation area and the registered park and garden and will not cause any harm to the significance of any of these designated heritage assets. I would still request a condition covering the materials to be used in the creation of the parking area and also and full details of any new boundary treatments or alterations to existing boundary treatments.
5. APPRAISAL
The application was deferred as it was considered that this application and a proposal at an adjoining property ‘The Gymnasium’ should be considered together.
5.1 Key Issues
- See Appendix A
6. CONCLUSIONS
Page 41 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 6.1 The proposed conversion has been sensitively designed and does not involve significant alterations or extensions to the existing range of traditional barns.
6.2 The listed agricultural complex is a significant heritage asset. The scheme would help preserve the significance of the heritage asset as only limited alterations are needed for the residential conversion.
6.3 In view of the above considerations, approval is recommended subject to conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
Conditions and reasons:
See Appendix 1
2. (Amended)
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 960/A/005 Rev F received 28/03/2017 960/A/065 Rev A 960/A/070 960/A/060 received 09/02/2017 Bat survey dated August 2015.
Reason: In order to define the permission and avoid doubt.
3. (Amended)
No works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. o a full repairs schedule o full details of the retention and re-use of historic features o full details including a sample panel of the mortar mix, colour, gauge of jointing and pointing o full details of the internal doors o full details of the staircase o details of any alterations or additions to the exterior of the building including those for ventilation, extraction, security and lighting o full details of the existing timber work and the extent of its repair o a detailed landscaping scheme o details of the proposed bat loft.
Reason: To safeguard and retain the essential features of this Listed Building in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. (Amended)
Page 42 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plan 960/A/005 Rev F, this permission does grant or imply consent for the new driveway and parking for The Gymnasium.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
6. (Amended)
The handkerchief tree shown on approved plan 960/A/005 Rev F shall be retained. No development shall commence until details of the protection during construction of the aforementioned tree has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
7. Notwithstanding what is shown on approved plan 960/A/005 Rev F, there shall be no division of the courtyard.
Reason: To ensure that the development harmonises with the character of this listed building in accordance with Policy EQ3.
8. Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.
Appendix 1
16/00994/LBC Mr Marek Kwiatkowski Cllr Mason PATTINGHAM & PATSHULL
The Bothy, Patshull Park, Burnhill Green, WV6 7HY
Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings and sub division of existing garage into three.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Location
1.1.1 The site is located within the Parish of Pattingham and is part of the once great and extensive Patshull Hall. The proposal forms part of the old agricultural buildings that can be found some 120m south west of the main house. Unusually four sections of the complex have already been converted sometime in the early 2000's with a large section being left out. The shape of the building is an inverted square 'U' with a garage block infilling the gap at the bottom. The original courtyard has long since become overgrown and is now grass.
Page 43 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
1.2 Planning History
Patshull Hall has an extensive and complicated planning history the most relevant of which are:
2001 Conversion of the stables, coach house, triumphal arch and old laundry unit into residential accommodation of nine units, approved (01/01059/LBC) 2001 Conversion of the stables, coach house, triumphal arch and old laundry unit into residential accommodation consisting of nine dwellings, approved (01/01060/COU) 2016 Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings. Conversion of coach house to provide 1 single dwelling. Retention of existing Bothy and adjoining residential property with minor internal alterations, withdrawn (16/00057/FUL) 2016 Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings. Conversion of coach house to provide 1 single dwelling. Retention of existing Bothy and adjoining residential property with minor internal alterations, withdrawn (16/00058/LBC) 2016 Conversion of existing stables to form 2no dwellings and sub division of existing garage into three, ongoing (16/00993/FUL)
1.3 Pre-Application Discussions
1.3.1 Discussions have taken place with Council Officers prior to submission where the merits of this revised scheme were discussed.
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 The application consists of the conversion of the two vacant buildings within the existing barn complex along with the redevelopment of the existing garage block. The application also proposes to reinstate the traditional farmyard cobbles (some of which can be seen under the grass) in addition to some works to the lane which runs to the west of the complex adding a parking area in the paddock beyond which will service the complex as a whole.
2.1.2 The conversion will consist of two semi-detached residential dwellings and a detached garage block. The dwellings will be 4 and 3 bed respectively and will have open plan kitchen diners, living area and entrance halls at ground floor.
2.1.2 An application for Listed Building Consent has also been submitted for the above works.
2.2 Agents Submissions
Tree survey Heritage Statement Historic Building Recording
Page 44 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 Structural Report Ecological Assessment
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 The stable buildings are Grade II listed, they are also associated with the Grade I listed Patshull Hall.
3.2 Core Strategy
Strategic Objective 5: To protect and enhance the historic environment and to ensure that the character and appearance of the Districts Conservation Areas is improved through management plans and better designed development. Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design EQ11: Wider Design Considerations
3.3 National Policy Framework
1. Building a strong, competitive economy 7. Requiring Good Design 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Cllr Mason called the application to committee (received 07/12/2016)
Parish Council (expired 07/12/2016)
Conservation Officer (received 13/12/2016) Summary: The stable buildings are Grade II listed, they are also associated with the Grade I listed Patshull Hall. The early C20th garage is considered to be curtilage listed in association with Patshull Hall. The vaulted stores are also curtilage listed in association with Patshull Hall. All these buildings are sited within the Grade II Registered Park and Garden of Patshull Park. The buildings are currently used for limited storage and are in need of a long term sustainable use. The stables are in a reasonable condition but they are clearly vulnerable and the Coach House, in particular it's roof, is in very poor condition. The principle of conversion to residential use is acceptable from a conservation perspective. The current application fails to demonstrate that the proposals will not harm the significance of the designated heritage assets. I am concerned about the level of alterations proposed and also at the lack of information to allow an informed decision to be made on the current proposals.
Further comments received (31/01/2017) These comments should be read in associated with my previous comments. The principle of conversion to residential use is acceptable from a conservation perspective. The current application still fails to demonstrate
Page 45 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 that the proposals will not harm the significance of the designated heritage assets. I am still concerned about the level of alterations proposed and also at the lack of information to allow an informed decision to be made on the current proposals. It is still unclear if the submitted plans include all the works detailed in the structural engineers report. Extensive works are proposed within the structural engineers report and it needs to be clearly stated whether or not these are proposed to be implemented. Some of the proposed works are not appropriate for use in a listed building. The number of new openings has been reduced, there are 3 totally new openings proposed. It is also proposed to enlarge another 3 openings. It has not been demonstrated that these are necessary and that an alternative internal layout could preclude the need for these new openings. Also, if a new opening is shown to be necessary then a rooflight would be preferable to a new window as the visual impact and loss of historic fabric would be lessened. The level of internal alterations is still very significant. An entire brick internal wall is proposed to be removed and no justification is provided. The existing elevations do not accurately show the surviving windows and doors, in particular those at the far south-east end. The doorway has an arched opening and the window contains the remains of a venetian style window which should be replicated. Older photos should show if more openings originally had windows like this. Internally where insulated floor slabs are shown these will need to be full breathable and details can be required by condition. While the application includes a historic building record (HBR) which is very useful and informative and also a D&AS it still does not have a heritage statement assessing the impact of the proposed works on the significance of the assets. Paragraph 11.10 of the HBR assesses the buildings significance as medium but as, in the case of the barns, a Grade II listed building of national importance and in the case of the Garage a curtilage listed building, any harm to them requires clear and convincing justification. The HBR shows that while the barns date from c1750 they also include elements from a much earlier building. These elements are of great significance as they demonstrate the evolution of the site and contribute evidential and historical value. Any works that would affect these elements need careful consideration. There is reference to a bat loft but no details as to what this involves and any impact on the significance of the buildings. There is no reference to internal works including the retention of historic features including doors, windows, floors and machinery. Details of methods of insulation, ventilation and extraction should also be included. The location of all new vents, flues, SVP's and other external works should be marked on the elevation drawings. The application now includes only the stables and not the old gymnasium, its associated ice houses or the bothy. Therefore the supporting documents should be amended to reflect this. In terms of the landscaping the reinstatement of the cobbled surfacing is welcomed but there should be no formal sub-division of the land within the courtyard. Different ownerships can be shown through the use of alternative hard landscaping such as a row of different coloured cobbles.
Page 46 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 Further comments (received 14/02/2017) The structural engineers report is to be amended to reflect a lesser level of intervention and will be submitted in due course. The proposals have been amended so that there are no new openings and no openings will be increased in size. The level of internal alterations has been reduced, in particular the internal wall that was proposed to be removed in its entirety is being retained with a new opening. In terms of structural internal alterations these are not acceptable. Details of fenestration can be required by condition but it should be noted by the applicant that as evidence of the design of the original windows is still in situ these should be replicated. Historic photos may shed light on how many of the openings had such windows in.
Also where insulated floor slabs are noted these will need to be fully breathable, details will be required by condition, and if possible, original historic floor surfaces should be re-used over the top of the insulated floor slab. There are still references to injected dpc and celotex insulation which are not appropriate for use in a historic building. Details of the proposed methods of insulation will be required by condition but it should be noted that the building will need to remain fully breathable. While the application includes a historic building record (HBR) which is very useful and informative and also a D&AS it still does not have a heritage statement assessing the impact of the proposed works on the significance of the assets. Paragraph 11.10 of the HBR assesses the buildings significance as medium but as, in the case of the barns, a Grade II listed building of national importance and in the case of the Garage a curtilage listed building, any harm to them requires clear and convincing justification. Having now looked at the separate application for the Gymnasium it is clear that the older parts of the building are in this area and not in the Bothy. In terms of the landscaping the reinstatement of the cobbled surfacing is welcomed but there should be no formal sub-division of the land within the courtyard. Different ownerships can be shown through the use of alternative hard landscaping such as a row of different coloured cobbles.
