Robin Hill,

Talbot

Bridge,

Bashall

Eaves. BB7 3NA

Replacement dwelling

Planning, Design and Access Statement

June 2015 Janet Dixon

TOWN PLANNERS LIMITED Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge . June 2015

FULL PLANNING APPLICATION TO BOROUGH COUNCIL BY MR AND MRS J DIDSBURY FOR A REPLACEMENT DWELLING (REVISED APPLICATION) AT ROBIN HILL, TALBOT BRIDGE, BASHALL EAVES, . BB7 3NA

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Planning, Design and Access Statement is in support of a full planning application submitted by Mr J and Mrs J Didsbury for planning permission for a revised application, including a new design for a replacement dwelling at Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge, Bashall Eaves. It should be read in conjunction with a:  bat survey dated April and June 2015,  site location plan ref 209 23 A,  existing site layout, existing plan/elevations and proposed site layout plan/elevations 209 32 B  site sections showing relative heights to adjacent buildings also submitted in support of this application 209 33 A.  existing site layout TRI 1387 01  existing site sections TRI 1387 02

2. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The application site extends to some 0.158ha, approximately 55m deep by 34m wide. The site contains a bungalow and attached garage, dating from the 1970s. It is constructed with a stone front elevation and side elevation facing the road, and roughcast render to the rear elevation and gable facing the garden with a pitched roof of blue slate. The window and doors have artificial stone surrounds. The garden area is mainly down to lawn. The garden area on the eastern side until recently was covered with overgrown conifers which have now be taken down. There is an existing concrete hardstanding off the access from the lane which provides parking in front of the garage. The site boundaries are denoted by hedging, and a post and rail fence. The eastern boundary is the top of the steep banking to Bashall Brook.

2.2 The site fronts on to and takes access from the Lane which links Bashall to Talbot Bridge. To the south east of the site is a field, to the east the wooded banks of Bashall Brook, to the north west a group of buildings formerly Mardsens Farm which

2 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

now comprises three dwellings: Mardens, Talbot Fold Barn and Talbot Fold Cottage. Marsdens is a substantial two storey Victorian Farmhouse. It has four bedrooms and a large single storey extension to the rear. Its total floor space is 239sqm1. Talbot Fold Barn is also a substantial two storey four bedroom dwellings. Attached to Talbot Fold Barn is Talbot Fold Cottage also a two storey dwelling which is smaller in comparison to its neighbours.

2.3 More generally, the site is set in an area of farmland, which is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as defined in the adopted Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan.

3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 3/2014/1057 lawful development certificate for existing use of building as a dwelling within the meaning of Class C3. Approved 27 January 2015

3.2 3/2014/0809 proposed replacement dwelling refused 31 October 2014.

3.3 3/76/0873/PB dated 21st July 1976 Reserved matters application to outline planning permission BO 1968 dated 23 May 1973 Proposed Bungalow, Marsdens Farm, Bashall Eaves approved 14 October 1976.

3.4 BO 2016 dated 21st May 1973 to outline application for the erection of an agricultural workers dwellings at Marsdens Farm Bashall Eaves approved with conditions 26th February 1974.

3.5 BO 1968 dated 9th March 1973 to form access to O.S Parcel 146 Marsdens Farm, Bashall Eaves approved with conditions 23rd May 1973.

4. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The relevant part of the Development Plan for the purposes of this application is the Core Strategy and the proposals map of the Ribble Valley Local Plan. Key Statement DS1-Development Strategy Key Statement DS2 – Sustainable development Key Statement EN2 – Landscape Key Statement EN4 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity

1 Source: sales particulars Rightmove.

3 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Policy DMG1- General Considerations Policy DME2 - Landscape and Townscape protection Policy DME3 -Site and species protection and conservation Policy DMH3- Dwellings in the Open countryside and AONB

5. THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. Relevant provisions are identified below.

5.2 The NPPF has as its cornerstone a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.3 The main body of the NPPF addresses the components of sustainable development. Those most relevant to the application are:  ‘delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’ – local planning authorities are expected to boost the supply of housing (paragraph 47). Although paragraph 55 advises against new isolated homes in the countryside, the NPPF is silent on the replacement of dwellings in the countryside;  ‘requiring good design’ – developments should add to the quality of the area, and reinforce local distinctiveness;  ‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ – in deciding planning applications local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying various principles including resisting development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (paragraph 118).

