Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

19/00715/FUL Mrs Helen Griffiths & COVEN NON MAJOR Cllr Wendy Sutton Cllr Joyce Bolton Cllr Diane Holmes

Port Lane Cottage Port Lane Coven WV9 5BH

Replacement dwelling

1.SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 The application site is located off Port Lane and comprises of a circa 18th century detached cottage, a single storey brick outbuilding and a timber workshop. The cottage is two storeys in height and is constructed of coursed sandstone with red brick above, with a pitched roof and chimneys on either side. The site is currently overgrown and there is no existing parking provision or obvious vehicular access onto the site. The site is located in an isolated position and is surrounded by open fields. Chillington Hall is approximately 1 mile away to the south-west.

1.2 Planning History

2017, Two storey and single storey rear extensions, basement living accommodation and timber car port, approved (17/00534/FUL)

2017, Discharge of conditions relating to 17/00534/FUL, approved (17/00534/COND)

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and outbuildings and replace them with a new dwelling with basement accommodation.

2.1.2 The living accommodation would be spread over three floors, providing a master bedroom suite at basement level and 3 further bedrooms at first floor level. The dwelling would be designed in a traditional style with plain clay tile roof, stone window cills, casement windows and central door to match existing, with reclaimed stone blockwork at ground floor level.

2.1.3 A new vehicular access of the main road is proposed, to be finished with granite setts leading onto a rolled stone chipping drive. A side/rear lawned area would extend around the dwelling, and a timber vehicular entrance gate is proposed as well as a hedge around the perimeter of the development. Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

2.3 Agents Submissions

A Structural Report, Heritage Impact Assessment, Design & Access Statement, and Bat Roost Characterisation have been submitted. Key points are summarised as follows:

2.3.1. Heritage Impact Assessment

-The Chillington estate forms an important group of heritage assets surviving in the open rolling countryside. The cottage, whilst a non-designated heritage asset, makes a contribution to the Chillington Conservation Area due to its age and location.

-The dwelling was likely a squatter's cottage, the downside being its size and poor- quality building methods. The link between the modest cottage and the high-status accommodation at Chillington Hall is unclear.

-The replacement of the existing cottage with a larger, albeit modest, cottage would preserve the existing relationship between the hall and cottage, thereby having little impact on the conservation area. The replacement of the cottage with in similar materials and design would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

2.3.2. Design & Access Statement

-The applicant bought the site with the intention to implement extant planning permission 17/00543 FUL however was unable to engage a reputable builder who would carry out the work.

-The building is in poor structural repair and is beyond economic refurbishment. Taking this into consideration the construction of the basement (as previously approved) would be impossible.

-It is proposed to replicate the cottage by rebuilding in similar materials and reusing materials from site where possible.

2.3.3 Structural Report

-Since the submission of the previous structural report (2017) the building has deteriorated further due to increasing exposure to weather. There also appears to have been some removal of materials.

-The building is in a structurally precarious condition and it is considered that it would need to be rebuilt to bring it up to modern standards including underpinning of the substandard foundations.

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

-The cost of the underpinning works as well as the disproportionately high cost of safely rebuilding the dwelling (exacerbated by the proximity to the highway) would be substantially higher than demolition and rebuild.

2.3.4 Bat Roost Characterisation

-An existing roost would be destroyed albeit bat activity levels on site were low. Due to the presence of the roost, any increased lighting levels would have the potential to disrupt these bats.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

Within the Green Belt and the Chillington Conservation Area and a Historic Landscape Area.

Core Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 6: Space About Dwellings Standards

National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] Chapter 7: Requiring Good Design Chapter 9: Protecting Green Belt land Chapter 12: Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment

Supplementary Planning Documents Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillors [expired 23/10/19] No comments received

Parish Council [comments received 17/10/19] No objection. The Parish Council would be keen for developers to re-use as much original material as possible.

Arboricultural Officer [comments received 03/10/19] No objections subject to conditions.

Conservation Officer [comments received 07/01/20] The property is a non- designated heritage asset, located within a conservation area. Whilst it would be preferred to see the retention of the original building details have been submitted with regard to the structure of the building. Since the previous application, the Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 condition of the building which is vacant has deteriorated further. It is now concluded that the building would require virtual wholesale re-building in order to make it safe. This will result in a building that would neither seem old or new.

As the condition of the building has deteriorated since the last application, this will continue unless something is done with the building. In this case, based upon the condition and the potential for total loss it is felt that the careful demolition and salvage of the materials in order to be re-used on the new property would be the best way forward. There are therefore no conservation objections to the proposals subject to the agreement of the retention of materials and details of how this is to be done. This could be covered by conditions at the time of determination. Recommended conditions supplied.

County Ecologist [comments received 24/10/19] Conditions are required including the provision of a bat mitigation strategy, bird boxes and external lighting scheme.