Draft conditions:
No works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. o a full repairs schedule o full details of the retention and re-use of historic features o full details including a sample panel of the mortar mix, colour, gauge of jointing and pointing o full details of the internal doors o full details of the staircase
Page 47 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 o details of any alterations or additions to the exterior of the building including those for ventilation, extraction, security and lighting o full details of the existing timber work and the extent of its repair o a detailed landscaping scheme
Notwithstanding the details shown in the approved plans, no works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. - Full details of all works to existing floors - Full details of methods of insulation of floors, walls and roof - full details consisting of sections at a minimum scale of 1:5 and elevations at 1:20, of all external joinery including fenestration and doors and proposed exterior finish
Arboricultural Officer (expired 07/12/2016)
Regeneration Officer (received 21/11/2016) The proposed development is located in an area outside of the settlement hierarchy. In accordance with the Affordable Housing and Housing Mix SPD, affordable housing requirement in these locations will be considered on the same basis as small service villages as a starting point. In line with Policy H2, we would therefore expect an offsite contribution equating to 20% of the development. However this requirement must be weighed against the Planning Practice Guidance which now states that developments of 10 units or less should not be required to make affordable housing contributions. This proposal falls below this threshold. Housing mix: Policy H1 encourages the provision of more 2 and 3 bedroom homes across all market areas of the district in order to produce a better balanced housing market. Mix should also be informed by local need as identified in the Housing Market Assessment. In relation to market housing, the HMA identifies an oversupply of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes in areas outside the main settlements in this sub-area. There is a shortfall of 2 bedroom properties in nearby Pattingham, therefore the provision of this size property in this development would be preferred. However, it is acknowledged that conversion of existing buildings will somewhat restrict the mix of properties that can be provided.
Historic England (received 29/11/2016) As you will be aware, your conservation adviser, Claire Hines, and I visited the application site last year to discuss the conversion of the Grade II stables and garage. Historic England has no objection in principle to the proposed residential use and is happy to defer to your conservation specialist adviser regarding the details of the proposals. Recommendation We recommend that this application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert
Page 48 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again. If you feel you need further advice, please let us know why. Please re-consult us if there are material changes to the proposals. We will then consider whether such changes might lead us to object.
Natural England (received 24/11/2016) Natural England has no comments to make on this application.
Neighbours - 5 letters of objection were submitted listing highway danger, parking issues, heritage issues and over development issues (received December January and February) all issues considered as part of full planning application and will not be discussed in this report.
4.2 Publicity Advertisement (expires 13/12/2016) and Site notice (expires 15/12/2016)
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application is to be heard by Planning Committee as Cllr Mason had concerns over parking and drainage.
5.2 Key Issues
- Impact on the Heritage Asset
5.3 Impact on Heritage Asset
5.3.1 Policy EQ3 of the Core Strategy recommends that for proposals which involve the alteration or repair of heritage assets should be considered by an assessment of the following: o Minimising the loss and disturbance of historic materials o Using appropriate materials o Ensuring alterations are reversible
5.3.2 Part 12 of the NPPF and English Heritage offer guidance in relation to development to ensure that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations.
5.3.3 The estate as whole has suffered detrimental conversions, subdivisions, ownership and use disputes in the past and these buildings are some of the last at the site to be converted. This complex also has a dilapidated dwelling that was used for the Gymnasium for the war veterans when the hall was used as hospital after WWII. Alterations to improve this part of the complex are part of a separate ongoing application. The other wings of the complex were converted some time ago and are currently occupied (The Bothy, The Coach House and The Stables).
5.3.4 Discussions have taken place with the Conservation Officer to ensure that any disturbance of historic fabric is kept to a minimum and proposed new openings have been removed as well internal walls
Page 49 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 remaining as is. The CO also considered it important that there is to be no division of the reinstated courtyard to demark ownership which can be secured by condition.
5.3.5 To summarise; the heritage assets on the site are significant. The development would safeguard the long term future of these heritage assets with only minor external alterations. The proposed barn conversion scheme has been sensitively designed to limit the impact on the rural character of the barns. The proposal is therefore in accordance with advice contained in Part 12 of the NPPF and adopted local policy.
6. Conclusions
6.1 The proposed conversion has been sensitively designed and does not involve significant alterations or extensions to the existing range of traditional barns.
6.2 The listed agricultural complex is a significant heritage asset. The scheme would help preserve the significance of the heritage asset as only limited alterations are needed for the residential conversion.
6.3 In view of the above considerations, approval is recommended subject to conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 960/A/005 Rev D received 02/02/2017 960/A/065 Rev A 960/A/070 960/A/060 received 09/02/2017 Bat survey dated August 2015.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. No works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. o a full repairs schedule o full details of the retention and re-use of historic features o full details including a sample panel of the mortar mix, colour, gauge of jointing and pointing
Page 50 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 o full details of the internal doors o full details of the staircase o details of any alterations or additions to the exterior of the building including those for ventilation, extraction, security and lighting o full details of the existing timber work and the extent of its repair o a detailed landscaping scheme
Reason: To safeguard and retain the essential features of this Listed Building in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. Notwithstanding the details shown in the approved plans, no works hereby approved shall be commenced, until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained for the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. - Full details of all works to existing floors - Full details of methods of insulation of floors, walls and roof - full details consisting of sections at a minimum scale of 1:5 and elevations at 1:20, of all external joinery including fenestration and doors and proposed exterior finish
Reason: To safeguard and retain the essential features of this Listed Building in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plan 960/A/005 Rev D, this permission does grant or imply consent for the new driveway and parking for The Gymnasium nor the boundary treatment shown in the cobbled courtyard.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
6. The handkerchief tree shown on approved plan 960/A/005 Rev D shall be retained. No development shall commence until details of the protection during construction of the aforementioned tree has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
7. Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.
Page 51 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
16/00994/LBC - The Bothy Patshull Park Burnhill Green Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV6 7HY
Page 52 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 DEFERRED ITEM
16/01118/FUL Miss Elizabeth Forrester Cllr Edwards, Cllr Hingley & Cllr H Williams KINVER
Forresters Lodge Stables, Bridgnorth Road, Stourton DY7 5BQ
Renewal of Planning Permission for siting of a temporary dwelling (granted ref: APP/C3430/A/14/2225972)
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
See Appendix A
1.2 Planning History
See Appendix A
1.3 Pre-application Discussions
See Appendix A
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposals
See Appendix A
2.2 Agents Submission
See Appendix A
3. POLICY CONTEXT
See Appendix A
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
See Appendix A
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 See Appendix A
5.2 Key Issues
- Principle of development - Case for Very Special Circumstances - Access and Parking
Page 53 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 - Representation
5.3 -5.5 See Appendix A
5.6 Representation
5.6.1 The Parish Council has stated that there is grooms accommodation in the stables which addresses any on site accommodation that might be needed. However the approved plans do not show groom accommodation and therefore any such change of use within the stables would be subject to enforcement action unless a retrospective planning application were to be approved. On the 22nd March 2017 an enforcement officer visited the site; the officer concluded that at the time of inspection there was no sign of anyone was living in any of the buildings.
5.6.2 The neighbours’ concerns have been address in other sections of this report.
6. CONCLUSIONS
See Appendix A
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
See Appendix A
Conditions and reasons see Appendix A Proactive Statement
Proactive Statement In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
Page 54 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 APPENDIX 1
16/01118/FUL Miss Elizabeth Forrester Cllr Edwards, Cllr Hingley & Cllr H Williams KINVER
Forresters Lodge Stables, Bridgnorth Road, Stourton DY7 5BQ
Renewal of Planning Permission for siting of a temporary dwelling (granted ref: APP/C3430/A/14/2225972)
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The site is approximately 2.4ha, located on the south side of the Bridgnorth Road. The site slopes down away from the highway and is 'L' shaped. There is a large indoor school, 21m x 50m, in the main body of the site. The site has a 1.8m high timber fence and metal gates to the boundary adjacent to the highway.
1.1.2 Planning permission was granted on appeal in April 2014 for the erection of 12 stables with ancillary accommodation and horse walker close to the existing indoor school, together with new fence/gates. In December 2014 permission was granted on appeal for the siting of a temporary dwelling next to the entrance on Bridgnorth Road.
1.2 Planning History
2002 Outline permission for indoor riding school and the regularisation of the existing car park area extension, Approved [02/01113] 2003 Extension to provide indoor riding school and regularisation of car park area extension, Approved [03/00599] 2012 Change of use from commercial riding stables and livery to private competition yard. Erection of twelve stables with ancillary accommodation, log cabin, horse walker, fence and gates to highway and rubber crumb paved access to existing indoor school (major development), Withdrawn [12/00677] 2012 Change of use from commercial riding stables and livery to private competition yard. Erection of twelve stables with ancillary accommodation, log cabin, horse walker, fence and gates to highway and rubber crumb paved access to existing indoor school (major development), Refused [12/00956] 2013 Erection of ten stables with ancillary accommodation etc, Refused [13/00376/FUL], Allowed on Appeal 2014 siting of temporary dwelling, refused (14/00486/FUL), allowed on appeal
1.3 Pre-application Discussions
1.3.1 Pre-application advice was not sought
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposals
2.1.1 The proposal is for the retention of the temporary mobile home for a further 3 years. The mobile home is currently situated adjacent to the boundary hedge on the Bridgnorth Road.
Page 55 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 2.1.2 The static caravan measures 13.5 metres by 3.8 metres with a shallow dual pitched roof with a ridge height of approximately 3.5 metres. The accommodation comprises of two bedrooms, a lounge, kitchen and bathroom.
2.2 Agents Submission
2.2.1 The agents have submitted a Design and Access Statement dated December 2016 and Forresters Lodge Equestrian accounts. The agent has resubmitted the Equine Planning Statement dated May 2013 originally submitted with planning application 14/00486/FUL for the mobile home.
2.2.2 The design and access statement contains this conclusion;
The site has established equestrian use in the form of a commercial riding stables. The site has planning permission for a temporary dwelling, 10 stables, a foaling box, stallion box, tack store, hay store, horse-walker, access road and new fence and gates. Miss Elizabeth Forrester is a highly talented young show jumper with the potential to become a champion at the highest level. She also contributes to the local rural economy through the use of local suppliers and in time will employ two staff. Miss Forrester hosts lessons and training sessions for members of South Staffordshire Riding Association. For animal welfare reasons and the security of the animals, it is stated by the expert's that a 24 hour presence on site is necessary. The siting of a temporary dwelling on site will provide this supervision. The Equine Statements demonstrate the proposal's compliance with policy EV7 By submitting financial information which demonstrates that a viable business venture is being undertaken which will return a profit in 3 years, compliance with policy EV8 can also be demonstrated. From the Equine Statement and Planning Policy justifications contained therein, there is a sound basis for granting permission in this instance and not resorting to another appeal.
2.2.4 The equine planning statement makes reference to the planning history of the site. The applicant is a competent and experienced show jumper and is now on the world class pathway of the British equestrian Federation Regional Foundation programme.
2.2.5 The applicant's business plan is to develop and expand her existing equine business over the next three years. It consists of breeding, training, competing and selling competition horses from her own string of horses. In addition Miss Forester is using her skills to provide a full livery and training facility for clients with competition horses.
2.2.6 The applicant's income will comprise of the sale of competition horse prize money from competitions sponsorship money and full livery and training fees from clients.