6. EVALUATION 6.1 The previous application for a replacement dwelling on this site was refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1.The proposal would result in the creation of a new dwelling in a remote countryside location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which would be isolated from services and facilities and would result in future occupants relying on the private car to access services. The proposal does not therefore comprise sustainable development and is contrary to Policies ENV1, G5 and H2 of the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan, Policies DMG1, DMG2, DMH3 and DME4 of the emerging Ribble Valley Core Strategy (including proposed main modifications) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

2. The proposal, by reason of its size, scale, design and massing, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and fails to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a designated heritage asset, resulting in significant harm to the character and visual amenities of the Forest of Bowland AONB. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies G1 and ENV1 of the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan, the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidelines: Alterations and Extensions to Dwellings and Key Statements DS1, DS2, EN2 and EN5 and Policies DMG1, DMG2, DMH4 and DMH5 of the emerging Core Strategy (Including Proposed Main Modifications).

3. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on bats, a European Protected Species and on the basis of the submitted information, it is unlikely that a European Protected Species licence would be granted. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies G1 and ENV7 of the Districtwide Local Plan and Policies DMG1, DME3 and Key Statements DS2, EN3 and EN4 of the emerging Core Strategy (Including Proposed Main Modifications).

6.2 The decision was issued on the basis that the existing dwelling was an agricultural worker’s bungalow. The replacement of which with a dwelling where the occupancy was not restricted would be tantamount to creating a new dwelling in the countryside. The assumption that Robin Hill was an agricultural worker’s dwelling was incorrect and subsequently a lawful development certificate to confirm this has been issued by the Council2.

6.3 As it has been confirmed that Robin Hill is not an agricultural worker’s dwelling, the assessment of the proposal in relation to the Core Strategy should now change. We have also provided additional information in regard to the presence of protected species at the site. We will demonstrate that the proposal now fully complies with the requirements of the Core Strategy in terms of the principle of the development, the design of the replacement building, its impact on the landscape and wildlife protection.

The principle of the development 6.4 The proposal is to replace and existing dwelling with a new dwelling. As there is no increase in the number of dwellings at the site the development is not in conflict with Key Statements DS1 and DS2 which seek to restrict additional housing provision to identified settlements. Key Statement DMH3 expands on KS DS1 and DS2 in

2 Appendix 1 Delegate Item file Report and Appendix 2 Lawful Development Certificate

5 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

relation to housing provision of dwellings outside settlements. DMH3 lists exceptions where new housing development will be acceptable in the open countryside and the AONB. This includes “the rebuilding or replacement of existing dwellings” This clearly applies to the application proposal. The proposal is in principle acceptable under DMH3 and the first reason for refusal given on 3/2014/0809 no longer applies.

Design and impact on the landscape 6.5 The Planning Officer in considering the previous application expressed the opinion that "The scale, size design and massing of the proposal would afford it a level of visual prominence that would be at odds with the pleasant sylvan character of the existing dwelling and those in the vicinity.” We disagree with this view. It also contradicts the approach that has previously been taken By the Council on similar schemes. Over recent years in Ribble Valley there have been a number of planning permissions granted for the replacement of poorly designed twentieth century bungalows and dwellings with new high quality two storey dwellings.

6.6 3/2007/0907 Nook Farm Huntingdon Lane Dutton. In assessing the application the Planning Officer stated in the Delegate Item File Report: “The replacement dwelling proposed will be relocated on site, approx. 9m from the adjacent highway. The replacement dwelling has been designed to mirror many of the existing features of the adjacent farmhouse and other similar properties in the vicinity, as well as creating a more modern living space. It is sympathetic in size and design compared to the nearby adjacent dwellings, and the existing dwelling is of no real architectural merit and are generally in a poor state of repair, and its replacement will cause no significant loss to the area”. The site is within the AONB.