County Highways [comments received 18/10/19] No objections subject to conditions.

Brewood Civic Society [comments received 20/10/19] No objection.

Site Notice [expired 02/11/19] No comments received

Advertisement [expired 29/10/19] No comments received

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is to be heard at Planning Committee as the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to GB1 of the Core Strategy.

5.2 Key Issues:

- Principle of development - Case for Very Special Circumstances - Impact upon the openness of the Green Belt - Impact upon the character of the Heritage Asset - Impact upon Protected Species/Ecology and Trees - Impact on residential amenity - Occupier amenity - Highways/Parking

5.3 Principle of Development

5.3.1 The site is located within the Green Belt where Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 145 apply, both of which seek to restrict inappropriate forms of development within the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 circumstances. Local Planning Authorities are expected to regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt.

5.3.2 However there are a number of exceptions to this, including replacement buildings provided they are not materially larger than the building being replaced and are in the same use. In order to judge whether a building is materially larger, the Councils adopted Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD provides that a range of floor area increases between 10-20% should be used.

5.3.3 The proposed dwelling incorporates three floors (including a basement). The above ground elements equate to 136.3 sq.m, constituting an increase of just under 83% over that of the existing dwelling, which has a modest floor area of 74.49 sq.m.

5.3.4 The replacement dwelling is clearly materially larger and above the 10-20% guidance contained within the SPD. The proposal would constitute inappropriate development which is harmful to the Green belt by definition and cannot be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering any planning application, substantial weight is afforded to this harm. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

5.4 Case for Very Special Circumstances

5.4.1 The NPPF provides opportunity for applicants to pursue development in the Green Belt based on the Very Special Circumstances case if proposals are considered contrary to Green Belt Policy. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF advises 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.

5.4.2 There are two elements to this case for VSC: a) Off-setting floor area from existing structures. b) Extant approval

They are considered as follows:

5.4.3 Off-setting floor area from existing structures.

5.4.4 Whilst the proposed replacement dwelling would constitute an 83% increase in floor area over the original building, it is also proposed to demolish other ancillary structures on site which would offset the increase in floor area.

5.4.5 It is proposed to demolish the existing brick outbuilding/store and workshop which have a combined floor area of 32.2. sq.m. Offsetting these structures would reduce the overall floor area increase of the development site as a whole to 27.75%, which exceeds the Council's usual limits by just under 8%.

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

5.4.6 Extant approval

5.4.7 There is an extant approval for the extension of the existing building (planning application reference 17/00534/FUL). This approval involved a scheme of repair works to the existing building including a new basement floor. Given the condition of the building and the deterioration which has taken place over the last couple of years it is unclear whether this permission would be possible to implement in practical terms.

5.4.8 The previous approval was similar in design and scale to the current scheme, including 150.37 sq.m. of above ground floor area including a car port. The current scheme proposes 136.3 sq.m. of above ground floor area and the proposed car port has been removed. The current proposal is therefore 14 sq.m. smaller than the previously approved scheme and would arguably be less harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.

Other factors which weigh in the balance of consideration are considered as follows:

5.5 Impact upon the openness of the Green Belt

5.5.1 The existing building measures 6.8m in width, 6.1m in length and is 5.7m in height [to ridge]. The building is positioned roughly centrally within the site with outbuildings on both sides.

5.5.2 The part of the replacement dwelling closest to the highway would be the same width as the existing to a length of 4m, at which point it would project out to the side creating an L shape on plan, with steps leading down to the basement level. The overall height would be 6.1m [to ridge] which is similar to that of the existing dwelling. The proposed basement would provide 84.39 sq.m. of floor space albeit would be underground and consequently would have a limited effect in reducing openness.

5.5.3 The proposal would increase the length of the dwelling from 6.1m to 10.4m which would be readily apparent when approaching from both directions. However, the application also proposes the removal of an existing brick outbuilding and a timber workshop, the latter of which is situated on an area of higher ground. The existing structures extend across the width of the land, largely blocking any views to the Green Belt beyond. The removal of these ancillary structures as well as the clearance of overgrown vegetation would offset the visual impact of the proposed replacement dwelling. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be longer than the existing, the removal of the outbuildings on either side would allow views past the dwelling towards the open fields beyond the site.

5.5.4 The previously approved scheme (reference 17/00534/FUL) was slightly larger than the existing proposal (14 sq.m) and included a car port, which this scheme does not. It is therefore considered that the current proposal would have a less harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the extant approval.

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

5.5.5 However as set out within the Council's Open Countryside and Green Belt SPD "the opportunity to off-set ancillary buildings in lieu of a larger replacement building will be dealt with on a case by case basis. If off-setting is considered to be an acceptable approach by the Council, removal of permitted development rights may be considered".