2.2.7 The projected income is £15,820 in year one, £40,140 in year two and £74,460 in year three. The variable costs are estimated at £14,908 in year one, £16,552 in year two and £19,880 in year three. The overheads are projected as £13,870 now and £28,055 in the future. Budgeted net profit is a loss of £12,958 in year one, a profit of £5,718 in year two and a profit of £26,530 in year three.
2.2.8 The appraisal considers the proposals against each of the elements of policy EV8. The applicant has purchased the land and buildings and there is clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned. An assessment of the functional need requires an evaluation of risk, frequency and type of out of hours emergency situations arising, scale and loss should that emergency arise, potential for an on site worker to identify the problem and the
Page 56 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 ability of the resident worker to rectify the problem. It is Reading Agricultural Consultants view that there is an essential need for an equestrian worker to be resident on site to provide the necessary management and supervision to ensure that the welfare needs of the horses are not compromised.
2.2.9 The temporary dwelling would be occupied by a full time equine worker. There is a requirement for at least two full time workers. There is no other existing dwelling on the site or in the area which is suitable and available. With regard to the financial test a sound business should be able to provide a reasonable return on all inputs used, land labour and capital. Notional deductions are estimated to be £18,825 and the projected net profit would be sufficient to meet these requirements.
2.2.10 The applicant is a competent and experienced show jumper backed by the British equestrian Federation and sponsors and supported by local veterinary officers and other organisations. The business is viable and there is an essential need for an equestrian worker to live on site. The applicant's proposal is compliant with policies GB1, EV5, EV7 EV8 and paragraphs 28 and 55 of the NPPF.
2.2.11 According to the Planning Statement the applicant already has two young horses which have been selected onto World Class Pathway Training, including one ranked in the top 20 horses in the Country. Her breeding programme involves olympic stallions being bred with proven international standard mares.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 Within the Green Belt
3.2 Core Strategy
GB1: Development in the Green Belt EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape EQ12: Landscaping EV7: Equine related development EV8: Agriculture
3.3 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 3 Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy Chapter 9 Protecting Green Belt
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
No Councillor comments [expired 12.01.2017]
Kinver Parish Council comments [received 02.02.2017] Recommend Refusal on the grounds that there is now a built groom's accommodation in the brick stable block that is completed. This should serve as the accommodation for any personnel on site. This negates the need for any further dwellings either temporary or permanent. The previous application was only approved on a technicality therefore this application should be refused by the Planning Department.
Environment Health comments [received 16.01.2017] If there is no intended connection to the mains sewer, it will be necessary to undertake percolation tests to establish the suitability of the site. If found suitable for a septic tank or similar treatment system, the details , capacities, siting and drainage layout of the system must be provided. This can be dealt with by condition.
Page 57 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
Planning Enforcement [received 22.12.2017] no comments subject to adequate evidence having been submitted.
County Highways [received 13.01.2017] There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal.
County Rights of Way Officer [received 17.01.2017] The County Council's Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way shows that no rights of way cross the proposed application site. The County Council has not received any application under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add or modify the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, which affects the land in question. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a right of way at common law, or by virtue of a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It may, therefore, be necessary to make further local enquiries and seek legal advice in respect of any physically evident route affecting the land, or the apparent exercise of a right of way by members of the public.
Neighbours comments [received 11.01.2017] Contrary to Green Belt policy.
Site Notice [Expiry 14.02.2017]
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application has been referred to Committee because it is contrary to Green Belt Policy.
5.2 Key Issues
- Principle of development - Agricultural Related Development - Equine related Enterprise - Functional Need - Financial Appraisal - Access and Parking - Material Considerations Amounting to Very Special Circumstances - Planning Balance
5.3 Principle of Development
5.3.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy directs and Paragraph 89 of the NPPF advises that proposals for inappropriate development in the Green Belt should be resisted. The construction of a static caravan should be regarded as inappropriate development. For planning permission to be granted the applicants must identify material considerations amounting to "very special circumstances" to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of the development's inappropriateness. The NPPF emphasises that 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.
5.3.2 Core Policy 9 deals with rural diversification which supports in general the diversification of the agricultural economy. Policy EV7, Equine Related Development, in the adopted Core Strategy sets out a number of factors to be taken into consideration in order for horse related facilities and equine enterprises in the Green Belt to be supported. However, it is Policy EV8, Agriculture, which
Page 58 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 sets out the criteria for supporting temporary agricultural and occupational workers dwellings in the Green Belt.
5.4 Case for very special circumstances
5.4.1 In the appeal of 2014 the Planning Inspector stated:
On the basis of the material submitted I consider that there is an essential need for an equine worker to be resident at Forrester’s Lodge Stables as it develops to ensure that the horses are properly cared for and their welfare safeguarded. In particular constant care is required when mares are foaling and stallions are stabled on the premises. Furthermore there is a need to respond quickly to emergencies such as horses suffering from colic, horses being cast in the stables, or the rapid evacuation of horses in the event of fire.
Given the high value of the horses kept on the site a person living on the site would also be able to provide the necessary level of security. I do not believe that workers living away from the site would be able to provide the necessary level of care and security.
Consequently I attach considerable weight to the need for the temporary accommodation to ensure that the horses are properly cared for and their welfare safeguarded.
5.4.2 The Inspector did consider it necessary to impose a temporary condition to establish if the business was sustainable and that if not, the caravan would be removed. This period has now elapsed and as such it is down to the applicant to prove the business is sustainable although there has been no change in the need to provide 24/7 care for the horses.
Financial Appraisal
5.4.3 The same Equine Planning Statement has been resubmitted with this application however up to date accounts have been submitted at the request of the planning officer. The accounts for the year-end April 2016 show a net profit of £9,101. The projected accounts for year-end April 2017 show a net profit of £12,394. It has therefore been demonstrated that a profit has been made however the accounts suggest that no additional workers have been employed as yet. In addition the predicted year 3 profit of £26,530 contained in the 2013 Planning Statement has not been achieved. The business has begun to turn a small profit and would be considered as sustainable. Nonetheless it has still not had chance to establish itself fully and as such, I consider it appropriate in this instance to grant permission for the stationing of the mobile home on a temporary 3 year basis again.
5.4.4 In light of the above, I consider the considerations amount to very special circumstances to overcome the automatic policy objection.
5.5 Access and Parking
5.5.1 The mobile home utilises the existing access and parking is available to the front of the mobile home. There are no objections from County Highways.
5.6 Representation
5.6.1 The Parish Council has stated that there is grooms accommodation in the stables which addresses any on site accommodation that might be needed. However the approved plans do not show groom accommodation and therefore any such change of use within the stables would be subject to enforcement action
Page 59 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 unless a retrospective planning application were to be approved. A case has been raised with the Enforcement Team.
5.6.2 The neighbours’ concerns have been address in other sections of this report.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The siting of a mobile home in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate development and any application should be refused unless very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome Policy GB1. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that 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.
6.2 It is my view that the need for personnel to be on site (to satisfy the needs of the sustainable business) outweighs the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. I consider it necessary to allow the retention of this temporary accommodation for a further 3 year period. The performance and business plan for the enterprise can be reviewed again at the end of the 3 year period. I therefore recommend approval on that basis.
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The use hereby approved shall be discontinued and the land restored to its condition as paddock on or before the date three years following the date a decision is issued in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development
2. Occupation of the temporary dwelling hereby approved shall be restricted to persons solely employed at Forrester's Lodge Stables as equine workers and their resident dependants.
In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 11054 1002 1001A 1000A received 15/12/2016.
In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
Page 60 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
16/01118/FUL - Forresters Lodge Stables Bridgnorth Road Stourton Stourbridge South Staffordshire DY7 5BQ
Page 61 of 108
Page 62 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
16/01061/FUL C.Piper And Sons Cllr J Raven & Limited Cllr C Raven PENKRIDGE
The Nurseries Watling Street Gailey Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 5PR
Mobile home accommodation
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site description
1.1.1 The application relates to a nursery site set on the A5, Watling Street in Gailey. The site is a long rectangular shaped piece of land that contains a significant number of glasshouses and poly tunnels which extend almost along its full length. The site is used for both the growing of plants for wholesale as well as having a retail section, behind an existing car park and two on-site detached dwellings. Permission was granted in 2008 for a replacement dwelling at the site. This permission has been commenced.
1.2 Planning History
2005, growing glasshouse, approved (05/00720/FUL) 2005, glasshouse, approved (05/00753/FUL) 2005, growing glasshouse, approved (05/01016/FUL) 2007, car parking area, refused (07/01123/FUL) 2008, replacement dwelling and new parking, refused 08/00855/FUL 2008, replacement dwelling and new parking, approved 08/01124/FUL 2010, replace multi-span tunnel with Venlo greenhouse, approved (10/00667/FUL) 2010, portal steel framed building for storage of palletised goods and packaging, approved (10/00666/FUL) 2012, stables blocks and sheds, approved (12/00382) 2012, Temporary accommodation (mobile home) and associated works, approved (12/00632/TEM) 2015, Demolish existing glass house building and replace with new portal steel framed building for horticultural storage purposes, approved (15/00812) 2016, Retention of staff accommodation (replacing old mobile home for new), approved (16/01062)
1.3 Pre-application Discussions
1.3.1 No pre application discussions have taken place
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 Permission is being sought for a mobile home at the site on a permanent basis. The home measures 13.5 by 6.4m with an overall height
Page 63 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 of 4.5m. The home sits on wheels but a brick base has been constructed and a patio area to two sides. It has the appearance of a log cabin. The applicants want to forgo the extant permission for a dwelling with the substitution with the mobile home. It is located at the northern end of the nursery buildings.
2.2. Agent Submission
2.2.1 Design and Access Statement was submitted.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 Within the Green Belt
3.2 Core Strategy Strategic Objective 1: To protect and maintain the Green Belt in order to sustain the distinctive character of South Staffordshire Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment EQ4 Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development EQ9: Protecting residential amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design EQ11: Wider Design Considerations EQ12: Landscaping Core Policy 9: Rural Diversification EV5: Rural Development
3.3 NPPF Part 9 - Green Belts
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Comments received
No Councillor comment (expired 02/01/2017)
Penkridge Parish Council (received 23/01/2017) No comments
No neighbours comments (expired 27/12/2017)
Site notice (expired 02/01/2017)
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The proposal is contrary to policy GB1 of the Core Strategy.