6.7 3/2004/0937 Oak Lea Road Chipping. Planning permission was granted to demolish a small bungalow with a two storey house. A later permission 3/2005/0134 added a garage and sun room. The site is within the AONB3.

3 See Fig 1

6 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Fig 1 Oak Lea Longridge Road Chipping above before below after.

Existing dwelling 3/2004/0937

Proposed dwelling modified to add garage 3/2005/0134.

6.8 Another example is Oak Tree House Road Knowle Green. Under permission 3/2006/0652 the former dwelling “The Bungalow” was granted permission to be replaced with “Oak Tree House”. The site is in the AONB. The Officer commented in the Committee Report “The property still represents a significant increase in terms of floor space resulting in approximately 452m2 of usable space excluding the garage compared with the 148m2 in existence at present.” The application was to replace a bungalow with a two storey dwelling4.

6.9 Pepper Hill 3/2012/0002. This property a single storey bungalow was granted planing permission to be replaced with a one and half storey house on the basis that it reflected the character of the other dwellings nearby.The site is in the AONB and outside the village. See Committee Report 12/04/20125.

4 See Photograph 1 5 Appendix 3 Committee report 12/04/2012

7 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Photograph 1 Oak Tree House

6.10 It is clear that the Council has accepted that bungalows within the AONB can be replaced with two storey stone and slate houses. In all of these cases the replacement dwelling was substantially larger than the original dwelling. Whilst these examples were considered under the policy of the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan, the Core Strategy has not placed any more onerous tests or requirements to be applied in the consideration of this type of application. For example there is no requirement that the replacement dwelling should be the same size. Nor is there any percentage increase limit imposed under key Statement DMH3. The test is that the dwelling is that there should be no adverse impact on the landscape in relation to the new dwelling which is the test that has always been applied and was applied to all the examples given above.

6.11 The existing bungalow at Robin Hill was built in the 1970s and has no particular architectural or historic merit and fails to reflect the design traditions of the area. It does not reflect the architectural character of the former farm buildings with which it forms a group. The neighbouring properties are all two storey in height. The farmhouse is of a typical Victorian design with rendered walls and stones surrounds to the doors and windows overhanging eaves and prominent barge boards. Talbot Fold Barn and Talbot Cottage are traditional rural buildings built wholly out of natural stone. The proposed dwelling reflects the other buildings in this group by being two storey in height and constructed in natural stone with dressed stone cills,

8 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

jambs, mullions, corbels and copings. The roof is to be blue slate with clay ridge and hip tiles6.

Photograph 2 Robin Hill

6.12 The existing and proposed site sections TRI 1386 02 and 209 33A show the relationship of the existing and proposed dwellings to the neighbouring group of dwellings. The existing section drawing confirms how different in scale and height the existing bungalow is in comparison to the other buildings in the group. On the proposed section drawing it is clear that the new dwelling will be similar in scale and height to the other buildings in the group and in particular will be similar in scale and height to Marsdens. This confirms that the proposed building will reflect the scale of the group of buildings within which it is set and will not be out of character with, or harm, the quality of the landscape in which it is set.

6.13 The land also slopes down away from Marsdens towards Robin Hill. When viewed from lower ground to the south, Robin Hill will be seen against this backdrop of the other buildings at Marsdens and Talbot Fold. When viewed from the west it will be

6 See photograph 2

9 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

seen as forming part of the group of buildings. The existing buildings will screen the proposed house from the north. The road which runs north to south on the western side of the site is bounded on each side by a hedge with substantial trees planted within it. On the east side of the site is a substantial woodland. The existing hedges and trees around the site, the sloping nature of the site and its setting within a group of buildings all ensure that the new dwelling will not appear prominent or out of place in the landscape.

6.14 We have taken into consideration the Planning Officers comments regarding the negative effect of widening the vehicle access to the site and the creation of a larger area of hardstanding for vehicles. The vehicle access will remain unaltered and the parking area has been reduced but the site will still provide parking and turning for three cars. Policy DMG1 is satisfied.