5.5.6 It is considered that there would be no material detrimental harm to the openness of the Green Belt subject to the removal of permitted development rights. Granting permission would allow PD rights to be removed by condition, thereby safeguarding the future openness of the Green Belt.

5.6 Impact upon the character of the Heritage Asset

5.6.1 Policy EQ3 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will support and encourage measures which secure the improved maintenance, management and sustainable reuse of heritage assets.

5.6.2 The dwelling is a former squatter's cottage and is an attractive historic building which contributes to the character and local distinctiveness of the Conservation Area. Whilst the building itself is not listed it would be considered as an undesignated heritage asset. The cottage is a two-up two-down layout with kitchen located in an external lean-to. It is accepted that the building is not likely to be of sufficient size to accommodate modern day living standards.

5.6.3 The submitted heritage statement indicates that the buildings main relationship with Chillington Hall is its presence as one of a group of buildings, its visual relationship with the hall and its contribution to the setting of the conservation area. The statement concludes that the proposed replacement dwelling would serve the preserve the relationship with Chillington Hall and the setting of the Conservation Area due to its design and use of similar materials to that of the original building.

5.6.4 A structural statement has been submitted which states that the building is in a structurally precarious condition and the cost of making it safe and bringing it up to modern standards would be disproportionately high, with no builders being prepared to undertake the works.

5.6.5 The Council's Conservation Officer has been consulted who initially raised concerns regarding the loss of the building and its historic fabric. Following the submission of an up to date structural statement it is evident that the condition of the vacant building has deteriorated further, requiring a virtual wholesale re- building. The conservation officer notes that this would result in a building that seems neither old or new.

5.6.6 Based upon the condition and the potential for total loss it is felt that the careful demolition and salvage of the materials in order to be re-used on the new property would be the best way forward. There are therefore no conservation objections to the proposals subject to the agreement of the retention of materials Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 and details of how this is to be done, which could be covered by conditions at the time of determination.

5.6.7 The proposed replacement dwelling has been designed to replicate the appearance of the frontage of the original historic building, and it is stated that the original materials would be re-used where possible. Whilst the original dwelling is modest in scale and origins, it is a distinctive and attractive building which lends significant character to the conservation area and is a well-known feature on Port Lane. The proposal would still involve the loss of this original heritage asset however the current proposal presents an opportunity to retain design features and original materials from the historic asset whilst bringing the site back into residential use. On this basis the proposal would comply with Policy H3 of the Core Strategy which supports the sustainable re-use of heritage assets.

5.7 Impact upon Protected Species/Ecology and Trees

5.7.1 Policy EQ1 of the Core Strategy states that permission will not be granted for development which would cause significant harm to sites or habitats of nature conservation including trees and hedgerows.

5.7.2 The ecological survey results indicate that a European Protected Species is likely to be present. The proposed development is likely to result in an offence under the Conservation of Species & Habitats Regulations 2017.

5.7.3 Officers therefore have a duty to consider whether the proposal would be likely to secure a licence. To do so the proposals must meet with the three derogation tests which are: 1. There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (e.g. health and safety, economic or social) 2. There is no satisfactory alternative 3. The action will have no detrimental impact upon population of the species concerned e.g. because adequate compensation is being provided.

5.7.4 Officers are of the opinion that the submitted evidence satisfies the three derogation tests because: 1. The building is in a poor structural condition and demolition is proposed for health and safety reasons. 2. There is no satisfactory alternative. 3. Bat surveys have been undertaken that demonstrate that adequate mitigation can be provided for the species present

5.7.5 The evidence submitted clearly demonstrates that the three derogation tests are likely to be met and given this, we are of the opinion that Natural are likely to grant a licence. The Council's Ecological Officer has raised no objections subject to conditions to secure mitigation and the provision of bat/bird boxes and a lighting scheme. The Council's Arboricultural officer also has raised no objections to the development subject to conditions including provision of a landscaping scheme. The proposal therefore complies with Policy EQ1. Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

5.8 Impact on Residential Amenity

5.8.1 Policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy requires that the amenity of neighbouring occupiers is considered as part of development proposals. The closest residence is positioned approximately 240m away from the proposal thereby raising no concerns in respect of neighbouring amenity.

5.9 Occupier amenity

5.9.1 Appendix 6 of the Core Strategy states that dwellings with 4 bedrooms should have a rear garden with minimum area of 100 sq.m. and length of 10.5m. The dwelling would have a main garden area measuring 9.7m in length and 79.5 sq.m. however the lawn would extend around the edges of the dwelling providing further garden area totalling approximately 100 sq.m. The area of amenity space proposed would comply with the Council's minimum standards and would provide adequate space to meet the needs of the occupiers.

