Side Garden of Church Farm, Main Street, Stanbury, Keighley Pdf 187 Kb
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report of the Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) to the meeting of Regulatory and Appeals Committee to be held on 7 January 2016 AM Subject: A full application for the construction of a 3-bedroom subterranean dwelling with associated car parking and landscaped garden at Church Farm, Main Street, Stanbury, Keighley – 15/04267/FUL. Summary statement: This planning application involves the construction of a new residential dwelling in the approved Green Belt on the south side of the village of Stanbury. This proposal is considered in the officer appraisal to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt that should not be approved unless there are very special circumstances. It is recommended for refusal. The whole of Stanbury village is “washed over” by a long established Green Belt designation maintained by the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (the RUDP). It is one of a number of small settlements in the district where small scale infill developments may be acceptable in principle subject to satisfying criteria set out by Policy GB3 of the RUDP. However, the proposed dwelling and its garden and car parking spaces here would not accord with the criteria specified by Policy GB3 because the development would be located entirely outside the identified infill-settlement boundary shown on the RUDP Proposals Map, and the site does not constitute a small gap in a small group of buildings. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued in 2012 confirms that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Continued …. Report to the Regulatory & Appeals Committee The NPPF recognises that limited infill developments in villages in the Green Belt can be an exception, but does not set any definitions of what is meant by “infilling in villages”. The NPPF does not encourage or permit the expansion of settlements into the Green Belt which would be detrimental to openness and conflict with the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt. The proposed development is considered contrary to paragraphs 87 to 89 of the NPPF. Rather than being infilling, it represents an encroachment of development in the approved Green Belt, beyond the built form of the settlement, such that the proposed development is in conflict with Green Belt Policy GB1 of the RUDP. It is recognised that the proposed development involves an eco house set partially underground, but this is not considered to represent such outstanding innovation that very special circumstances can be said to have been demonstrated sufficient to outweigh the conflict with Green Belt policy. Accordingly, it is recommended by Officers that planning permission be refused. Julian Jackson Portfolio: Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) Change Programme, Housing, Planning and Transport Report Contact: John Eyles Overview & Scrutiny Area: Major Development Manager Phone: (01274) 434380 Regeneration and Economy E-mail: [email protected] Report to the Regulatory & Appeals Committee 1. SUMMARY This is a full planning application for the construction of a 3-bedroom subterranean dwelling with associated car parking and landscaped garden at Church Farm, Main Street, Stanbury, Keighley – 15/04267/FUL. 2. BACKGROUND Attached at Appendix 1 is a copy of the Officer’s Report which identifies the material considerations in relation to the proposal. The application was considered at Shipley/Keighley Area Planning Panel on 9th December 2015, which resolved that the application be referred for determination by the Regulatory and Appeals Committee with the recommendation of the Area Planning Panel that, although it recognises the position of the development in the Green Belt, it was minded to grant planning permission due to the innovative nature of this particular design and development, which will minimise the impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In the intervening period between Area Planning Panel and Regulatory and Appeals, Committee the applicant has not submitted to the Local Planning Authority any further evidence to constitute very special circumstances and therefore the assessment and conclusions of the Officer’s Report attached at Appendix 1 remained unchanged 3. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS All considerations material to the determination of this planning application are set out in the Officer’s Report at Appendix 1. 4. OPTIONS The Committee can refuse planning permission for reasons recommended and detailed in the Officer’s Report or approve the application subject to appropriate conditions. If the Committee is minded to approve the application, reasons for this decision must be given. As a single dwelling, the application proposal is not a development that would have a significant impact on openness of the Green Belt by reason of its scale or nature or location and so would not need to be referred to the Secretary of State for a determination on whether to call-in the application for determination under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. 5. FINANCIAL & RESOURCE APPRAISAL There are no financial implications arising from this application. 6. RISK MANAGEMENT & GOVERNANCE ISSUES No implications. 7. LEGAL APPRAISAL The determination of the application is within the Council’s powers as the Local Planning Authority. 8. OTHER IMPLICATIONS 8.1 EQUALITY & DIVERSITY Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 states that the Council must, in the exercise of its functions “have due regard to the need to eliminate conduct that is prohibited by the Act, advancing equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristics and people who do not share it, and fostering good relations between Church Farm, Stanbury - page 25 Report to the Regulatory & Appeals Committee people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. For this purpose section 149 defines “relevant protected characteristics” as including a range of characteristics including disability, race and religion. In this particular case due regard has been paid to the section 149 duty but it is not considered there are any issues in this regard relevant to this application and none have been raised by the applicant. 8.2 SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS It has been noted in the officer appraisal of the application that the house is described as an “eco house” and the applicant has described an intention to incorporate passive solar gain, high standards of thermal insulation and various other sustainable design techniques in its design and construction. Weight has been accorded to these arguments but it is not considered, by officers, that the benefits of sustainable design are sufficient to outweigh the harm to green belt that would be caused. 8.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS There are not considered to be any significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts caused by the proposed development. It is noted that the applicant has said it is hoped the house would be energy self-sufficient due to the intended incorporation of various sustainable design features. 8.4 COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant community safety implications. 8.5 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT Article 6 - right to a fair and public hearing. The Council must ensure that it has taken into account the views of all those who have an interest in, or whom may be affected by the proposal. This is incorporated within the report included in Appendix 1. 8.6 TRADE UNION No implications. 8.7 WARD IMPLICATIONS None 9. NOT FOR PUBLICATION DOCUMENTS None 10. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee accept the recommendation of refusal within the report attached as Appendix 1. 11. APPENDICES Appendix 1: Report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration. 12. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS National Planning Policy Framework Replacement Unitary Development Plan for Bradford District Planning Application file 15/04267/FUL. Church Farm, Stanbury - page 26 Report to the Regulatory & Appeals Committee Area Planning Panel (Keighley & Shipley) 15/04267/FUL 9 December 2015 © Crown copyright 2000. All rights reserved (SLA 100019304) LOCATION: Side Garden In Church Farm Main Street Stanbury Keighley BD22 0HA Church Farm, Stanbury - page 27 Report to the Regulatory & Appeals Committee 9 December 2015 Item Number: 5 Ward: WORTH VALLEY Recommendation: TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION Application Number: 15/04267/FUL Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Full application for the construction of 3-bedroom subterranean dwelling with associated car parking and landscaped garden. Side Garden of Church Farm, Main Street, Stanbury, Keighley BD22 0HA Applicant: Mr & Mrs J L Suckling Agent: Watts Planning Ltd Site Description: This site comprises an area of grassland on the south side of Stanbury village that has recently been enclosed by a post and rail timber fence. The status of the site and its description as existing garden is discussed in this report. The site is bounded to the east by a children’s playground and to the west by former outbuildings and walls associated with Church Farm. Levels fall away from the application site towards the Sladen Valley and Lower Laithe Reservoir, the site being prominent in views from the south. Access to the site is from Main Street via an existing gateway serving Church Farm. Relevant Site History: 85/00857/FUL - Barn conversion to dwelling with new access and