6.15 The application provides an opportunity to secure a replacement dwelling that would be more appropriate to its context that the existing bungalow. In particular, the form and architectural detailing of the proposal has been designed to reflect vernacular traditions of houses in the area. The replacement dwelling will have external facing materials appropriate to the character and traditions of the area, including stone walls and blue slate roof. The scale of the proposed dwelling, would again reflect other property in the area and local traditions.

6.16 In summary, the proposed replacement dwelling would appear as an appropriate feature in the local landscape, representing a significant visual enhancement compared to the existing dwelling. Key Statements DME2 and DMH3 are satisfied.

7. DESIGN AND ACCESS 7.1 This section of the report comprises the formal Design and Access Statement.

7.2 Use: The proposal is to develop the site with a replacement dwelling, with associated garden areas and access. The proposed use has been selected as it would be the most appropriate given the character of the area and to avoid the loss of a housing unit.

10 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

7.3 Amount: A single dwelling is proposed as a replacement of the single dwelling at the site. The single unit has been determined having regard to the size of the site, existing development at the site, and the character of the area.

7.4 Design and Layout: The form and architectural detailing of the proposal has been designed to reflect features typical of traditional properties in the area.

7.5 Materials: The external facing materials to be used in the construction of the property would be complementary to the character and traditions of the area.

7.6 Scale: The replacement two storey dwelling has an overall footprint of 12.75m by 9.6mm widening with an attached single storey garage measuring 6.75m by 8.45m. The height of the property to ridge would be 9.4m.

7.7 Landscaping: The details of landscaping may be conditioned. However, to assist in absorbing the development into the local landscape, trees, hedgerows and other landscaping would be retained / provided as part of the development.

7.8 Access: Vehicular access would be via the existing access off the Lane. The existing access point onto the highway would be utilised with a drive, turning space and parking provision for 3 cars to the south of the proposed house. The traffic generated by the proposed development would be low, comparable to that of the existing dwelling and have no detrimental impact on the conditions, operation or safety of the local highway network in the vicinity of the site. The access onto the Lane has good visibility and traffic speeds are slow.

Protected Species 8.8 The site itself is not designated as one having any wildlife / ecological value or significance or subject to any designation, either at the local or national level. The banks of the adjacent Bashall Brook are designated as an ancient woodland. The replacement dwelling is proposed to be built over the footprint of the existing dwelling which is well outside the boundary of the ancient woodland. Policy DME3 is satisfied.

11 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

8.9 A bat survey was carried out in April and June 2015. A dawn and dusk emergence survey recorded no bats emerging from the building to be demolished. It is concluded that building is not currently being used as a roost by bats and no loss of a roost would occur as a result of the development proposal.

8.10 There are no heritage designations or features of heritage interest relating to the site or in its vicinity. Accordingly, the proposal would result in no detriment to heritage interests.

9. CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposal is for a replacement dwelling. Policy in the Core Strategy allows for such development, subject to consideration of various detailed matters. The key matter is design and landscape impact. The proposal would be of a design reflecting local traditions and would appear as a more appropriate feature in the local landscape than the existing development. The scale of the development is appropriate to the site and the setting within the landscape. No harm to the landscape will occurs as a result of this development.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Delegate Item file Report. Appendix 2 Lawful development certificate Appendix 3 Committee report 12/04/2012

12 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Appendix 1 Delegated File Report 3/2014/0809 DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT – REFUSAL Ref: DR Application No: 3/2014/0809 Site: Robin Hill Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves BB7 3NA Development Proposed replacement dwelling Proposed: Target: 31st October 2014 CONSULTATIONS: Parish/Town Council Mitton and Bashall Eaves Parish Council - The proposed design is somewhat incongruous and doesn’t fit well with the environs. Could consideration be given to the aspect and appearance of the new build. CONSULTATIONS: Highway/Water Authority/Other Bodies Archaeology – No significant archaeological implications.

Local Highway Authority - No objection.