5.2 Key issues - Principle of development - Very Special Circumstances
Page 64 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
- Impact on character of area and visual Harm - Impact on neighbours - Impact on highways
5.3 Principle of development
5.3.1 Both local and national policy states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, unless they fall into specific criteria, including buildings for agriculture and forestry and the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, "as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it…" The residential caravan is therefore inappropriate and the applicant needs to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances to justify any harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt.
5.4 Case for Very Special Circumstances
5.4.1 Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure the 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. The proposal is for the permanent stationing of a mobile home, including walls on which it sits and the patio area. The applicants are willing to forgo the extant permission for a two storey dwelling at the front of the site for the retention of the mobile home on a permanent basis. The aforementioned dwelling would have a far greater impact on openness at the site than the existing caravan and as such, the trade-off clearly outweighs the harm to the Green Belt caused by the stationing of a mobile home on a permanent basis.
5.5 Impact on the character of the area and Visual Harm
5.5.1 Policy EQ11 requires that new development "respect local character and distinctiveness, including that of the surrounding development and landscape […] by enhancing the positive attributes whilst mitigating the negative aspects", and that "[i]n terms of scale, volume […] and materials, development should contribute positively to the street scene and surrounding buildings, whilst respecting the scale of spaces and buildings in the local area." The site is well screened from the road by the existing structures used in association with the nursery. It cannot be viewed from the public realm and for that reason I consider there will be no detrimental impact to the surrounding area.
5.6 Impact on neighbours
5.6.1 Policy EQ9 states that new development "should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents, particularly with regard to privacy […] and daylight." The mobile home is located to the rear of the site and well away from the neighbouring properties and I have no concerns with regard to neighbours amenity.
Page 65 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
5.7 Impact on highways
5.7.1 There will be no impact on the existing access or parking arrangements and there are no highway concerns.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 I have found the proposal to be inappropriate development which harmful to the Green Belt by definition and should not be approved unless there are very special circumstances that clearly outweigh such harm. I consider that the building of a two storey dwelling at the front of the site would have a far greater impact on openness that the existing mobile home. The revoking of the extant permission is a material consideration that amounts to a very special circumstance which clearly outweighs any aforementioned harm. There will be no harm to residential amenity, the landscape or highways and I am recommending Members approve the scheme subject to a section 106 agreement preventing the completion of the dwelling.
7. RECOMMENDATION
Delegate APPROVAL to the Team Leader of Minor Applications to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory legal agreement. Should this not be completed by 18th July 2017, or at a date otherwise agreed in writing by the Chairman of Planning Committee, the application will be refused.
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 2 and 2 (Plng) Elevations and layout, received on.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
2. Proactive Statement
In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
Page 66 of 108 Lucy Duffy: Householder Team Leader – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
16/01061/FUL - The Nurseries Watling Street Gailey Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 5PR
Page 67 of 108
Page 68 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00087/FUL Mrs Pamela Corbett Cllr J Ashley & Cllr D Williams HATHERTON
Church Farm Church Lane Hatherton Cannock South Staffordshire WS11 1RR
Poultry Manager's bungalow in place of two storey dwelling approved and commenced under ref. 01/00164/FUL
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The site lies in an area of farmland to the east of Gailey Lea Lane, just north of the A5. It comprises of an existing access road running east off Gailey Lea Lane and an area of grassland immediately adjacent to this access road. Immediately north of the site lies a number of substantial poultry farm buildings which were the subject of a number of recent applications on the site (14/01021/FUL, 15/00387/FUL & 15/00939/FUL). The Hollies Truck Stop lies to the south east of the site and there is a Public Right of Way (Hatherton 7) immediately adjacent to the east of the site.
1.2 Relevant Planning History
2001 - Agricultural dwelling, approved [01/00164/FUL] 2015 - Erection of a 6 No broiler rearing unit with associated feed bins, hardstandings, upgraded vehicle access and associated drainage attenuation pond, approved [14/01021/FUL] 2015 - Erection of Agricultural Building to provide storage for Straw, which is to be used in the biomass heating system in adjacent building serving the proposed broiler rearing units on adjoining land and approved under ref. 14/01021/FUL, approved [15/00387/FUL] 2016 - Erection of 2 No. additional poultry buildings, and associated feed bins, feed blending room, hardstandings and drainage attenuation pond, approved [15/00939/FUL]
1.3 Pre-application discussions
1.3.1 Pre-application discussions were had with the applicant.
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 The application proposes the construction of a poultry manager's bungalow to replace an implemented (but not completed) two storey dwelling to the north east of the site. This commenced dwelling was permitted under a previous planning permission (01/00164/FUL). The proposed replacement bungalow would measure 5.4m to the ridge and 2.45m to the eaves, would contain three bedrooms and would include an
Page 69 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 attached one car garage. Access would be provided via the existing access track that serves the poultry buildings to the north, off Gailey Lea Lane.
2.2 Additional information
2.2.1 Following a request from the case officer, the applicants have provided additional information detailing why an on call manager would need to be housed in the proposed location. This cites factors such as night time management of the flock, the size of the broiler unit operation, security risks from break-ins and the need for a manager to be on call 24 hours a day to respond to any mechanical failure in the broiler units.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 This site lies within the Green Belt
3.2 Core Strategy
National Policy 1: The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Core Policy 9: Rural Diversification Policy EV8: Agriculture Policy EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 5: Parking Standards Appendix 6: Space About Dwelling Standards
3.3 National Planning Policy Framework
Chapter 3: Supporting a prosperous rural economy Chapter 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Chapter 7: Requiring good design Chapter 9: Protecting Green Belt land
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Councillor Jeff Ashley (received 20.02.2017)
With reference to the above planning application whilst the proposal is that the new Bungalow replaces the previous larger property granted permission in 2001 i.e. 01/00164/ FUL I find it odd that a dwelling granted permission on the basis of urgent need for a manger to live close to poultry units the large house never materialised, apart from a few bricks laid in the ground?
Page 70 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
Nevertheless I have no basic objections to new proposal but there are few concerns that need to be addressed.
As I see the block plan the access to the bungalow is from Gailey Lea Road via a bridle path which I understand is not a metalled road? May I suggest the access road is checked out as a garage is indicated on the plans? Will the access road adversely affect any public path? Should the bungalow be approved may I request that an agricultural occupancy be imposed on the property as a condition.
Councillor David J Williams (received 22.02.2017)
I would like to echo Cllr Ashley's comments, and as discussed at the last parish meeting have the same questions.
Parish Council (expired 28.02.2017)
Environmental Health (received 03.03.2017)
Please ensure that the proposed is tied into the poultry farm to be used as manager/staff accommodation only. If this is not possible I recommend the application is refused as the poultry farm would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the proposed.
County Highways (received 24.02.2017)
There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal. 1. The above comments relate purely to the effects of the development on roads for which Staffordshire County Council is the Highway Authority. For consideration to be given to the effects of the development on the A5 Trunk Road, it will be necessary for you to consult Highways England.
Informative for Decision Notice. i). The proposed development requires a public right of way to be diverted. As such no development hereby approved shall be commenced until details of the diverted right of way have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved diverted right of way shall be constructed and open for public use in accordance with the approved details prior to closure of the existing right of way. (Note: For more information on rights of way issues see http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/e-land/RightsofWay/ or contact: Rights of Way Section, Environment & Countryside Unit, Staffordshire Place 2, Tipping Street, Stafford. ST16 2DH).
Rights of Way team (received 21.02.2017)
The proposed development will have a direct impact on Public Footpath No 7 Hatherton Parish which is not recognised within the application documents. If planning permission is granted then the development should not commence until South Staffordshire Council has made and confirmed an Order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert the public right of way to allow the development to
Page 71 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 commence. The County Council will need to be formally consulted on any proposal to divert the right of way.
The applicants should be reminded that the granting of planning permission does not constitute authority for interference with the right of way or its closure or diversion. For further information the applicant should be advised to read section 7 of DEFRA's Rights of Way Circular (1/09). We would not expect any landscape planting to impact on the public right of way and the maintenance of any trees planted near to the public right of way would be the responsibility of the applicant and any subsequent landowners. The plans show proposed planting which also appears to directly impact on the public footpath.
The County Council has not received any application under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add or modify the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, which affects the land in question. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a right of way at common law, or by virtue of a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It may, therefore, be necessary to make further local enquiries and seek legal advice in respect of any physically evident route affecting the land, or the apparent exercise of a right of way by members of the public.
Ramblers Association (received 24.02.2017)
Public Right of Way No 7, a footpath of Hatherton Parish, goes down the side of the field to the A5 very close to the site of the proposed bungalow. This footpath must be respected and maintained on its definitive line as far as possible. Space must be provided for the public to walk either in front or behind the bungalow close to the side of the field. The path must not be obstructed by the development as this would be illegal. As long as this is adhered to The Ramblers' Association will have no objections to the application.
Highways Agency (received 13.03.2017)
No objections
Severn Trent Water (expired 28.02.2017)
Neighbours (x 4 received 06.03.2017 - 21.03.2017)
Four letters were received from nearby residents, which can be summarised as raising the following issues: - Support for the change from a two storey house to a bungalow - Request that bungalow includes renewable energy, rainwater harvesting and efficient sewage treatment - Requests for tree cover indicated on plans for nearby chicken broiler units and barn to be implemented and increased - Concerns that original Environmental Permit granted for chicken production units may be being contravened due to brook being affected by surface run-off - Alleged non-compliance with conditions 7,8 & 9 of 15/00387/FUL
Page 72 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 This application has been referred to Planning Committee as it is contrary to Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy.
5.2 Key Issues
- Green Belt - Agricultural workers dwellings - Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - Highways/Parking - Landscape/Character - Living conditions - Other matters
5.3 Principle of the Development
5.3.1 Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy states that proposals for replacement buildings will normally be permitted within the Green Belt where they are acceptable in terms of the NPPF and are not materially larger than the buildings they replace. The Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD offers further detail on this policy, indicating that permitted development fallback positions will be taken into account in making such judgements, whilst also clarifying that replacement buildings must be in the same use as those which they replace. The SPD also clarifies that replacement buildings can be sited elsewhere within a site, providing that regard is had to the impact of the relocated building on the openness of the Green Belt.
5.3.2 The proposed dwelling is to replace a previously permitted and partially implemented planning permission for an agricultural workers dwelling, for which foundations have been put in place. However, there is no currently existing dwelling on site for the proposed building to replace. As such, the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and requires material considerations amounting to very special circumstances to be demonstrated, which must clearly outweigh any potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.