5.10 Highways

Policy EV12 and Appendix 5 of the Core Strategy set out the Council's minimum parking standards. An area of hardstanding to the side of the dwelling has been identified which would meet the parking requirements for a dwelling of this size, and the County Highways Officer has raised no concerns on highways grounds subject to conditions. The development would therefore comply with Policy EV12.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 To conclude, the proposal is for a replacement dwelling that is materially larger than the dwelling being replaced thus is inappropriate development. Such development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and as per paragraph 144 of the NPPF I have afforded this harm substantial weight. Any such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances that clearly outweigh this harm.

6.2 Due consideration has been given to the removal of the existing outbuildings to off-set the proposed increase in floor area, as well as the size of the previously approved scheme and the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt in comparison to the visual impact of the current site has been considered. I consider these considerations clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt. Whilst the loss of the heritage asset is regrettable, it is considered that there would be no undue impact on the character of the Conservation Area due to the replication of the original building in the design and the proposed re-use of the existing historic materials within the development. The proposal would not have an undue impact on the character of the area and there are no concerns arising in respect of ecology, highways or residential amenity. Approval is therefore recommended.

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions

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.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: Drg No 19 748 03 Rev B Floor Plans, Drg No 19 748 04 Rev B Elevations Drg No 19 748 05 Rev B Site Plan, received 14.12.2019

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the existing access to the site within the limits of the public highway has been reconstructed and completed.

4. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.

5. Before the proposed development commences, the hedge on the site frontage shall be reduced and maintained to provide adequate visibility for vehicles egressing the site onto the public highway.

6. Any gates shall be located a minimum of 6.0m rear of the carriageway boundary and shall open away from the highway.

7. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [ proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc,); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage & sewers, power & communication cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes supports etc.); retained historic landscaping features and proposals for restoration, where relevant.] Soft landscape works shall include [planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation program]. Any plants or trees that are removed or die or become seriously damaged or diseased within a period of 5 years from the date of planting shall be replaced with others of similar size and species in the next planting season, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

8. No trees, large shrubs or hedgerows shall be uprooted, felled, lopped, topped, or cut back in any way until a scheme has been approved that specifically allows such works. The works shall then take place in accordance with the agreed scheme unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

9. Prior to commencement of the development, details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: - A bat mitigation strategy to include role of an on-site ecologist during demolition works, reasonable avoidance measures to prevent harm to protected species, and the type and location of replacement roosting opportunities in the form of bat boxes. - An external lighting scheme to be designed in accordance with Bat Conservation Trust / Institution of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 08/18 Bats and artificial lighting in the UK. - Type and location of 3 No. swift bricks and 1 No. house sparrow terrace to be installed on a north or east elevation of the new building.

The details as approved shall be implemented and retained for the lifetime of the development.

10. The building shall be taken down carefully and materials shall be labelled and stored prior to their re-use. Prior to the commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of a scheme to re-use the materials from the site.

11. The works of demolition occasioned by the redevelopment or alteration hereby permitted shall not be commenced until it has been demonstrated to the local planning authority in writing that the redevelopment or alteration will immediately follow on from the works of demolition.

12. The developer shall allow access at any reasonable time to a building analyst approved/nominated by the Local Planning Authority to maintain a watching brief and record any features of archaeological interest which might be exposed within the application site area.

13. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development:

- Type and colour of bricks - Type and colour of roof tiles - Material and design of windows - Material and colour of rainwater goods

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

14. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any other subsequent equivalent order, no development within the following classes of development shall be carried out to the dwelling(s) hereby approved 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

i. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A - gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure

15. Before the replacement dwelling hereby approved is occupied, all the buildings shown to be demolished, including the original house, the brick outbuilding to the south of the house and the timber workshop to the north of the house shall be demolished and any materials which are not to be re- used on the site shall be permanently removed.

Reasons

1. 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. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

4. 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.

5. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

6. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

7. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

8. To enable the local planning authority to consider the scheme of development and the landscaping proposals in relation to the existing trees and hedges.

9. In order to protect any protected species on the site in accordance with EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

10. To retain historic fabric from the original building and to ensure that the development harmonises with the character of the Conservation Area, in line with Policy EQ3.

11. To safeguard the historic materials in accordance with Policy EQ3.

12. In order to preserve and record any items of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.

13. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

14. 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

15. 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

Proactive Statement - In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner by agreeing amendments to the application and in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

INFORMATIVES Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

The existing vehicular access to the site shall be reconstructed in accordance with the submitted drawing No. 19 748 05 B. Please note that prior to the access being reconstructed you require Section 184 Notice of Approval from County Council. The link below provides a further link to 'vehicle dropped crossings' which includes a 'vehicle dropped crossing information pack' and an application Form for a dropped crossing. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application Form which is Staffordshire County Council, Network Management Unit, Staffordshire Place 2, Tipping Street, Stafford. ST16 2DH. (or email to [email protected]) http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/licences/

Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020

Port Lane Cottage Port Lane Coven WOLVERHAMPTON WV9 5BH