Engineers – Contaminated land report condition. CONSULTATIONS: Additional Representations None received. RELEVANT POLICIES: Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (RVDLP): Allocation: Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Policy ENV1 – Development in the AONB Policy ENV7 – Species Protection Policy ENV13 – Landscape Protection Policy G1 - Development Control Policy H2 - Dwellings in the Open Countryside Policy T1 - Transport Implications Policy T7 - Parking

Ribble Valley Core Strategy (Including Proposed Main Modifications): Key Statement DS1 - Development Strategy Key Statement DS2 – Sustainable Development Key Statement EN2 – Landscape Key Statement EN4 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity Key Statement EN5 – Heritage Assets Policy DMG1 – General Considerations Policy DMG3 - Transport and Mobility Policy DME2 - Landscape and Townscape Protection Policy DME3 – Site and Species Conservation Policy DME4 – Protecting Heritage Assets Policy DMH3 – Dwellings in the Open Countryside & AONB

Other relevant policy considerations: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

13 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 76/0873 – Approval of reserved matters of BO/2016 – Granted.

BO 2016 – Outline application for erection of agricultural worker’s bungalow – Granted.

BO 1968 – Access track – Granted

Talbot Fold Barn 3/2014/0793 - Removal of condition 8 of planning permission 3/2006/0427 so that the granny annex can be used as a separate residential unit to the main house – Resubmission – Refused October 2014.

Reason for refusal: 1. Approval of the removal of this condition would not be in accordance with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, and it would also be contrary to guidance within Local Plan Policies G1, G5, H2 and ENV1, Core Strategy (Regulation 22 Submission Draft) Policies DMG1, DMG2, DMH3 and DME2 and guidance within the NPPF. The site is in a predominantly rural location and by virtue of its isolation is considered to be an unsustainable location for the creation of new independent dwellings. Approval of this development would lead to further sporadic development which would be highly dependent on the use of the private motor vehicle and would not accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

3/2013/1035 - Removal of condition 8 of planning permission 3/2006/0427 so that the granny annex can be used as a separate residential unit to the main house – Refused March 2014.

3/2012/1109 - Change of use of domestic garage and workshop to form a two-bed holiday cottage – Approved February 2013. POLICY REASONS FOR REFUSAL: The proposal would result in the creation of a new dwelling in a remote countryside location without sufficient justification, would have a detrimental impact on European protected species (bats) and would fail to preserve the historic character and appearance of the AONB. COMMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL/AONB/HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION: Site The application site comprises of a single storey dwelling in the remote countryside location of Bashall Eaves within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The property was constructed as an agricultural worker’s dwelling in the late 1970s/early 80s. There is a condition on the outline consent that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with all the particulars and details, the reason given because the consent is for an agricultural workers dwelling. There is no planning history to suggest that the agricultural restriction on the property has been removed.

14 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Proposal Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and the subsequent erection of a two storey replacement dwelling.

The history of the original permissions is not noted in the supporting planning, design and access statement submitted by the applicant, although the application form indicates that the replacement dwelling would be a four bedroom market housing unit. Given there is no mention of agricultural occupancy in the application and supporting documents, I have considered the application on the basis that no occupancy restriction is proposed by the applicant.

Main Issues The main issues in this case are: 1. Whether the proposal would result in the creation of a new dwelling in an isolated rural location; 2. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, and whether it would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 3. The impact of demolition on protected species.

Principle Planning law requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The saved policies in the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (RVDLP) of relevance to this appeal are listed above. Also of relevance is the NPPF and whilst this does not change the status of the development plan, it is a material consideration to which significant weight should be attached. The NPPF promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that in cases where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted except in two circumstances – where the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the framework as a whole, or where specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted (paragraph 14).

The NPPF advises that for the purposes of decision-taking, the policies in the Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to its publication – rather, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework. The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given (paragraphs 211 and 215). Similarly, weight may also be afforded to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). The draft Ribble Valley Core Strategy has been submitted to the SoS, the examination in public hearing sessions have concluded and a public consultation in respect of the proposed main

15 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015 modifications ended in September 2014. The plan has therefore reached an advanced stage in production, although the Inspector’s final report is awaited.