5.4 Impact on the Green Belt
5.4.1 Considered in isolation, the proposed agricultural workers dwelling would be inappropriate development which would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt by introducing a single storey building on an area of greenfield land, thereby causing a material reduction in the Green Belt’s openness. Furthermore, given the open countryside location of the site, considered in isolation the dwelling would be contrary to the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
5.4.2 However, these impacts must be traded off against the proposed revocation of the 2001 permission at Church Farm (01/00164/FUL). Given the information submitted by the applicants and the recently granted permissions (14/01021/FUL, 15/00387/FUL & 15/00939/FUL) for the
Page 73 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 expansion of the poultry farm at Church Farm, there is every likelihood that this permission will be completed if the current proposal is refused, as it has been demonstrated that there is a pressing need for an agricultural worker to serve the recently expanded business operations. It is also clear that the 2001 permission is still extant from the foundations which have been put in on site.
5.4.3 The ground floor area of the dwelling permitted by the 2001 permission (including external walls) was conditioned to be no more than 93sq.m and this measurement did not include a sizable 3 car garage that also formed part of that scheme. It is also important to note that this previously permitted scheme was two storey in nature, in contrast to the bungalow currently proposed, and sat in a similarly open site on the edge of an agricultural field. The current proposal would result in a more modest single storey dwelling with a ground floor area of 104sq.m, alongside a single car garage. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a draft unilateral undertaking, which agrees to the revocation of this previous permission in the event that the current scheme is granted.
5.4.4 Given the above, the reduced garage size and the single storey nature of the proposed replacement bungalow, it is considered that this dwelling would not be materially larger than the previously permitted dwelling which it would replace. Furthermore, subject to a condition restricting future use of the building to that of an agricultural workers dwelling, there will be no change in use between the existing permission and proposed dwelling.
5.4.5 Therefore, whilst the 2001 permission may have lain unimplemented for a number of years, there is now a pressing need for such a dwelling given the more recent poultry farm permissions nearby. The currently proposed location may be preferable to the applicants due to its proximity to the access to the poultry farm units, but it is very likely that the 2001 permission will be implemented should this application be refused. Consequentially, I attach significant weight to this fallback position, which would effectively offset the impact on Green Belt openness and encroachment into the countryside from the proposed dwelling, as it would remove the potential for a larger dwelling in a similarly open countryside location.
5.5 Very Special Circumstances
5.5.1 Policy EV8 of the Core Strategy indicates that the Council will support proposals for permanent agricultural workers dwellings provided that they satisfy set criteria, in particular that:
- there is a clearly established existing functional need which cannot be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; - the need relates to a full-time worker; - the unit and the agricultural activity concerned have been established for at least three years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are
Page 74 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 currently financially sound, and have a clear prospect of remaining so; and - the proposal satisfies all other normal planning requirements.
5.5.2 Having regard to the additional submitted supporting information provided, the broiler unit operation to the north west of the proposed accommodation clearly requires full-time supervision and management, due to the importance of the units to the farm business and the intensive management and monitoring of the livestock on the site.
5.5.3 Given the well-established wider farm unit, the implementations of the 2015 planning permission for the broiler units and the subsequent expansions of the poultry farm, it also appears likely that the poultry farm is viable and will remain so into the future. Whilst there is potentially an extant planning permission (01/00164/FUL) which could provide the accommodation if required, this would be sited away from the existing broiler units to the north west of the site, making this less desirable in terms of the manager remaining on call at night to respond to alarms or manage night time activities on the site. Therefore, whilst the extant planning permission may represent a realistic fallback position if this application were to be refused, there are clear locational advantages which justify the siting of the new dwelling in place of the existing permission.
5.5.4 Given the above, the proposal would provide clear benefits to the rural economy, by facilitating the appropriate diversification of a significant longstanding agricultural business through an appropriate agricultural workers dwelling. Therefore, policy EV8 and Core Policy 9 (Rural Diversification) lend significant support to the application. As set out below, subject to appropriate conditions and a unilateral undertaking there is no other non-Green Belt harm resulting from the proposed development.
5.6 Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
5.6.1 The proposed site lies within the 0-8km zone of influence for the Cannock Chase SAC, meaning that the application is required to provide mitigation for any impacts upon the SAC, in order to ensure that the Council meets its obligations under the Habitat Regulations. This mitigation takes the form of a charge of £232 for any net additional dwelling. The applicants have entered into a unilateral undertaking to provide the required mitigation payment to prevent any likely significant effect on the Cannock Chase SAC, ensuring that the Council has the legal ability to determine the application without contravening the Habitat Regulations.
5.7 Highways
5.7.1 The site would be accessed off Gailey Lea Lane. This runs south to join a trunk road (the A5). As such Highways England have been consulted and have offered no objections to the proposals. Similarly, no objections have been raised by the County Highways officer. The proposed bungalow would provide 3 bedrooms and as such a condition is attached
Page 75 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 to ensure that the necessary two car parking spaces required by the Council's Car Parking Standards (as set out in Appendix 5 of the Core Strategy).
5.8 Landscape/Character
5.8.1 Policies EQ4 and EQ11 of the Core Strategy set out the relevant requirements. The proposed dwelling will be single storey in nature and will be sited in between the existing poultry farm buildings to the north and the Hollies truck stop to the south east. Given the low lying nature of the proposal and the patterns of development in the surrounding landscape, I do not consider that the proposal will cause any adverse landscape effects. Whilst the proposal will affect an existing public right of way running adjacent to the site, any views to the proposal will be localised and will be seen in the context of more substantial development in the immediate area around the site. As such, I consider the proposal acceptable in terms of Policies EQ4 and EQ11 of the Core Strategy.
5.9 Living conditions
5.9.1 Policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy sets out the relevant requirements. The dwelling will be conditioned to be solely for the use of an agricultural worker to serve Church Farm, and will be sited in an agricultural unit where the introduction of additional boundary treatments typically found in a residential area would harm the character of the local landscape. Given these points, the siting of the proposed bungalow would provide satisfactory living conditions for an agricultural worker working on Church Farm, given that any future occupant will be involved in the day-to-day operation of the farm and will benefit from being in a position to monitor traffic in and out of the recently constructed poultry units to the north.
5.9.2 A comment has been received from the Council's Environmental Health team, who have indicated the proposal will only be acceptable if used for staff/manager accommodation due to the potential impacts on the amenity of future occupants. This form of occupation can be guaranteed by a condition attached to any future permission. Therefore, I consider the proposal acceptable in terms of Policy EQ9.
5.10 Other Matters
5.10.1 Nearby residents have queried the current lack of tree planting surrounding the existing broiler units to the north of the site, as areas of tree planting were proposed on the original 2015 planning permission for these units. However, the provision of this planting was not required as a pre-commencement condition on that permission and the current application is not an opportunity to revisit this matter. The current application relates solely to the impacts arising from the proposed manager's dwelling and in any event doesn't include the areas of planting in the proposed site boundary.
5.10.2 A Public Right of Way runs along the eastern boundary of the site, in close proximity to the proposed dwelling. Concerns have been expressed regarding the impact of the development on this footpath, but
Page 76 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 the County Council Rights of Way team have raised no objection subject to a satisfactory diversion of the right of way being secured if needed. As such a pre-commencement condition has been attached to the application to ensure that the right of way can be satisfactorily diverted if needed.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1The applicants have demonstrated that the benefits of providing the agricultural workers accommodation clearly outweigh the harm caused by the development to the Green Belt, particularly in light of the proposal to revoke the previous permission for a nearby agricultural workers dwelling. Any other non-Green Belt harm can be satisfactorily mitigated subject to the imposition of conditions. Consequentially I consider that Very Special Circumstances exist which outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm. Therefore I recommend this application be approved subject to a unilateral undertaking which effectively revokes the previous permission (01/00164/FUL) and secures the payment of £232 mitigation towards the Cannock Chase SAC.
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE SUBJECT TO S106
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: Drg. No. 1005 A 103 rev D (received 03/02/2017) Drg. No. 1005 A 102 rev B (received 03/02/2017) -.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, before development commences, details of the facing materials to be used on the wall and roof of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out in the approved materials.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. The proposed development requires a public right of way to be diverted. As such no development hereby approved shall be commenced until details of the diverted right of way have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The confirmed diverted right of way shall be constructed and open for public use in accordance with the approved details
Page 77 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
prior to closure of the existing right of way.
Reason: To protect the Public Right of Way network, in accordance with paragraph 75 of the NPPF.
5. The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed locally in agriculture, as defined in Section 336(I) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; or in forestry; or a dependent of such a person residing with him/her (but including a widow or widower of such a person).
Reason: To ensure that the agricultural justification for the proposed dwelling is satisfied and that a viable farm unit is established in accordance with policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy.
6. The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce or exacerbate a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution
Reason: This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce or exacerbate a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution
7. At least 2 parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site, concurrently with the development, and thereafter retained as such throughout the life of the development.
Reason: In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to ensure that adequate parking facilities are available to serve the development and to conform to the requirements of policy EV12 of the adopted Core Strategy.
8. Before the development hereby approved is occupied/brought into use, all existing structures on the land edged blue on Drg. No. 1005 A 102 rev B (received 03/02/2017) shall be demolished and the materials arising therefrom permanently removed from the site.
Reason: The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development
INFORMATIVE
Please note that granting of planning permission is not a consent to divert or obstruct a right of way (Note: For more information on rights of way issues see http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/e-land/RightsofWay/
Page 78 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
or contact: Rights of Way Section, Environment & Countryside Unit, Staffordshire Place 2, Tipping Street, Stafford. ST16 2DH).
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.
Page 79 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00087/FUL - Church Farm Church Lane Hatherton Cannock South Staffordshire WS11 1RR
Page 80 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00100/FUL Mr Neil Rimmer Cllr J Ashley & Cllr D Williams HATHERTON
Hollies Truck Stop Watling Street Four Crosses Cannock South Staffordshire WS11 1SB
To install a double-skinned rectangular steel fuel storage tank with dispensers within a lorry parking facility. The dispensers connected to the tank will allow lorries to load with road diesel. The loading area will be contained using aco drainage channels, which will be connected to a class 1 forecourt separator. The site will remain primarily a lorry parking facility.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 The Hollies Truck Stop is located on the north side of the A5 close to Hatherton about 0.5km west of Four Crosses. The truck stop is just over 1km east of Junction 12 of the M6 motorway.
1.2 The overall land holding of the property is 3.53ha approximately. This comprises largely open HGV parking, with Staff and Visitor car parking flanking the main Amenity Building.