Policy ENV1 seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape and character of the Forest of Bowland AONB having regard to the social and economic wellbeing of the area. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Policy ENV1 is consistent with the NPPF.

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF seeks to avoid the creation of isolated new dwellings in rural areas to ensure the principles of sustainable development are achieved. Whilst the NPPF does not define ‘isolated’, accessibility to local services is a key component of sustainable development. The nature of the site is such that it is inevitably isolated and such isolation is a defining characteristic of dwellings in the AONB. Whilst this application is for a replacement dwelling, the current dwelling is a modest agricultural workers dwelling and the proposed dwelling would be a substantial two storey dwelling with unrestricted occupation. The purpose of an agricultural workers dwelling is to allow a person employed in agriculture to live on the holding where they are employed to support farming activity. There are residential properties in the vicinity of the site, however, Bashall Eaves is a remote rural area without the necessary services and facilities to support a replacement dwelling with unrestricted occupation. Hence, whilst not isolated in that the site is close to existing dwellings, these dwellings and farmsteads in the Forest of Bowland AONB are isolated in respect of accessibility to local services. Future occupants of this dwelling, not in agricultural employment, would be reliant on the private car to access employment and the limited services in local villages.

I therefore conclude that the principle of the development, being the replacement of an agricultural workers dwelling with a substantially larger dwelling with unrestricted occupation, would be contrary to the National, Planning Policy Framework as it would result in the creation of a new dwelling in an isolated and remote rural location without justification, thus perpetuating an unsustainable pattern of development. Given the lack of reference in the submission to agricultural occupancy and the size of the replacement dwelling proposed, I do not consider that matters of principle could be overcome with the imposition of a condition restricting occupancy to a person employed in agriculture.

Impact on the Forest of Bowland AONB The site is within the Forest of Bowland AONB, which is a nationally designated landscape and a designated heritage asset in NPPF terms, which have the highest protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty - great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s (paragraph 115). Notwithstanding matters of principle in respect of the replacement of the agricultural workers dwelling, the nature of the AONB is such that are likely to be fewer opportunities for new development, particularly given the requirement for great weight to be afforded to the conservation and scenic beauty of such areas. Such great weight may be a presumption against development.

The replacement dwelling would result in a substantial increase in the volume of the original dwelling, significantly over the 33% normally considered appropriate as set

16 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015 out in the SPG: Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings. Whilst these guidelines are out of date in respect of rear extensions following the 2008 amendment, the guidance within this document in relation to dwellings in the AONB remains in accordance with the NPPF, in that the SPG seeks to preserve the historic character of the AONB.

The scale, size, design and massing of the proposal would afford it a level of visual prominence that would be at odds with the pleasant and sylvan character of the existing dwelling and also those in the vicinity. The resulting new dwelling in this historic landscape would introduce a discordant feature that would fail to preserve or enhance the AONB. The proposal before me does not meet the high test of innovative nor does it reflect the highest standards of architecture and therefore fails to meet this exception in paragraph 55. Whilst there is no presumption against minor development in AONBs, the changes to the appearance of this site and the domestication of its surroundings would not serve to conserve or enhance the scenic beauty of the AONB. This would be exacerbated by the increased width of the vehicular access point, the installation of piers and gates and the number of vehicles likely to be parked immediately adjacent to the frontage of the property. I consider that the proposal would result in significant adverse harm to the character and appearance of the Forest of Bowland AONB, a designated heritage asset and the proposal would therefore conflict with the NPPF.