1.3 The nearest properties to the application site are: a) Oak Farm Hotel located approximately 130m along the A5 to the East b) Commercial operation approximately 400m along the A5 to the East c) Farm buildings opposite to the South. d) Residential and Farm buildings approximately 400m to the West. 2.4 The topography of the area surrounding the site consists of flat agricultural land with hedged and fenced field boundaries and occasional belts of trees. The application site area is generally level.
1.4 The site itself has two distinct elements: a) The open area designated as HGV Parking b) The detached Amenity Building facing the A5 with light vehicle parking to the East and West The site is bounded by a perimeter fence with shrubs and some trees
1.5 The area immediately surrounding the Amenity Building is hard landscaping and gravelled areas providing access from the parking areas. The remainder of the site largely consists of hardstanding for vehicle access and lorry parking, provided as a combination of tarmac, concrete and reinforced gravel. Column mounted directional lighting is provided at intervals across the lorry parking area.
1.6 The application site is located within the hardstanding area approximately 50m north west of the amenity building. The site is a rectangular shape approximately 15m by 25m.
1.2 Planning History
Page 81 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
1.2.1 There is an extensive planning history on the site and of enforcement issues the most relevant of which is summarised below. 1976 - ladies and gents toilets and storage - Approved [76/00841] 1976 - extensions to restaurant and lounge - Refused [76/01341] 1977 - Derv tank and pump - Approved [77/00651] 1978 - Derv tank and pump - Approved [78/00157] 1979 - extensions to flat and bedrooms above café - Approved [79/00280] 1980 - Installation of second diesel pump and 12000 diesel storage tank - Approved [80/00077 and 80/00916] 1987 - Extension - Approved [87/00858] 1989 - canopy installation over fuel tank - Approved [89/00246] 1991 - Extension to truck stop - Refused but Allowed at Appeal subject to conditions decision in 1992 [91/01257] 1995 - Diesel tank and pump - Approved [95/00827] 1996 - Certificate of Lawfulness for parking of 12m trailer - Approved [96/00040] 1997 - Application to use land for vehicle parking without complying with conditions of Appeal decision - Refused [97/ 00286] 2004 - New showroom and maintenance area - Refused [04/00462] 2007 - extensions and alterations to the site - Withdrawn [07/01002] 2009 - change of use of part of dining area - Approved [09/00655] 2001, Repositioning of diesel storage tank, Refused (01/00058/FUL) 2004, New showroom with maintenance workshops and outdoor display areas for recreational vehicles, Refused (04/00462/FUL) 2007, Extensions and alterations to existing lorry park, including new surface and drainage, secure fence, lighting, landscaping and new toilet accommodation, Withdrawn (07/01002/FUL) 2009, Usage of part of dining area for adult amusement arcade [sui generis], Approved (09/00655/COU) 2011, Redevelopment and extension of existing truck stop, including revised means of access/egress, landscaping, security fence, resurfacing, lighting and other associated works (Major application), Approved (11/00363/FUL) 2012, Temporary permission until 31st December 2012 to use the "middle land" of The Hollies Cafe site in order to implement the development outlined in application no. 11/00363/FUL, Approved (12/00247/TEM) 2012, Two externally illuminated, flat, dibond panels; two internally illuminated fret-cut fascia panels backed with acrylic; one non-illuminated applied vinyl on existing panel; one non-illuminated applied vinyl detail on existing panel; one non-illuminated freestanding sign with applied vinyl, Approved (12/00879/ADV) 2013, Siting of air quality monitoring station on an unused area of land at The New Hollies truck shop/cafe. This is within an Air Quality Management Area. The monitoring station station is needed for more accurate, real- time monitoring of NOx levels, Withdrawn (13/00948/LUP) 2014, extension of parking facilities, approved (14/00600/FUL) 2016, Extension of and alterations to existing Truck Stop building to provide improved facilities, including: eight additional bedrooms; an extended and improved cafe facility on the ground floor; new and improved toilet and shower facilities on the upper floor; associated external works to improve the appearance of the building. Approved (16/00408/FUL)
Page 82 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
1.3 Pre-application Advice
1.3.1 No pre-application advice was sought before the application was submitted.
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal Description
2.1.1 The application seeks to install a double-skinned rectangular steel fuel storage tank with dispensers within a lorry parking facility. The dispensers connected to the tank will allow lorries to load with road diesel. The loading area will be contained using ACO drainage channels, which will be connected to a class 1 forecourt separator. The site will remain primarily a lorry parking facility.
2.1.2 Amended Plans
06/02/17: Two additional ‘end’ elevations of the proposed fuel tank were provided.
2.2 Agents Submission
2.2.1 The following information has been submitted with the planning application: - Very Special Circumstances email.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
Within the Green Belt
South Staffordshire Core Strategy
National Policy 1: The presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the character and appearance of the landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ5: Sustainable Resources and Energy Efficiency Policy EQ12: Landscaping Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 5 Car parking standards
Green Belt and Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
National Planning Policy Framework 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design
Page 83 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
9. Protection Green Belt land
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Councillor comment received (expired 15.03.2017) I have no comments to make
4.2 No Parish Council comments (expired 13.03.2017)
4.3 No Environmental Health comments (expired 13.03.2017)
4.4 County Highways comments (received 03.03.2017) No objections 4.5 Environment Agency comments (received 10.06.2016) We have reviewed the information and have no objections, in principle, to the proposed development.
This development will require an environmental bespoke permit issued by the Environment Agency. In determining the permit application for this development we will assess compliance with the requirements of the river basin management plan.
A bespoke permit will be required for the discharge from the oil separator. Further details can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/discharges-to-surface-water-and- groundwater-environmental-permits#apply-for-a-bespoke-permit
ADVICE TO THE APPLICANT We request that the following advice / informatives are passed onto the applicant or attached to any planning permission that may be issued. o PPG3: Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems provides further information and can be found here: http://www.netregs.org.uk/environmental-topics/pollution-prevention- guidelines-ppgs-and-replacement-series/guidance-for-pollution- prevention-gpps-full-list/#collapse2345 o GPP2: Above ground oil storage tanks also provides further information and can be found here: http://www.netregs.org.uk/environmental-topics/pollution-prevention- guidelines-ppgs-and-replacement-series/guidance-for-pollution- prevention-gpps-full-list/#collapse2345
We understand that surface water drainage from the re-fueling area will be directed to a SUDS scheme via an interceptor. The SUDS elements incorporated (attenuation, storage and treatment capacities) should be as detailed in the CIRIA SUDS Manual (C753).
Further information on SUDS can be found in; o the CIRIA C753 document SUDS manual o HR Wallingford SR 666 Use of SUDS in high density developments o CIRIA C753 Designing for exceedance in urban drainage - good practice
Page 84 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 o the Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems. The Interim Code of Practice provides advice on design, adoption and maintenance issues and a full overview of other technical guidance on SUDS. o The Interim Code of Practice is available on our website at: www.ciria.org.uk
4.6 Highways England Comments (received 01.03.2017) No objections
4.7 No Severn Trent Water comments (expired 13/03/2017) No objections subject to conditions
4.8 No Neighbour comments (expires 13/03/2017)
4.9 Site Notice (expires 21/03/2017).
5. APPRAISAL
5.2 Key Issues
- Principle of Development/Impact on Openness of Green Belt - Very Special Circumstances - Impact on Landscape/Visual Amenity - Impact on Neighbour Amenity - Design and Context - Highways and Parking
5.3 Principle of Development
5.3.1 The site is within the Green Belt, where under local policy GB1 the construction of new buildings other than for agricultural or forestry purposes is generally considered to represent inappropriate development. It is evident that GB1 is silent on the issue of sites within the Green Belt that are previously developed (brownfield land); i.e. land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole curtilage should be developed). However, the supporting text to policy GB1 states that development within the Green Belt will normally be permitted where it is acceptable "within the terms of national planning policy". It therefore follows that for any development to be acceptable any proposal must comply with the provisions of the NPPF. In addition to this where the local plan is silent, then the NPPF becomes a material consideration.
5.3.2 In this light, part 6 of paragraph 89 of the NPPF specifies that for the construction of new buildings, 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 purposes of including land within it than the existing development is an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Page 85 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
5.3.3 Given that the proposed storage tank would be surrounded by a large expanse of existing hard standing, as well as the existing Amenity Building for the truck stop fronting the A5, I consider that the application site does constitute previously developed land for the purposes of engaging bullet point six of paragraph 89 of the NPPF.
5.3.4 Before the exception principle in the sixth bullet point is met however, it has to be demonstrated that the redevelopment ‘‘would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it than the existing development".
5.3.5 It is acknowledged that the addition of a new building on this site would have a greater impact on openness compared to the existing covering of hardstanding, however any such impact would be considered limited in this case given the size of the proposed fuel tank (20m long x 5m wide x 3.7m high), and where it would be contained within a large expanse of hardstanding using for parking HGV vehicles.
5.3.6 The main purposes of including land within the Green Belt are outlined in Paragraph 80 of the NPPF, and these are:-
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
For the above reasons and notwithstanding the proposal’s limited impact Green Belt openness, I do not consider the proposal would conflict with the five main purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
5.3.7 The proposal meets the test of previously developed land, and furthermore it would not conflict with the fundamental aims of including land within the Green Belt [paragraph 80]. However, as there would be a greater (albeit limited) impact on the openness of the Green Belt compared to the existing development, the proposal would not fully satisfy the terms of bullet point 6 of paragraph 89 of the NPPF and therefore it would not be an exception to inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
5.3.8 The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and requires material considerations amounting to very special circumstances to be demonstrated, which must clearly outweigh any potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.
5.4 Very Special Circumstances
5.5.1 The following has been submitted as Very Special Circumstances in an email received on 14.3.17.
Page 86 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
'When considering how the proposal impacts upon the 5 purposes of the Green Belt set out in NPPF, it is our understanding the refuelling facility has a negligible impact. Green Belt serves five purposes: o to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; o to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; o to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; o to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and o to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
There is an acceptance that the site is classified as Brownfield, as stipulated in previous planning applications. This application is for a development that is consistent with the current use of the site.
The site is used as a HGV lorry park and the purpose of installing the new fuel tank would be to serve the existing lorries/customers. There will be no LGV fuelling facilities meaning that there will be no increase in traffic in this area.
Furthermore, this on-site fuelling opportunity will reduce drivers' needs to travel to the closest HGV bunkering facility at Shareshill (WV10 7LZ), hence decreasing the flow of traffic into the village. The installation of the fuel tank will provide an economic benefit, and further support a local business through the generation of revenue from fuel sales.