Draft Core Strategy Policies DMG2 and DMH4, amongst other matters, collectively seek to promote the re-use of existing buildings if they are not isolated in the landscape, and form part of an already defined group of buildings and I consider there will be cases where a replacement dwelling could preserve and enhance the character of the AONB. However both of these Draft Core Strategy Policies also require no materially damaging effect on the landscape qualities and character of the area and the proposal therefore fails to comply with the objectives of these policies. Whilst I am mindful that each application should be assessed on its merits, the proposal could set a precedent for the approval of similar proposals to demolish modest agricultural workers dwellings in the AONB and replace them with substantially larger replacement dwellings, the cumulative impact of which would be of serious detriment to the core planning principles in the NPPF, undermining objectives to preserve and enhance heritage assets such as the AONB for future generations. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty of Areas of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB), which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

I therefore conclude that the proposed replacement dwelling, by reason of its scale, size, design and massing, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and visual amenities of the Forest of Bowland AONB. The proposal would fail to meet any identified exception set out in paragraph 55 of the NPPF to justify this harm. I consider therefore that there are specific policies in the NPPF that serve in this case to preclude the proposed development in this location. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF, Policies H15, H16 and H17 of the DWLP and Policies DS1, DMH3 and DMH4 of the emerging core strategy.

In terms of five year land supply, the latest position (31 July 2014) is that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5.1 year supply using the Sedgefield method of calculation. I consider that the proposals contribution to land supply in the Borough is limited and

17 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015 would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

Access, Highways and Parking Notwithstanding the above comments in respect of the increased prominence of the parking and the resulting impact on character, the local highway authority has raised no objection to the parking arrangement in respect of highway safety and convenience. No reason for refusal is raised in this respect.

Protected Species A bat survey has been submitted and this has found evidence of bats roosting in the property, although the surveyor concludes there are no maternity roosts present. It is not clear how this conclusion has been reached, but an EPS license would nonetheless be required, although this is not noted in the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Whilst the survey is detailed in respect of the survey work undertaken, one bat was observed emerging from the building during the survey and whilst the surveyor advises therefore that small numbers of bats (1 to 5) are likely to be present, further surveys in line with the BCT guidelines (a dusk emergence survey followed by a pre-dawn re-entry survey) would be necessary to provide a degree of certainty to this conclusion. The BCT states:

Whilst the survey proposes mitigation in the form of timing constraints, there is a lack of detail as to the precise nature of the mitigation. For example, works under the supervision of an ecologist should potentially specify that soffits, fascias, eaves and roof tiles should be removed by hand; the need for an EPS license should be clearly stated; and precise mitigation proposals should be included, such as a requirement for the replacement roosting opportunities to be available for use in time for the next roosting season following demolition, temporary roost opportunities to be installed during the construction period etc.

The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of its functions when dealing with cases where a European Protected Species may be affected. It is necessary to establish not only the presence or otherwise of the species, but also the degree to which the species would be affected. For the reasons noted above, I am satisfied that the presence of bats has been established but I consider that additional survey work in line with BCT guidelines would be needed to establish the size of the bat colony and appropriate mitigation.

The three tests are also applicable: 1. The activity must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; 2. There must be no satisfactory alternative; and 3. Favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.

18 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Assessing the proposal against the three tests, it is not in the public interest for this development to take place given it would harm the historic character of the Forest of Bowland AONB. The proposal is also not necessary for public health and safety. A satisfactory alternative, such as an extension, could be considered. Finally, the mitigation measures proposed are not sufficient for the reasons given above. On the basis of the information provided to date, a refusal reason is therefore recommended.

Conclusion I conclude that the proposal would result in a substantially larger replacement dwelling without an agricultural occupancy restriction, tantamount to a new dwelling in a remote countryside location in the Forest of Bowland AONB, isolated from services and facilities. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would therefore fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and character of the Forest of Bowland AONB and furthermore, the proposal would have a detrimental impact on European protected species (bats). The proposal does not meet an identified exception in paragraph 55 and would therefore conflict with the aims of Local Plan Policies ENV1, ENV7, G5 and H2, Draft Core Strategy Policies DMG1, DMG2, DME3, DMH3 and DME4 and the NPPF. The limited contribution of the proposal to housing land supply in the Borough does outweigh the harm I have identified. I therefore conclude that the proposal does not comprise sustainable development. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

19 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Appendix 2 Lawful development certificate

20 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

Appendix 3 Committee report 12/04/2012

21 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

22 Robin Hill, Talbot Bridge Bashall Eaves. June 2015

23