With regards to site drainage around the fuel tank: o The concrete surfaced loading area will be contained using an ACO drainage channel that will directly flow into a class 1 full retention separator. o The class 1 full retention separator comes with, as standard, a high level oil alarm probe and an automatic closure device. This means that when probe detects oil the alarm will sound and the separator will shut off, preventing any liquid from escaping. o Also, the manhole downstream of the separator will be fitted with an automatic closure device, as a second safety catch. In conclusion, any potential spilled or leaked product will be contained within our proposed drainage features.'
The agent has clarified since this email that the refuelling facility will only be used by commercial customers who will already be using the existing on-site facilities. It will be operated using a "Keyfuels fuel card" system meaning that no money will be exchanged.
This proposal relates to previously developed land, and I consider there would be not conflict with the fundamental aims of including land within the Green Belt [paragraph 80]. In this instance the economic benefit and support to an existing local business would, in my opinion, outweigh the proposal’s limited harm on the openness of the Green Belt.
I therefore consider that Very Special Circumstances have been demonstrated in this case and therefore I consider the proposal’s impact on the Green Belt would, on balance, be acceptable in this case.
Page 87 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
5.6 Impact on Landscape/Visual Amenity
The Truck Stop site is a developed site in a predominantly agricultural landscape. Retaining the vegetation on the boundaries of the site would mitigate against any impact on visual amenity. A Landscape Scheme is currently being implemented which was required in relation to 11/00363/FUL. A further Landscape Scheme has been requested in relation the extensions to the amenity building approved in 2016. A landscape scheme would again be needed to adequately address this proposed fuel tank. Overall the impact on the landscape is considered to be acceptable and the proposal complies with Core Strategy EQ4 subject to the submission of a landscape scheme.
5.7 Impact on Neighbour Amenity
5.7.1 Policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy requires that new development should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents. The nearest neighbour to the site is approximately 75m away on the opposite side of the road. The proposal will not have an impact on the neighbours in terms of loss of privacy. The proposal therefore complies with Core Strategy policy EQ9.
5.8 Design and Context
5.8.1 The fuel tank has been designed for functional purposes. No consideration is given to the context or the aesthetic quality of the structure itself. However within the context of extensive hard surfacing on a developed site, the structure is not considered to be out of keeping with the immediate area. A condition to agree materials to ensure an appropriate colour is used would help to mitigate the impact in terms of design and context. It is therefore considered that the design of the extension complies with Core Strategy policy EQ11 subject to a materials condition.
5.9 Highways and Parking
5.9.1 Highways England and County Highways were consulted on this application. No objections were received from either. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable with regards to highways and parking.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 1The applicants have demonstrated very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm caused by the development to the Green Belt, particularly in light of the site being previously developed land, its sites location and economic benefits. The proposal is acceptable in terms of design; impact on neighbour amenity, highways, parking and the landscape; therefore any other non-Green Belt harm has been satisfied. Consequentially I consider that Very Special Circumstances exist which outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm. Therefore for the reasons mentioned I recommend the application for approval.
Page 88 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings; 4970-006 rev B received 6th February 2017, 4970-005 rev B, 4970-003 rev B, 4970-004 rev A and 4970-006 rev A received 2nd February 2017.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
2. Before the development commences a landscape scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and completed within 12 months of the completion of the development. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the scheme has been completed. Any failures shall be replaced within the next available planting season and the scheme shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. Before the development commences details of the facing materials to be used for the external elevations shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out in the approved materials.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.
6. INFORMATIVE Environment Agency
1.PPG3: Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems provides further information and can be found here:
Page 89 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
http://www.netregs.org.uk/environmental-topics/pollution- prevention-guidelines-ppgs-and-replacement-series/guidance-for- pollution-prevention-gpps-full-list/#collapse2345 2. GPP2: Above ground oil storage tanks also provides further information and can be found here: http://www.netregs.org.uk/environmental-topics/pollution- prevention-guidelines-ppgs-and-replacement-series/guidance-for- pollution-prevention-gpps-full-list/#collapse2345
We understand that surface water drainage from the re-fueling area will be directed to a SUDS scheme via an interceptor. The SUDS elements incorporated (attenuation, storage and treatment capacities) should be as detailed in the CIRIA SUDS Manual (C753).
Further information on SUDS can be found in;
o the CIRIA C753 document SUDS manual o HR Wallingford SR 666 Use of SUDS in high density developments o CIRIA C753 Designing for exceedance in urban drainage - good practice o the Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems. The Interim Code of Practice provides advice on design, adoption and maintenance issues and a full overview of other technical guidance on SUDS. o The Interim Code of Practice is available on our website at: www.ciria.org.uk
Page 90 of 108 Debbie Hall: Senior Case – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00100/FUL - The New Hollies Limited Hollies Truck Stop Watling Street Four Crosses Cannock South Staffordshire WS11 1SB
Page 91 of 108
Page 92 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00138/FUL Mr Roderick Stockton Cllr W Sutton, Cllr J Bolton & Cllr D Holmes BREWOOD & COVEN
Horsebrook Manor Horsebrook Lane Brewood Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 9LP
Log cabin for groom's use. Temporary three year permission
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site description
1.1.1 The application lies within a farmhouse complex on the south side of Horsebrook Farm Lane, which lies in an isolated countryside location to the north of Brewood. Access to the site is gained from a private access off Horsebrook Lane and the site is bounded to the south by a brook with substantial boundary planting. The farmhouse complex contains a large stable block, hay barn and menage within the grounds of the dwelling, and the site and fields to the south are primarily used for equine purposes.
1.2 Planning history
1997, porch and canopy, approved (361/97) 1997, exercise area for horses, approved (572/97) 1997, agricultural storage barn, approved, (573/97) 2000, change of use of barn to dwelling, approved (00/1320) 2002, stable block, approved (02/00145) 2003, orangery, approved (03/01350) 2004, boundary wall, approved (04/00191/FUL) 2013, detached oak framed garage, approved (13/00012/FUL) 2014, Transportable timber lodge for use as essential staff accommodation within curtilage of existing stud farm, withdrawn (14/00960/FUL) 2016, Erection of Log Cabin [Retrospective]. Temporary 3 year permission, refused (16/00235/FUL)
2.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 The application is for the retention of a single storey log cabin for a temporary period of 3 years and is a resubmission of a previously refused application (16/00235/FUL), which was rejected on flood risk grounds. The log cabin is to be occupied by a groom in association with the applicant's business of the breeding of Hackney Carriage Horses. The log cabin is positioned in the south-west corner of the site, to the rear of the existing buildings.
2.1.2 The log cabin measures 6.8m x 10.5m with a height of 3.76m.
Page 93 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
2.2 Agent submission 2.2.1 As with the previous application, several supporting documents have been submitted in support of the need for the accommodation and the existing business on site.
Summary: - The applicants are breeders of the larger Hackney Carriage Horses in the Country. The Hackney Breed is a critically endangered Breed registered with the UK Rare Breeds Survival Trust. At present they are in the most at risk category having registered only 52 animals in the last year. - At present there are sixteen purebred Hackney Horses - 13 of which are homebred. Two stallions, three brood mares, three youngsters, all the rest are show harness horses used for competing in Coaching Classes. - The applicants have lived and bred these horses on the farm for many years, and their predecessor also kept horses. In the interests of animal hygiene and welfare, it is essential to have an on-site, twenty four hour stud hand/groom on the premises. Both applicants are at retirement age and a small, easily removed, portable timber cabin is an ideal solution. - The Halloughton Hackneys Coaching Team are a well-known and successful show team of Hackney horses, they take part in international events, they were the winning drag team at the Royal Berkshire Show in 2015, one of the most prestigious Coaching Classes in the UK Season - Conversion of the existing buildings is not optional as all fully used for the stabling of horses and the storage of the carriages. A conversion would create pressure for more permanent buildings. - The cabin cannot be seen from the adjoining lanes and is of a natural appearance, having stained timber elevations and traditional small plain tiled-effect covering to the low rise roof structure. It is adjacent to the stable yard, facilitating easy access to the stables and coach houses.
2.2.2 Unlike the previous application, the applicants have now submitted a full Flood Risk Assessment in support of the scheme, prepared by Hyrdrogeo Groundwater and Environment
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 This site lies within the Green Belt
3.2 Adopted Core Strategy Strategic Objective 1: To protect and maintain the Green Belt in order to sustain the distinctive character of South Staffordshire Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity EQ11: Wider Design Considerations EQ12: Landscaping Core Policy 9: Rural Diversification
Page 94 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
EV5: Rural Development EV7: Equine Related Development EV8: Agriculture
3.3 National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 1: Building a Strong Economy Chapter 3: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy Chapter 9: Green Belt
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Comments received
Councillors (expired 30.03.2017) No comments
Parish Council (received 03.04.2017)
No objection. However the log cabin must only be used by the groom and reviewed after three years, in-line with s106 agreement.
County Highways (received 24.03.2017) There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal
Environment Agency (received 27.03.2017)
Thank you for referring the above application which was received on 9 March 2017. We have reviewed the application and have no objections, in principle, to the proposed development but wish to make the following comments.
FLOOD RISK We note that the proposal is retrospective and that planning permission is temporary for 3 years. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has demonstrated that the log cabin in located outside of the 1 in 100 year event. The proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if the following measure, as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment, is implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission.
Condition
The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated 6 March 2017 reference HYG328 Horesbrook Manor FRA undertaken by Hydrogeo and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
1. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 91.175 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Page 95 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
Reason To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. Please note, the finished floor levels referenced in the condition are a minimum requirement. In line with Planning Practice Guidance Floor Levels, we strongly advise that finished floor levels are set no lower than 600mm above the 1 in 100 year plus 30% climate change (90.91m AOD). However, we are aware of the Building Regulations and planning policy restrictions on the proposed development. Therefore, we accept this may not be achievable. If you have any queries contact me on the details below.
Severn Trent Water (expired 30.03.2017) No comments
Neighbours (expired 30.03.2017) No comments
A site notice was posted on 9th March 2017
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 This application has been presented to Planning Committee as it is contrary to Policy GB1 and requires very special circumstances to justify its approval
5.2 The Key Issues are: - Principle of development - Impact on Green Belt - Very Special Circumstances - Impact on neighbouring amenity - Flood Risk
5.3 Principle of Development
5.3.1 The site is located within the Green Belt where the construction of new dwellings for non-agricultural or forestry purposes is generally considered to represent inappropriate development. The proposed temporary equestrian workers dwelling does not fall within either of the above categories and therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. For planning permission to be granted the applicant must identify material considerations amounting to Very Special Circumstances, which clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.
5.4 Impact on the Green Belt
5.4.1 Given the inappropriate nature of the development, it is by definition harmful to the Green Belt, which attracts substantial weight in accordance with paragraphs 87 & 88 of the NPPF.
5.4.2 The scheme would not undermine the five purposes of including this land within the Green Belt. It is not furthering unrestricted sprawl from large built-up areas, increasing the merging of neighbouring towns,
Page 96 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 affecting the setting or special character of historic towns or discouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Furthermore, given the siting of the building and the surrounding development it would not undermine the Green Belt's ability to prevent encroachment into the countryside. However, as detailed above, the accommodation has resulted in a single storey building being created on an existing area of hardstanding within the curtilage of the farmhouse buildings. Therefore, the proposal will cause harm to the Green Belt primarily through a material impact upon the openness of the Green Belt from a slight increase in built form within the site.
5.5 Very Special Circumstances
5.5.1 The applicants have set out a number of statements which seek to demonstrate a clear need for a worker to live permanently on site, in order to care for the horses kept on site. Policy EV8 [although related specifically to agricultural workers] sets out a number of criteria to assist in assessing the need for new temporary or permanent agricultural and occupational workers dwellings. For temporary dwellings these include that there is a clearly established existing functional need, that the business is economically viable, that provision on the site (or in the immediate vicinity) is necessary for the operation of the business, and that no suitable accommodation exists (or could be made available) in established buildings on the site or in the vicinity.
5.5.2 The applicant has confirmed that a conversion of the existing buildings is not an option as all are fully utilised for the stabling of horses and the storage of the carriages. A conversion would therefore create pressure for more permanent buildings to be erected. The log cabin is of a temporary nature, small in scale and is positioned in the south west corner of site, to the rear of the existing building and sited on existing hardstanding. The log cabin is not viewable from Horsebrook Lane, given the existing wall and natural screening.
5.5.3 The applicants are breeders of the larger Hackney Carriage Horses breed. The Hackney Breed is a critically endangered breed registered with the UK Rare Breeds Survival Trust. At present they are in the most at risk category having registered only 52 animals in the last year (as of June 2016). The applicant has indicated that there are currently sixteen purebred Hackney Horses on site, of which thirteen are homebred. Two of these are stallions, three are brood mares and three are youngsters, with the rest being show harness horses used for competing in Coaching Classes. The applicants have lived and bred these horses on the farm for 20 years. In the interests of animal hygiene and welfare, it is essential to have an on-site, twenty four hour stud hand/groom on the premises. Both applicants are at retirement age and a small, easily removed, portable timber cabin offers a practical way of providing this care.
5.5.4 Planning inspectors have noted the considerable period of round the clock care and management required for brood mares and their foals. This can be especially demanding given that foaling generally happens at night, can be difficult to predict and the foaling period extends from March until September [APP/R3325/W/15/3133305]. The retention of this
Page 97 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 breeding function is critical to the existing business operated from the site. The Halloughton Hackney Stud has been run by the applicants for a number of years and supports and promotes an endangered breed through breeding and other functions, such as coaching and competitions. As the applicants are now at retirement age, they are less able to provide the round the clock care and exercise for the breeds on site.
5.5.5 Given the above, there is clearly a functional need for the accommodation to provide for the ongoing operation of an existing rural business which has sustained itself for a number of years on site. Given the care and management needs of the business, it is necessary to provide this accommodation on site and no other suitable accommodation exists or could be made available given the use of surrounding stables to house the endangered breeds on site. The application would result in a relatively limited degree of harm to the Green Belt, given the temporary nature of the structure, the lack of conflict with Green Belt purposes and the log cabin being sited on an existing area of hardstanding within an existing well-defined developed curtilage with strong boundaries. As set out below, there is no other harm arising from matters such as Flood Risk, neighbouring amenity or any other matters.
5.6 Impact on neighbouring amenity
5.6.1 Policy EQ9 seeks to protect the amenity of all existing and future residents.
5.6.2 Given its siting, height and relationship to nearby dwellings, the log cabin will cause no adverse harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of a loss of privacy or overlooking.
5.7 Flood Risk
5.7.1 The site is located within Flood Zone 3 (high risk) and as such an appropriate flood risk assessment is required to demonstrate that the development will not result in an increase in flood risk elsewhere through the loss of flood storage capacity of the floodplain and the disruption of flood flow routes. The previous application (16/00235/FUL) was refused due to the lack of provision of an appropriate flood risk assessment, with insufficiently detailed information regarding flood risk being submitted at that stage. The applicants have since rectified this, providing a full flood risk assessment of the scheme, which the Environment Agency has confirmed is acceptable. Therefore, the development would be acceptable in flood risk terms, subject to a condition requiring a minimum finished floor level for the log cabin.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The applicants have demonstrated that the benefits of providing the temporary accommodation on a three year basis clearly outweigh the harm caused by the development to the Green Belt. There is also no harm resulting from the application in terms of neighbouring amenity, flood risk or any other matters. Consequentially I consider that Very Special Circumstances exist which outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt
Page 98 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017 by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm. Therefore I recommend this application be approved as a temporary three year permission.
7. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: Dwg No. RS/PL/100 (received 13.02.2017) Drg. No. HBMF-LC-S2 (received 13.02.2017) Dwg. No. RS/PL/101 (received 13.02.2017).
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
2. The use hereby approved shall be discontinued and the land restored to its previous condition as hardstanding on or before the date three years following the date a decision is issued in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development
3. Occupation of the temporary dwelling hereby approved shall be restricted to persons solely employed by Halloughton Hackney Stud as equine workers and their resident dependants.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated 6 March 2017 reference HYG328 Horesbrook Manor FRA undertaken by Hydrogeo and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
1. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 91.175 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner in accordance with
Page 99 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
Page 100 of 108 Patrick Walker: Senior Planner – Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00138/FUL - Horsebrook Manor Horsebrook Lane Brewood Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 9LP
Page 101 of 108
Page 102 of 108 Matthew Hurley—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00230/FUL Mr David Cartwright Cllr M Ewart & And Miss Sherminder Cllr M Barrow Dhillon CODSALL
8 Blythe Gardens Codsall Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV8 1BH
Second Storey Rear Extension and internal modifications (Amendment to previous approval 16/00825/FUL)
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site description
1.1.1 The proposal relates to 8 Blythe Gardens a detached property on the Chillington estate within the main service village of Codsall. There is a pleasant area of open space to the front of the dwelling and the rear overlooks the playing fields of the community centre. There is a catslide roof to the rear with a flat roofed dormer offering increased head room.
1.1.2 There is a good sized garden to the rear and a drive with off street parking.
1.2 Planning History
2016 - Second Storey Rear Extension and internal modifications - Approved (16/00825/FUL)
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 The application proposes an extension above the existing ground floor projection to extend the primary bedroom of the dwelling and provide an en-suite bathroom. The extension would remove the existing catslide roof, increase the heights of the side walls and add a flat roof over. It is also proposed to add a mono pitched roof over the existing side garage and remaining ground floor extension. Overall the two storey rear element will be increased to slightly over 5m. The proposal also includes alterations to the front elevation, however, these do not require planning permission.
2.1.2 A very similar application was approved by Planning Committee in 2016, and this proposal alters the internal layout and removes two windows that were proposed in the south eastern side elevation and adds a new window to the north western side elevation.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 Within the Development Boundary
3.2 Core Strategy
Page 103 of 108 Matthew Hurley—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
Policy NP1 - The Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy EQ9 - Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4 - Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11 - Wider Design Considerations Appendix 6 Space about Dwellings
3.3 National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 7: Requiring good design
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
No Councillor Comments - (expired 10/04/2017) Parish Council Comments - (received 24/03/2017) Recommend Approval No neighbour comments - (expired 04/04/2017) Site Notice posted - (expired 14/04/2017)
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application is to be determined by Planning Committee as the applicant is a member of staff.
5.2 Key Issues
- Principle of development - Impact on neighbouring amenity - Impact on character of streetscene - Space about Dwelling standards - Car parking
5.3 Principle of Development
5.3.1 The site is within the development boundary, in a predominantly residential area. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable providing the proposals comply with other relevant polices from the Core Strategy.
5.4 Impact on neighbouring amenity
5.4.1 Policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy requires that new development should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents. The development will project 4.6m from the existing rear elevation but is predominately an alteration to the catslide roof. Whilst the development does come close to the boundary with the neighbour of number 6 the dwellings are south west facing and as such there will be very little loss of direct sunlight to the bedrooms at first floor. There will be no loss of privacy issues. In light of this, I consider the proposal is in accordance with the aims of policy EQ9.
5.5 Impact on character of streetscene
5.5.1 Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy states that proposals should respect local character and distinctiveness including that of the surrounding development and landscape, in accordance with Policy EQ4,
Page 104 of 108 Matthew Hurley—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18/04/2017 by enhancing the positive attributes whilst mitigating the negative aspects. In terms of scale, volume, massing and materials, development should contribute positively to the street scene and surrounding buildings, whilst respecting the scale of spaces and buildings in the local area.
5.5.2 The mono pitched roof to the existing garage will be a welcome addition. The two storey flat roof to the rear of the dwelling is similar to a number of additions found on the Chillington Estate; indeed the very same addition was added two doors down at number 4 as such there are no objections under policy EQ11.
5.6 Space about dwellings standards
5.6.1 There will be no impact on the size of the existing garden no neighbours to the rear. The Space about dwellings standards state that for two storey dwellings, there should be a minimum distance of 15 metres between facing windows to habitable rooms over public space. The new window proposed in the north western side elevation serving bedroom 4 will be 16 metres from facing windows in the neighbouring properties and as such there is no breach in the Space about Dwellings standards.
5.7 Car parking
5.7.1 The parking or need for parking will not change as a result of the proposal.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing dwelling. I do not consider that there will be any negative impacts on amenity to neighbouring residents or the area in general. For the reasons mentioned I recommend the application for approval.
7. RECOMMENDATION APRROVE
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: Drawing Nos. 2290-002 A and 2290-003 A received 11/03/2017.
Reason: In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
Page 105 of 108 Matthew Hurley—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
3. The materials to be used on the walls and roof of the extension shall match those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the existing building in particular in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.
Page 106 of 108 Matthew Hurley—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18/04/2017
17/00230/FUL - 8 Blythe Gardens Codsall Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV8 1BH
Page 107 of 108
Page 108 of 108